4.7 Article

Effects of water quality parameters on agglomeration and dissolution of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO-NPs) using a central composite circumscribed design

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 521, 期 -, 页码 183-190

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.093

关键词

Central composite circumscribed design; Copper oxide nanoparticles; Agglomeration behavior; Stability; Release of free Cu2+

资金

  1. University of Nebraska-Lincoln

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Once released into the aquatic environment, nanoparticles (NPs) are expected to interact (e.g., dissolve, agglomerate, settle), with important consequences for particle fate and toxicity. However, a clear understanding of how environmental factors influence the toxicity and fate of NPs in the environment is still in its infancy. In this study, a second order central composite circumscribed design (CCCD) was employed to systematically explore how different combinations of pH, hardness, and natural organic matter (NOM) in receiving water affect the hydrodynamic diameter, surface charge (zeta potential), and release of free Cu2+ from CuO-NPs under a range of environmentally realistic conditions. The results clearly showed that all three CuO-NP properties varied markedly as functions of pH, hardness and dissolved NOM, confirming that agglomeration and the extent of release of free Cu2+ largely depend on the surrounding environmental conditions. The response of hydrodynamic diameter, but not zeta potential, to water quality parameters was highly time dependent, showing very different patterns on day 2 and day 10. The approach used in this study can contribute to improving understanding of how, and to what extent, environmental factors affect the physicochemical properties of CuO-NPs once they enter aquatic environments. This understanding can help to predict the conditions under which CuO-NPs are likely to become problematic, which can inform management and mitigation actions. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据