4.7 Article

Toxicity mitigation and bioaccessibility of the cationic surfactant cetyltrimethylammonium bromide in a sorbent-modified biodegradation study

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 222, 期 -, 页码 461-468

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.152

关键词

Cationic surfactant; Limited bioaccessibility; Toxicity mitigation; Ready biodegradability; Environmental risk assessment; Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide

资金

  1. Unilever, Safety & Environmental Assurance Centre (SEAC), Colworth Science Park (United Kingdom) [CH-2012-0283]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biodegradation potential of cationic surfactants may be hampered by inhibition of inoculum at concentrations required to accurately measure inorganic carbon. At >0.3 mg/L cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) negatively impacted degradation of the reference compound aniline. We used silicon dioxide (SiO2) and illite as inorganic sorbents to mitigate toxicity of CTAB by lowering freely dissolved concentrations. In an OECD Headspace Test we tested whether 16.8 mg/L CTAB was readily biodegradable in presence of two concentrations of SiO2 and illite. SiO2 adsorbed 85% and 98% CTAB, resulting in concentrations of 2.5 and 0.34 mg/L, mineralized to CO2 >60% within 16 and 23 d, respectively. With 89% and 99% sorbed to illite, 60% mineralization was reached within 9 and 23 d, respectively. However, higher sorbent concentrations increased time needed to reach >60% mineralization. Thus, desorption kinetics likely decreased bioaccessibility. It is therefore essential to determine appropriate concentrations of mitigating sorbents to render a Headspace Test based on carbon analysis suitable to determine ready biodegradability of compounds which might inhibit inoculum. This would avoid use of expensive radiolabeled compounds. However, high sorbent concentrations can reduce bioaccessibility and limit degradation kinetics, particularly for relatively toxic substances that require strong mitigation. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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