4.7 Article

Abiotic and biotic degradation of five aromatic organosilicon compounds in aqueous media-Structure degradability relationships

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 392, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122429

关键词

Closed bottle test (OECD 301D); Manometric respirometry test (OECD 301F); Hydrolysis (OECD 111); Photolysis; Transformation product

资金

  1. 2015 Water Resource Award from the Rudiger Kurt Bode-Stiftung [Deutsches Stiftungszentrum, Germany] [TS0393/26885/2015/KG]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silicones have many applications and are produced in large quantities. Despite their potential toxicity, information on their environmental mineralisation is scarce. Therefore, we investigated a group of five organosilicon compounds (o-MeOC6H4SiMe3 (1), p-MeOC6H4SiMe3 (2), (p-MeOC6H4)(2)SiMe2 (3), o-Me2NC6H4SiMe (4) and p-Me2NC6H4SiMe 3 (5)), recently developed to be 'benign by design' based on their readily degradable core structure. Five different degradability tests were performed, one assessing hydrolytic and two analysing biological and photolytic stability, respectively. All substances, except (p-MeOC6H4)(2)SiMe2 (3), hydrolysed within 24 h to 50% indicating that this is one of the major pathways of their primary elimination. In agreement with previous research, none of the substances was readily biodegradable. In contrast, 100% of p-Me2NC6H4SiMe3 (5) was primarily eliminated by photolytic and hydrolytic processes. The elimination rates of the other substances ranged from 7% to 64%. Irradiation at shorter wavelengths increased both the extent and speed of photodegradation. Eleven transformation products of p-Me2NC6H4SiMe3 (5) were detected, all of which were completely eliminated within 64 min of irradiation with a Hg lamp (200-400 nm). The insertion of an electron-donating group on the benzene ring like in p-Me2NC6H4SiMe3 (5) clearly enhanced photolytic degradability but further research is necessary to achieve truly biodegradable silicones.

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