4.7 Article

Leaching of graphene oxide nanosheets in simulated soil and their influences on microbial communities

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 404, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124046

关键词

Nanosheet; Leaching and migration; Soil profile; Bacterial diversity; Community structure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21677080]
  2. Shandong joint project [U1906222]
  3. Ministry of Education, People's Republic of China as a 111 program [T2017002]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that soil porosity and adsorption processes affect the leaching and migration of nanosheets in soil, leading to changes in their physicochemical properties. Leaching of nanosheets interferes with soil microbial homeostasis and alters the utilization of carbon sources by soil microbes.
With the wide use of graphene-like nanosheets, especially in agriculture, their release into the environment, it is crucial to grasp the fate of nanosheets in soil and minimum ecological risks. The present work discovered that leaching and migration of nanosheets (rGO) in soil is affected by soil porosity and adsorption processes. And the contents of rGO-Pd in soil layers and leachate increased and then decreased with the decreased of soil porosity. Moreover, physicochemical properties of rGO-Pd nanosheets changed by leaching processes, especially the changes of morphology, thickness and oxygen functional groups. Leaching of rGO-Pd also interfered the soil microbial homeostasis accompanied by the increase of microbial species richness and community diversity. In addition, rGO-Pd altered the usage of carbon sources by edaphon. The utilization of carbon sources by soil microbes, such as polymers, sugars, phenolic acids, carboxylic acids, amino acids, and amines, was also reduced by nanosheets. These findings provide new insights into environmental behaviors of nanomaterials and nanogeochemistry.

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