4.7 Article

Non-labile silver species in biosolids remain stable throughout 50 years of weathering and ageing

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 78-86

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.05.017

关键词

Silver; Biosolids; XANES; Speciation; Isotopic dilution; E-values

资金

  1. Co-operative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC-CARE Project) [3.1.7.08/09]
  2. Australian Research Council [FT130101003, FTFT100100337]
  3. AINSE research award [ALNGRA12037P, ALNGRA12138P]
  4. Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering (AINSE)
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/C/00004981, BBS/E/C/00005094] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H013679/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. BBSRC [BBS/E/C/00004981, BBS/E/C/00005094] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. NERC [NE/H013679/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing commercial use of nanosilver has focussed attention on the fate of silver (Ag) in the waste-water release pathway. This paper reports the speciation and lability of Ag in archived, stockpiled, and contemporary biosolids from the UK, USA and Australia, and indicates that biosolids Ag concentrations have decreased significantly over recent decades. XANES revealed the importance of reduced-sulfur binding environments for Ag speciation in materials ranging from freshly produced sludge to biosolids weathered under ambient environmental conditions for more than 50 years. Isotopic dilution with Ag-110m showed that Ag was predominantly non-labile in both fresh and aged biosolids (13.7% mean lability), with E-values ranging from 0.3 to 60 mg/kg and 5 mM CaNO3 extractable Ag from 1.2 to 609 mu g/kg (0.002-3.4% of the total Ag). This study indicates that at the time of soil application, biosolids Ag will be predominantly Ag-sulfides and characterised by low isotopic lability. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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