4.5 Article

To Sonicate or Not to Sonicate PM Filters: Reactive Oxygen Species Generation Upon Ultrasonic Irradiation

期刊

AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 48, 期 12, 页码 1276-1284

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2014.981330

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP120100126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In aerosol research, a common approach for the collection of particulate matter (PM) is the use of filters in order to obtain sufficient material to undertake analysis. For subsequent chemical and toxicological analyses, in most cases the PM needs to be extracted from the filters. Sonication is commonly used to most efficiently extract the PM from the filters. Extraction protocols generally involve 10-60 min of sonication. The energy of ultrasonic waves causes the formation and collapse of cavitation bubbles in the solution. Inside the collapsing cavities the localized temperatures and pressures can reach extraordinary values. Although fleeting, such conditions can lead to pyrolysis of the molecules present inside the cavitation bubbles (gases dissolved in the liquid and solvent vapors), which results in the production of free radicals and the generation of new compounds formed by reactions with these free radicals. For example, simple sonication of pure water will result in the formation of detectable levels of hydroxyl radicals. As hydroxyl radicals are recognized as playing key roles as oxidants in the atmosphere the extraction of PM from filters using sonication is therefore problematic. Sonication can result in significant chemical and physical changes to PM through thermal degradation and other reactions. In this article, an overview of sonication technique as used in aerosol research is provided, the capacity for radical generation under these conditions is described and an analysis is given of the impact of sonication-derived free radicals on three molecular probes commonly used by researchers in this field to detect reactive oxygen species (ROS) in PM.

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

4.5
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