4.7 Article

Influence of humic acid on the aggregation kinetics of fullerene (C60) nanoparticles in monovalent and divalent electrolyte solutions

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 309, 期 1, 页码 126-134

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2007.01.074

关键词

nanoparticles; fullerene; C-60; aggregation; humic acid; DLS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The early stage aggregation kinetics of fullerene C-60 nanoparticles were investigated in the presence of Suwannee River humic acid and common monovalent and divalent electrolytes through time-resolved dynamic light scattering (DLS). In the absence of humic acid, the aggregation behavior of the fullerene nanoparticles in the presence of NaCl, MgCl2, and CaCl2 was found to be consistent with the classic Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of colloidal stability. In the presence of humic acid and NaCl or MgCl2 electrolytes, the adsorbed humic acid on the fullerene nanoparticles led to steric repulsion, which effectively stabilized the nanoparticle suspension. This behavior manifested in a dramatic drop in the rate of aggregation, an increase in the critical coagulation concentration (CCC), and an attained value of less than unity for the inverse stability ratio (or attachment efficiency) at high MgCl2 concentrations. While the increase in the nanoparticle stability was similarly observed in the presence of humic acid at low CaCl2 concentrations, enhanced aggregation occurred at higher CaCl2 concentrations. Measurement of scattered light intensities over time indicated significant aggregation of the humic acid macromolecules in solutions of high CaCl2 concentrations. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging of the fullerene aggregate structures in the presence of humic acid revealed that bridging of the fullerene nanoparticles and aggregates by the humic acid aggregates is the likely mechanism for the enhanced aggregation at high CaCl2 concentrations. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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