4.5 Article

Metal ion binding by humic substances as emergent functions of labile supramolecular assemblies

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 252-265

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/EN19198

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSERC-Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we explore the hypothesis that humic substances (HS) can be perceived as labile supramolecular assemblages, the functioning of which is mainly determined by chemical composition and characteristics, the size of molecular units and weak intermolecular forces, rather than the exact primary structure of molecular moieties and their spatial configuration. To test the hypothesis, 72 computational models of three different organic mixtures were composed. The formation of inner and outer sphere metal-ligand complexes, metal binding sites, complex configurations, binding energies and aggregation/dissolution as emergent properties of HS were determined under various conditions. The results of computational modelling revealed that: (i) the highest Cu2+ binding (55.6 %) was by the SRFA-22 organic model, which represents low-molecular-weight fulvic acids. In contrast, the highest amount of inner-sphere Mg-organic matter complex (63.4 %) was formed in SRHA-6, which has higher-molecular-weight constituents. Therefore, a correlation between the type of cation, the system aromaticity and the extent of metal complexation is proposed. (ii) Increase of metal ion concentration and decrease of water content resulted in an increase in the number of hydrogen bonds and more compact and stable aggregates with lower hydrophilic and higher hydrophobic surface areas in SRFA-22. However, in SRHA-6, the results varied owing to the competition between metal binding, H-bonding and non-polar interactions in the structural arrangement of the aggregates. In general, the aggregation process, driven by metal complexation and water removal, resulted in the formation of more stable conformers, with lower potential energy, with the only exception of SRHA-6-Cu.

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