4.8 Article

Comparing sulfidation kinetics of silver nanoparticles in simulated media using direct and indirect measurement methods

期刊

NANOSCALE
卷 10, 期 47, 页码 22270-22279

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8nr06668j

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. DOE [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reported reaction kinetics of metal nanoparticles in natural and engineered systems commonly have used proxy measurements to infer chemical transformations, but extension of these methods to complex media has proven difficult. Here, we compare the sulfidation rate of AgNPs using two ion selective electrode (ISE)-based methods, which rely on either (i) direct measurement of free sulfide, or (ii) monitor the free Ag+ available in solution over time in the presence of sulfide species. Most experiments were carried out in moderately hard reconstituted water at pH 7 containing fulvic acid or humic acid, which represented a broad set of known interferences in ISE. Distinct differences in the measured rates were observed between the two proxy-based methods and details of the divergent results are discussed. The two ISE based methods were then compared to direct monitoring of AgNP chemical conversion to Ag2S using synchrotron-based in situ X-ray diffraction (XRD). Using XRD, distinct rates from both ISE-based technique were observed, which demonstrated that ISE measurements alone are inadequate to discriminate both the rate and extent of AgNP sulfidation. XRD rate data elucidated previously unidentified reaction regimes that were associated with AgNP coating (PVP and citrate acid) and NOM components, which provided new mechanistic insight into metallic NP processing. In general, the extent of Ag2S formation was inversely proportional to surface coverage of the initial AgNP. Overall, methods to determine reaction kinetics of nanomaterials in increasingly complex media and heterogeneous size distributions to improve NP-based design and performance will require similar approaches.

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

4.8
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