4.7 Article

C60 reduces the bioavailability of mercury in aqueous solutions

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 324-328

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.09.027

关键词

Nanocarbon; C60; Mercury; pH; Water treatment; Bioreporter

资金

  1. China's Shaanxi Province Key Laboratory of Educational Development [11JS076]
  2. Fundamental Research Program of Shaanxi Province Natural Sciences [S2012JC7610]
  3. University of Tennessee's Center for Environmental Biotechnology
  4. Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of C60 on mercury bioavailability and sorption were investigated at different C60 dosages, reaction times, and pH ranges using the merR::luxCDABE bioluminescent bioreporter Escherichia coli ARL1. The results demonstrated that the bioavailability of mercury (Hg2+ decreased with increasing C60 dosage. Approximately 30% of aqueous mercury became biologically unavailable 2 h after interaction with C60 at a mass ratio of C60 to mercury as low as 0.01. However, this reduction in bioavailability plateaued at a mass ratio of C60 to mercury of 10 with a further increase in C60 concentrations resulting in only a 20% additional decrease in bioavailability. If this reduction in bioluminescence output is attributable to mercury sorption on C60, then each one log-order increase in C60 concentration resulted in a 0.86 log-order decrease in the mercury partitioning coefficient (K-d). This relationship implies the presence of high mercury-affinitive sites on C60. The length of reaction time was found to play a more important role than C60 dosage in reducing Hg2+ bioavailability, suggesting an overall slow kinetics of the C60-Hg interactions. In addition, lowering the pH from 7.2 to 5.8 decreased mercury bioavailability due likely to the increase in mercury's association with C60. These results suggest that C60 may be useful in capturing soluble mercury and thus reducing mercury biotoxicity. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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