4.8 Review

Critical Review of Low-Density Polyethylene's Partitioning and Diffusion Coefficients for Trace Organic Contaminants and Implications for Its Use As a Passive Sampler

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 606-618

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es202702y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alexander-von-Humboldt at University of Tubingen (Germany)
  2. EPA's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative [00E00597-0]
  3. Great Lakes Air Deposition Program Award [GLAD 2010-5]
  4. CICEET [000-1894]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyethylene (PE)-water equilibrium partitioning constants, K-PEw, were reviewed for trace hydrophobic organic contaminants (HOCs). Relative standard deviations were <30% for phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene implying excellent reproducibility of K-PEw across laboratories and PE sources. Averaged K-PEw values of various HOCs were best correlated with aqueous solubility, logC(w)(sat)(L): logK(PEw) = -0.99(+/- 0.029)logC(w)(sat)(L) + 2.39(+/- 0.096) (r(2) = 0.92, SE = 0.35, n = 100). For 80% of analytes, this equation predicted logK(PEw) within a factor of 2. A first-order estimation of K-PEw can be obtained assuming constant solubility of the compounds in the PE, such that the variation in C-w(sat)(L) determines the differences in K-PEw. For PE samplers, K-PEw values do not change with the thickness of the PE sampler. The influence of temperature on K-PEw seems dominated by solubility-changes of the compound in water, not in PE. The effect of salt is rather well understood, using a Schetschenow-style approach. The air-PE partitioning constant; K-PEa, can be approximated as the ratio of K-PEw/K-aw (the air water partitioning constant). A critical review of diffusivities in PE, D-PE, suggests that best results are obtained when using the film-stacking method. A good correlation is then found between D-PE and molar volume, V-m (angstrom(3)/mol): logD(PE) (m(2)/s) = 0.0145(+/- 0.001)V-m + 10.1(+/- 0.20) (r(2) = 0.76, SE = 0.24, n = 74).

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