4.5 Review

Metal-based nanoparticles in soil: Fate, behavior, and effects on soil invertebrates

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 1679-1692

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.1880

关键词

Metal; Nano; Particles; Soil; Toxicity; Invertebrates

资金

  1. Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation [SFRH/BD/80097/2011]
  2. NanoFATE, Collaborative Project under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission [FP7-NMP-ENV-2009, CP-FP 247739]
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010023] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/80097/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metal-based nanoparticles (NPs) (e.g., silver, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, iron oxide) are being widely used in the nanotechnology industry. Because of the release of particles from NP-containing products, it is likely that NPs will enter the soil compartment, especially through land application of sewage sludge derived from wastewater treatment. This review presents an overview of the literature dealing with the fate and effects of metal-based NPs in soil. In the environment, the characteristics of NPs (e.g., size, shape, surface charge) and soil (e.g., pH, ionic strength, organic matter, and clay content) will affect physical and chemical processes, resulting in NP dissolution, agglomeration, and aggregation. The behavior of NPs in soil will control their mobility and their bioavailability to soil organisms. Consequently, exposure characterization in ecotoxicological studies should obtain as much information as possible about dissolution, agglomeration, and aggregation processes. Comparing existing studies is a challenging task, because no standards exist for toxicity tests with NPs. In many cases, the reporting of associated characterization data is sparse, or missing, making it impossible to interpret and explain observed differences in results among studies. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012; 31: 16791692. (c) 2012 SETAC

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