4.7 Article

Behavior of cerium dioxide nanoparticles in chernozem soils at different exposure scenarios

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 17, Pages 17482-17488

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-05187-x

Keywords

Nanoparticles; Cerium dioxide; Soil; Chernozem; Mobility

Funding

  1. Russian Science Foundation [17-73-10338]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [17-73-10338] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nowadays, widespread application of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) inevitably leads to their release into the environment. Soils are regarded as the ultimate sink for ENPs. The study on mobility of ENPs in soils is important in the assessment of potential risks related to their toxicity. The behavior of ENPs is dependent not only on parameters of soil but also on exposure scenarios, namely, the amount of ENPs trapped in soil. In the present work, the mobility of cerium dioxide nanoparticles (nCeO(2)) in soils at different exposure scenarios has been studied. The relationship between mobility of nCeO(2) and their concentration in soil in the range from 1 to 1000 g g(-1) is evaluated. It is shown that the mobility of nCeO(2) decreases with decreasing their concentration in soil and attains the minimum value at the concentration of nCeO(2) below 10 g g(-1). In relative terms, only about 0.1-0.2% of nCeO(2) at their concentration in soil 10-1000 g g(-1) are mobile and can migrate in soil profile under saturated conditions. The major portion of nCeO(2) (about 99.8%) remains immobile in soil. Evidently, the vertical transport of nCeO(2) in soil profile should depend on volume of released suspensions. In the case of small or moderate wet deposition, nanoparticles will accumulate in upper soil horizons, where biological activity is highest, and affect the soil inhabitants (plant roots, earthworms, insects, microorganisms, etc.).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available