4.7 Article

Sorption behavior of copper nanoparticles in soils compared to copper ions

Journal

GEODERMA
Volume 235, Issue -, Pages 127-132

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.07.003

Keywords

Copper nanoparticles; Copper; Sorption; Freundlich isotherm

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metallic nanoparticles have special physical and chemical properties which determine a particular behavior in environmental systems and organisms. While several studies investigated the differences in the toxicity of metallic nanoparticles compared to their ionic forms or salts, there is little knowledge about processes in complex environmental media For instance, the sorption processes in soils crucially influence accumulation, transport and/or release into other media (water, biota, etc.). Our study assessed the sorptivity of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO-NPs) in comparison to copper ions (Cu2+) in batch experiments. The results showed significant differences in the solid to liquid distribution at equilibrium and indicated much stronger sorption of CuO-NPs at soil components compared to Cu2+. The sorption isotherms of both variants were fitted to the Freundlich equation showing clear differences of the Freundlich parameters K-F and n. The values for Cu2+ sorption were in the range of agricultural soils in Germany (log K-F: 2.6-4.1, n: 0.9-1.6). On the contrary the isotherms for the CuO-NP experiments were strongly shifted to the solid phase (log K-F: 4.0-9.0, n: 13-3.7). Both Cu2+ and CuO-NP sorptions (expressed as log K-F) were significantly correlated (P < 0.05) to pH, carbonates, soil organic carbon and amorphous Fe in the soils. However, a larger data set is needed to generate reliable statistical results. Further, more research is required to identify reasons for the detected differences in sorption behavior between nanoparticulate copper and copper ions. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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