Table 2.1. Parameter matrix for CeO2 NPs in the absence/presence of NaCl/CaCl2 and
HA/FA at three different pH levels.
pH HS IS IS concentration (mM) 8.2, 10.2, 12.2 Control Control 0 NaCl 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1 CaCl2 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1 8.2, 10.2, 12.2 HA Contol 0 NaCl 0.01, 0.1, 1 CaCl2 0.01, 0.1, 1 8.2, 10.2, 12.2 FA Control 0 NaCl 0.01, 0.1, 1 CaCl2 0.01, 0.1, 1
Table 2.2. The mean and standard deviation of zeta potential of CeO2 NPs under varying concentrations of NaCl/CaCl2 in the
absence/presence of HA/FA at three different pHs and different time intervals.
Chemical pH Electrolyte (mM) 0 - 10 min (mV) 10 - 20 min (mV) 20 - 30 min (mV) 30 - 40 min (mV) 40 - 50 min (mV) 50 - 60 min (mV) 0 - 60 min (mV) NaCl 8.2 0.00 20.46 ± 11.12 22.25 ± 12.94 18.93 ± 12.82 21.88 ± 15.54 23.20 ± 11.63 19.88 ± 12.47 21.12 ± 12.77 0.05 14.20 ± 19.58 12.36 ± 13.49 14.61 ± 13.95 16.75 ± 15.83 18.03 ± 11.06 17.10 ± 10.56 15.68 ± 13.77 0.10 19.12 ± 16.15 23.31 ± 9.66 23.14 ± 9.12 23.52 ± 12.59 21.04 ± 13.95 17.88 ± 13.17 21.78 ± 12.14 0.50 17.07 ± 11.47 21.92 ± 12.99 18.20 ± 13.88 22.14 ± 12.00 21.96 ± 13.07 20.85 ± 9.60 20.72 ± 11.94 1.00 11.17 ± 9.42 9.61 ± 11.72 11.22 ± 11.20 7.48 ± 11.41 8.77 ± 11.70 7.87 ± 13.63 9.26 ± 11.71 10.2 0.00 -7.95 ± 21.08 -10.80 ± 16.12 -12.68 ± 15.92 -12.05 ± 15.34 -10.53 ± 15.59 -14.70 ± 15.69 -11.39 ± 16.75 0.05 -14.50 ± 14.18 -15.45 ± 13.58 -18.77 ± 12.75 -10.85 ± 16.64 -20.54 ± 12.54 -19.67 ± 9.46 -16.99 ± 13.30 0.10 7.55 ± 13.30 10.51 ± 10.85 9.95 ± 9.76 7.36 ± 10.82 5.16 ± 11.09 1.22 ± 13.53 7.03 ± 11.83 0.50 9.07 ± 14.56 10.24 ± 10.96 5.94 ± 13.24 2.01 ± 13.67 4.39 ± 11.85 5.81 ± 13.71 6.11 ± 13.18 1.00 -11.97 ± 12.86 -11.40 ± 11.89 -9.57 ± 14.19 -11.80 ± 17.33 -10.85 ± 12.09 -9.21 ± 15.99 -10.96 ± 13.95 12.2 0.00 -10.53 ± 20.30 -33.35 ± 11.39 -30.31 ± 11.28 -30.30 ± 12.83 -31.13 ± 11.91 -32.75 ± 14.28 -30.39 ± 13.74 0.05 -26.06 ± 10.55 -30.98 ± 11.59 -35.69 ± 11.17 -35.16 ± 10.21 -40.02 ± 11.35 -36.97 ± 9.20 -35.16 ± 11.24 0.10 -44.83 ± 14.06 -43.15 ± 7.76 -37.96 ± 13.02 -36.69 ± 12.34 -35.43 ± 11.86 -33.97 ± 12.25 -38.72 ± 12.28 0.50 -34.46 ± 11.37 -27.88 ± 9.21 -38.32 ± 9.60 -45.37 ± 12.71 -33.87 ± 14.11 -39.95 ± 11.55 -37.46 ± 12.66 1.00 -28.08 ± 14.79 -35.96 ± 12.57 -33.77 ± 12.65 -34.76 ± 12.67 -33.73 ± 10.53 -39.37 ± 10.43 -34.86 ± 12.39 CaCl2 8.2 0.00 20.46 ± 11.12 22.25 ± 12.94 18.93 ± 12.82 21.88 ± 15.54 23.20 ± 11.63 19.88 ± 12.47 21.12 ± 12.77 0.05 17.97 ± 14.52 21.35 ± 12.79 24.18 ± 10.41 26.25 ± 8.52 25.13 ± 13.14 26.94 ± 9.66 24.12 ± 11.77 0.10 16.21 ± 11.37 24.99 ± 14.07 25.61 ± 14.40 26.56 ± 9.76 30.61 ± 9.26 27.65 ± 7.76 26.43 ± 11.44 0.50 19.64 ± 12.92 17.21 ± 14.22 18.60 ± 9.51 13.21 ± 16.73 15.48 ± 13.92 12.71 ± 13.08 16.09 ± 13.67 1.00 21.41 ± 13.45 16.09 ± 14.92 20.81 ± 10.45 22.94 ± 7.64 24.72 ± 8.75 22.40 ± 7.50 22.20 ± 7.53
Chemical pH Electrolyte (mM) 0 - 10 min (mV) 10 - 20 min (mV) 20 - 30 min (mV) 30 - 40 min (mV) 40 - 50 min (mV) 50 - 60 min (mV) 0 - 60 min (mV) 10.2 0.00 -7.95 ± 21.08 -10.80 ± 16.12 -12.68 ± 15.92 -12.05 ± 15.34 -10.53 ± 15.59 -14.70 ± 15.69 -11.39 ± 16.75 0.05 14.17 ± 11.94 13.80 ± 11.22 13.15 ± 11.89 14.16 ± 11.66 14.62 ± 12.85 2.13 ± 18.92 13.59 ± 12.27 0.10 6.10 ± 14.51 5.03 ± 11.55 5.88 ± 14.12 5.97 ± 11.51 1.26 ± 12.34 -1.16 ± 15.33 3.80 ± 13.44 0.50 -1.52 ± 12.72 0.05 ± 15.36 0.70 ± 15.88 -0.36 ± 14.90 -5.87 ± 14.51 -5.88 ± 14.52 -2.32 ± 14.75 1.00 9.59 ± 12.37 6.96 ± 11.71 7.17 ± 11.67 9.53 ± 10.14 7.80 ± 10.02 6.70 ± 12.49 7.86 ± 11.42 12.2 0.00 -10.53 ± 20.30 -33.35 ± 11.39 -30.31 ± 11.28 -30.30 ± 12.83 -31.13 ± 11.91 -32.75 ± 14.28 -30.39 ± 13.74 0.05 -29.61 ± 11.28 -28.78 ± 15.31 -29.97 ± 11.49 -29.78 ± 12.10 -32.93 ± 10.18 -36.22 ± 12.78 -31.47 ± 12.51 0.10 -27.63 ± 12.04 -29.29 ± 9.87 -29.81 ± 10.83 -30.17 ± 11.41 -29.02 ± 10.57 -28.58 ± 11.66 -29.06 ± 11.00 0.50 -0.83 ± 22.71 -1.62 ± 25.52 -20.94 ± 3.23 6.65 ± 16.78 -17.63 ± 9.28 9.42 ± 26.07 -5.65 ± 20.67 1.00 -15.93 ± 16.08 -25.53 ± 17.02 -25.59 ± 19.59 -26.96 ± 16.02 -32.76 ± 12.98 -31.82 ± 13.82 -27.86 ± 16.09 HA, NaCl 8.2 0.00 8.84 ± 16.75 7.20 ± 22.43 6.70 ± 22.39 8.30 ± 21.52 9.93 ± 20.91 6.95 ± 19.71 7.98 ± 20.71 0.10 16.77 ± 10.77 17.95 ± 14.08 11.08 ± 14.75 6.71 ± 19.55 4.63 ± 17.87 12.60 ± 17.66 12.15 ± 16.31 1.00 13.73 ± 7.68 12.10 ± 11.66 15.20 ± 7.75 12.45 ± 10.27 12.38 ± 9.70 12.58 ± 9.82 13.03 ± 9.68 HA, CaCl2 0.10 19.06 ± 13.06 21.04 ± 12.45 15.84 ± 14.78 18.36 ± 10.19 16.18 ± 14.78 20.17 ± 10.77 18.30 ± 12.77 1.00 15.95 ± 16.00 11.87 ± 14.09 14.30 ± 17.33 8.59 ± 14.25 7.00 ± 14.31 7.89 ± 13.58 11.01 ± 15.21 HA, NaCl 10.2 0.00 -19.83 ± 21.60 -15.64 ± 19.94 -12.78 ± 17.74 -13.09 ± 19.06 -12.30 ± 18.61 -11.43 ± 18.11 -13.89 ± 19.10 0.10 9.24 ± 13.53 6.04 ± 13.33 4.79 ± 18.21 3.46 ± 17.34 -0.13 ± 16.35 0.26 ± 15.63 4.89 ± 15.84 1.00 -21.99 ± 10.93 -20.26 ± 9.17 -18.58 ± 9.41 -17.02 ± 9.74 -19.66 ± 8.79 -17.81 ± 9.96 -19.29 ± 9.69 HA, CaCl2 0.10 6.72 ± 12.30 8.49 ± 11.33 4.86 ± 12.33 3.42 ± 12.03 4.34 ± 13.17 0.92 ± 10.79 4.78 ± 12.17 1.00 -3.55 ± 19.14 -2.63 ± 15.67 -1.11 ± 17.27 -4.75 ± 14.81 -5.11 ± 15.99 -7.66 ± 16.48 -4.14 ± 16.34 HA, NaCl 12.2 0.00 -31.35 ± 9.94 -32.69 ± 15.90 -27.07 ± 11.10 -29.09 ± 10.78 -25.49 ± 19.49 -31.88 ± 17.70 -29.86 ± 14.52 0.10 -35.36 ± 6.74 -40.72 ± 13.30 -48.53 ± 13.61 -46.78 ± 10.33 -41.25 ± 11.96 -32.99 ± 11.97 -42.06 ± 12.91
Chemical pH Electrolyte (mM) 0 - 10 min (mV) 10 - 20 min (mV) 20 - 30 min (mV) 30 - 40 min (mV) 40 - 50 min (mV) 50 - 60 min (mV) 0 - 60 min (mV) 1.00 -35.15 ± 13.16 -28.05 ± 10.86 -36.39 ± 9.78 -30.11 ± 14.28 -26.35 ± 15.70 -32.32 ± 11.16 -31.70 ± 12.72 FA, NaCl 8.2 0.00 -37.87 ± 12.04 -48.02 ± 12.77 -59.32 ± 11.27 -51.85 ± 14.11 -51.90 ± 11.56 -52.51 ± 11.05 -51.96 ± 13.35 0.10 -45.51 ± 12.84 -51.52 ± 9.78 -53.25 ± 10.08 -46.31 ± 10.86 -53.82 ± 15.31 -48.35 ± 11.87 -49.65 ± 12.06 1.00 -44.44 ± 9.82 -49.33 ± 10.64 -48.09 ± 14.48 -46.85 ± 11.06 -43.40 ± 13.80 -49.24 ± 8.34 -47.01 ± 11.65 FA, CaCl2 0.10 -42.88 ± 9.80 -41.97 ± 10.41 -43.62 ± 9.85 -46.76 ± 11.74 -45.47 ± 11.74 -44.53 ± 9.17 -44.29 ± 10.55 1.00 -25.98 ± 9.91 -23.84 ± 11.69 -23.70 ± 9.95 -25.13 ± 12.41 -23.98 ± 9.94 -23.60 ± 10.14 -24.37 ± 10.65 FA, NaCl 10.2 0.00 -44.98 ± 29.14 -54.67 ± 11.91 -57.08 ± 10.41 -51.26 ± 9.11 -49.71 ± 13.03 -47.91 ± 12.33 -51.66 ± 15.66 0.10 -57.05 ± 10.52 -61.59 ± 14.41 -64.11 ± 12.53 -58.68 ± 11.50 -61.96 ± 12.23 -59.79 ± 11.12 -60.47 ± 12.10 1.00 -40.91 ± 12.58 -44.34 ± 11.60 -43.39 ± 10.76 -39.56 ± 12.94 -39.58 ± 10.90 -32.42 ± 16.02 -40.31 ± 12.98 FA, CaCl2 0.10 -28.22 ± 16.48 -27.94 ± 18.97 -31.61 ± 12.59 -31.44 ± 12.18 -22.85 ± 20.12 -28.52 ± 13.07 -28.82 ± 15.49 1.00 -21.59 ± 8.28 -22.69 ± 10.83 -17.60 ± 14.55 -19.10 ± 13.31 -15.68 ± 13.79 -23.51 ± 10.02 -20.15 ± 12.13 FA, NaCl 12.2 0.00 -26.32 ± 10.81 -30.97 ± 11.83 -22.80 ± 15.70 -26.04 ± 11.87 -22.83 ± 18.78 -15.24 ± 17.66 -24.34 ± 15.22 0.10 -32.26 ± 11.39 -31.05 ± 15.03 -35.32 ± 8.57 -38.72 ± 12.02 -41.84 ± 9.50 -42.14 ± 10.62 -37.45 ± 11.91 1.00 -36.14 ± 10.79 -34.78 ± 12.63 -37.12 ± 10.19 -33.62 ± 17.63 -36.70 ± 10.96 -32.55 ± 10.56 -35.26 ± 12.33 FA, CaCl2 0.10 -25.21 ± 19.85 -25.21 ± 12.60 -28.99 ± 15.44 -25.62 ± 12.34 -24.32 ± 13.28 -28.97 ± 10.54 -26.56 ± 14.22 1.00 -28.23 ± 12.11 -30.03 ± 10.71 -29.87 ± 10.03 -27.26 ± 11.69 -33.44 ± 10.46 -34.07 ± 9.83 -30.91 ± 10.85
Table 2.3. The initial aggregation rate constant k11 obtained from the linear regression of
the experimental data during the first 600 seconds, under varying concentrations of NaCl/CaCl2 in the absence/presence of HA/FA at three different pHs (8.2, 10.2, and
12.2).
pH Electrolyte (mM) (nm/s) NaCl (nm/s) CaCl2
HA FA NaCl (nm/s) CaCl2 (nm/s) NaCl (nm/s) CaCl2 (nm/s) 8.2 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.51 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.50 0.02 0.01 1.00 0.35 0.08 0.25 0.11 0.02 0.02 10.2 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.54 0.54 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.45 0.25 0.10 0.33 0.35 0.42 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.40 0.41 1.00 0.44 0.50 0.48 0.44 0.02 0.02 12.2 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.01 0.47 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02
Table 2.4. The mean and standard deviation of hydrodynamic diameter of CeO2 NPs during
the first 100 seconds and at ~ 1 hr of around 1-hour measurements for each pH. pH Average Hydrodynamic diameter
(nm) (during the first 100 seconds)
Average Hydrodynamic diameter (nm) (at ∼1 hr) 1 256.65 ± 42.06 1510.95 ± 173.68 2 93.40 ± 7.28 104.90 ± 4.09 3 88.13 ± 4.46 98.22 ± 4.87 4 81.80 ± 4.36 99.80 ± 3.63 5 89.65 ± 4.93 101.70 ± 2.57 6 86.99 ± 6.45 115.25 ± 9.14 7 96.92 ± 5.62 128.24 ± 6.53 8 84.91 ± 3.61 112.28 ± 2.11 9 83.56 ± 7.05 108.29 ± 2.96 10 225.81 ± 46.66 1719.68 ± 267.49 11 72.97 ± 5.32 93.79 ± 3.40 12 75.67 ± 5.50 103.07 ± 5.96 13 384.22 ± 66.53 1930.14 ± 254.36 14 358.67 ± 74.16 2254.80 ± 323.37
Table 2.5. The mean and standard deviation of hydrodynamic diameter of CeO2 NPs during the first 100 seconds and at ~ 1 hr
of around 1-hour measurements for each pH and each NaCl/CaCl2 concentration.
pH Electrolyte (mM)
NaCl CaCl2
During the first
100 seconds (nm) At ∼1 hr (nm)
During the first 100 seconds (nm) At ∼1 hr (nm) 8.2 0.00 84.91 ± 3.61 112.28 ± 2.11 84.91 ± 3.61 112.28 ± 2.11 0.05 84.33 ± 2.34 99.31 ± 3.76 92.52 ± 4.01 106.82 ± 2.29 0.10 87.59 ± 2.67 111.35 ± 2.83 123.74 ± 6.92 129.07 ± 5.38 0.50 85.50 ± 1.59 109.45 ± 4.24 98.88 ± 5.48 175.25 ± 11.86 1.00 188.74 ± 29.89 1346.21 ± 221.29 140.43 ± 7.71 922.91 ± 89.41 10.2 0.00 413.45 ± 66.44 1670.11 ± 229.21 413.45 ± 66.44 1670.11 ± 229.21 0.05 372.45 ± 46.06 1690.92 ± 294.71 226.63 ± 17.39 1318.10 ± 125.18 0.10 199.16 ± 23.37 1430.52 ± 159.61 631.45 ± 49.47 1690.85 ± 210.69 0.50 363.26 ± 54.04 1602.56 ± 185.23 478.18 ± 35.37 1845.22 ± 175.04 1.00 598.69 ± 82.99 1984.90 ± 345.76 454.90 ± 55.29 3568.23 ± 552.86 12.2 0.00 84.31 ± 1.58 89.09 ± 1.56 84.31 ± 1.58 89.09 ± 1.56 0.05 83.63 ± 2.21 94.35 ± 3.42 80.96 ± 1.99 99.74 ± 2.37 0.10 85.28 ± 4.21 97.71 ± 2.15 144.58 ± 8.48 182.14 ± 5.52 0.50 85.42 ± 3.99 102.39 ± 4.81 452.64 ± 68.54 1700.32 ± 287.78 1.00 98.80 ± 2.35 103.65 ± 3.16 99.23 ± 5.87 101.85 ± 2.72
Table 2.6. The mean and standard deviation of hydrodynamic diameter of CeO2 NPs during the first 100 seconds and at ~ 1 hr
of around 1-hour measurements for each pH and each NaCl/CaCl2 concentration in the presence of HA.
pH Electrolyte (mM)
HA
NaCl CaCl2
During the first
100 seconds (nm) At ∼1 hr (nm) During the first 100 seconds (nm) At ∼1 hr (nm) 8.2 0.00 291.59 ± 77.83 1679.29 ± 183.07 291.59 ± 77.83 1679.29 ± 183.07 0.10 133.23 ± 3.95 183.78 ± 7.76 105.65 ± 5.22 186.48 ± 8.47 1.00 149.32 ± 21.41 1343.50 ± 119.71 173.66 ± 11.26 1397.18 ± 209.50 10.2 0.00 362.45 ± 56.46 1813.65 ± 287.38 362.45 ± 56.46 1813.65 ± 287.38 0.10 553.49 ± 52.98 1828.96 ± 318.22 470.83 ± 39.34 1584.86 ± 223.48 1.00 299.29 ± 54.61 1597.66 ± 257.13 458.75 ± 63.90 1746.21 ± 235.86 12.2 0.00 87.98 ± 2.61 93.92 ± 1.92 87.98 ± 2.61 93.92 ± 1.92 0.10 91.03 ± 3.14 97.67 ± 2.15 89.57 ± 2.64 94.50 ± 3.03 1.00 77.74 ± 2.31 93.86 ± 1.91 104.57 ± 4.04 110.13 ± 4.31
Table 2.7. The mean and standard deviation of hydrodynamic diameter of CeO2 NPs during the first 100 seconds and at ~ 1 hr
of around 1-hour measurements for each pH and each NaCl/CaCl2 concentration in the presence of FA.
pH Electrolyte (mM)
FA
NaCl CaCl2
During the first
100 seconds (nm) At ∼1 hr (nm)
During the first
100 seconds (nm) At ∼1 hr (nm) 8.2 0.00 78.30 ± 4.54 100.84 ± 3.34 78.30 ± 4.54 100.84 ± 3.34 0.10 93.36 ± 1.95 101.87 ± 3.36 77.57 ± 4.70 92.56 ± 2.20 1.00 86.05 ± 4.20 108.14 ± 4.02 72.97 ± 3.53 93.60 ± 1.64 10.2 0.00 80.70 ± 4.75 100.47 ± 1.60 80.70 ± 4.75 100.47 ± 1.60 0.10 94.54 ± 5.34 104.37 ± 2.01 82.38 ± 3.49 99.49 ± 2.19 1.00 83.33 ± 3.10 99.75 ± 2.87 77.44 ± 4.25 97.02 ± 2.96 12.2 0.00 72.72 ± 4.16 113.06 ± 5.19 72.72 ± 4.16 113.06 ± 5.19 0.10 92.83 ± 2.54 97.39 ± 2.84 84.71 ± 1.85 94.68 ± 1.72 1.00 82.50 ± 1.77 94.35 ± 3.49 75.08 ± 6.54 100.82 ± 6.66
Figure 2.1. Average zeta potential and hydrodynamic diameter of CeO2 NPs as a function
of pH in DI water. The results are presented as an average value of around 1-hour measurements with the corresponding standard deviation. CeO2 NPs (25 mg/L) were
Figure 2.2. The hydrodynamic diameter kinetic measurements of CeO2 NPs as function of pH over about 1 hour in DI water.
Figure 2.3. The initial aggregation rate constant k11 as a function of pH during the first 600
Figure 2.4. The hydrodynamic diameter kinetic measurements of CeO2 NPs as function of
time and NaCl or CaCl2 concentration ranging from 0 to 1 mM at pH 8.2, pH 10.2, and pH
Figure 2.6. The hydrodynamic diameter kinetic measurements of CeO2 NPs in the presence
of HA or FA as a function of time, and NaCl or CaCl2 concentration ranging from 0 to 1
Figure 2.7. Net energy between CeO2 NPs in the presence of HA as a function of distance
Figure 2.8. Net energy between CeO2 NPs in the presence of FA as a function of distance
between particles with NaCl or CaCl2 concentrations varying from 0 to 1 mM at pH 8.2,
Figure 2.10. The average zeta potential of CeO2 NPs as a function of time in varying
2.7 References
Abe, T., Kobayashi, S., Kobayashi, M., 2011. Aggregation of colloidal silica particles in the presence of fulvic acid, humic acid, or alginate: Effects of ionic composition. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 379, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2010.11.052
Aitken, R.J., Chaudhry, M.Q., Boxall, A.B. A., Hull, M., 2006. Manufacture and use of nanomaterials: Current status in the UK and global trends. Occup. Med. (Chic. Ill). 56, 300–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kql051
Akaighe, N., Depner, S.W., Banerjee, S., Sharma, V.K., Sohn, M., 2012. The effects of monovalent and divalent cations on the stability of silver nanoparticles formed from direct reduction of silver ions by Suwannee River humic acid/natural organic matter. Sci. Total Environ. 441, 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.09.055 Akaighe, N., Depner, S.W., Banerjee, S., Sohn, M., 2013. Transport and deposition of
Suwannee River Humic Acid/Natural Organic Matter formed silver nanoparticles on silica matrices: The influence of solution pH and ionic strength. Chemosphere 92, 406–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.12.077
Auffan, M., Bertin, D., Chaurand, P., Pailles, C., Dominici, C., Rose, J.Ô., Bottero, J.Y., Thiery, A., 2013. Role of molting on the biodistribution of CeO2 nanoparticles within Daphnia pulex. Water Res. 47, 3921–3930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.11.063
safety perspective. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 634–641. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.242
Baalousha, M., 2009. Aggregation and disaggregation of iron oxide nanoparticles: Influence of particle concentration, pH and natural organic matter. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 2093–2101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.11.022
Baalousha, M., Lead, J.R., Hofmann, T., 2003. Natural Colloids and Nanoparticles in Aquatic and Terrestrial.
Baalousha, M., Manciulea, A., Cumberland, S., Kendall, K., Lead, J.R., 2008. Aggregation and surface properties of iron oxide nanoparticles: influence of pH and natural organic matter. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27, 1875. https://doi.org/10.1897/07-559.1
Baalousha, M., Motelica-Heino, M., Le Coustumer, P., 2006. Conformation and size of humic substances: Effects of major cation concentration and type, pH, salinity, and residence time. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 272, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2005.07.010
Baalousha, M., Nur, Y., Römer, I., Tejamaya, M., Lead, J.R., 2013. Effect of monovalent and divalent cations, anions and fulvic acid on aggregation of citrate-coated silver nanoparticles. Sci. Total Environ. 454–455, 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.093
Bai, L., Li, C., Korte, C., Huibers, B.M.J., Pales, A.R., Liang, W., Ladner, D., Daigle, H., Darnault, C.J.G., 2017. Effects of silica-based nanostructures with raspberry-like morphology and surfactant on the interfacial behavior of light, medium, and heavy
crude oils at oil-aqueous interfaces. Appl. Nanosci. 7, 947–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13204-017-0630-7
Bekyarova, E., Fornasiero, P., Kašpar, J., Graziani, M., 1998. CO oxidation on Pd/CeO2–
ZrO2 catalysts. Catal. Today 45, 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-
5861(98)00212-0
Bian, S.W., Mudunkotuwa, I.A., Rupasinghe, T., Grassian, V.H., 2011. Aggregation and dissolution of 4 nm ZnO nanoparticles in aqueous environments: Influence of pH, ionic strength, size, and adsorption of humic acid. Langmuir 27, 6059–6068. https://doi.org/10.1021/la200570n
Birbaum, K., Brogioli, R., Schellenberg, M., Martinoia, E., Stark, W.J., Günther, D., Limbach, L.K., 2010. No evidence for cerium dioxide nanoparticle translocation in maize plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 8718–8723. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101685f
Buettner, K.M., Rinciog, C.I., Mylon, S.E., 2010. Aggregation kinetics of cerium oxide nanoparticles in monovalent and divalent electrolytes. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 366, 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2010.05.024 Butt, H.-J., Kappl, M., 2010. Surface and Interfacial Forces, Surface and Interfacial Forces.
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527629411
Bystrzejewska-Piotrowska, G., Golimowski, J., Urban, P.L., 2009. Nanoparticles: Their potential toxicity, waste and environmental management. Waste Manag. 29, 2587–
Cai, J., Zeng, Z., Connor, J.N., Huang, C.Y., Melino, V., Kumar, P., Miklavcic, S.J., 2015. RootGraph: A graphic optimization tool for automated image analysis of plant roots. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EN00149D
Cao, G., Brinker, C.J., 2008. Annual review of nano research. Volume 2. World Scientific. Cassee, F.R., van Balen, E.C., Singh, C., Green, D., Muijser, H., Weinstein, J., Dreher, K., 2011. Exposure, health and ecological effects review of engineered nanoscale cerium and cerium oxide associated with its use as a fuel additive. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 41, 213–229. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2010.529105
Chekli, L., Phuntsho, S., Roy, M., Shon, H.K., 2013. Characterisation of Fe-oxide nanoparticles coated with humic acid and Suwannee River natural organic matter. Sci. Total Environ. 461–462, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.083 Chekli, L., Phuntsho, S., Tijing, L.D., Zhou, J.L., Kim, J.H., Shon, H.K., 2014. Stability of
Fe-oxide nanoparticles coated with natural organic matter under relevant environmental conditions. Water Sci. Technol. 70, 2040–2046. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.454
Chen, C., Wang, X., 2007. Sorption of Th (IV) to silica as a function of pH, humic/fulvic acid, ionic strength, electrolyte type. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 65, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2006.07.003
Chen, K.L., Elimelech, M., 2007. Influence of humic acid on the aggregation kinetics of fullerene (C60) nanoparticles in monovalent and divalent electrolyte solutions. J.
Chen, K.L., Mylon, S.E., Elimelech, M., 2006. Aggregation kinetics of alginate-coated hematite nanoparticles in monovalent and divalent electrolytes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1516–1523. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0518068
Chen, Y., Gao, Q., Chen, W., Wu, F., Yang, Y., Werner, D., Tao, S., Wang, X., 2018. A mechanistic study of stable dispersion of titanium oxide nanoparticles by humic acid. Water Res. 135, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.02.018
Choi, O., Deng, K.K., Kim, N.J., Ross, L., Surampalli, R.Y., Hu, Z., 2008. The inhibitory effects of silver nanoparticles, silver ions, and silver chloride colloids on microbial growth. Water Res. 42, 3066–3074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.02.021 Collin, B., Auffan, M., Johnson, A.C., Kaur, I., Keller, A. A., Lazareva, A., Lead, J.R., Ma,
X., Merrifield, R.C., Svendsen, C., White, J.C., Unrine, J.M., 2014a. Environmental release, fate and ecotoxicological effects of manufactured ceria nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Nano 1, 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EN00149D
Collin, B., Oostveen, E., Tsyusko, O. V., Unrine, J.M., 2014b. Influence of natural organic matter and surface charge on the toxicity and bioaccumulation of functionalized ceria nanoparticles in Caenorhabditis elegans. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1280–1289. https://doi.org/10.1021/es404503c
Cornelis, G., Ryan, B., McLaughlin, M.J., Kirby, J.K., Beak, D., Chittleborough, D., 2011. Solubility and batch retention of CeO2 nanoparticles in soils. Environ. Sci. Technol.
Cui, D., Zhang, P., Ma, Y., He, X., Li, Y., Zhang, J., Zhao, Y., Zhang, Z., 2014. Effect of cerium oxide nanoparticles on asparagus lettuce cultured in an agar medium. Environ. Sci. Nano 1, 459–465. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EN00025K
Da Costa Saab, S., Carvalho, E.R., Filho, R.B., De Moura, M.R., Martin-Neto, L., Mattoso, L.H.C., 2010. pH effect in aquatic fulvic acid from a Brazilian River. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 21, 1490–1496.
Delay, M., Dolt, T., Woellhaf, A., Sembritzki, R., Frimmel, F.H., 2011. Interactions and stability of silver nanoparticles in the aqueous phase: Influence of natural organic matter (NOM) and ionic strength. J. Chromatogr. A 1218, 4206–4212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2011.02.074
Derjaguin, B., 1940. The electrical double layer. Trans. Faraday Soc. 36, 711. https://doi.org/10.1039/tf9403600711
Derjaguin, B., Landau, L.D., 1941. Theory of stability strongly charged lyophobic soles and coalescence of strongly charged particles in solutions of electrolytes. Acta Phys. Chim. USSR 14, 633.
Diatloff, E., Smith, F.W., Asher, C.J., 2008. Effects of lanthanum and cerium on the growth and mineral nutrition of corn and mungbean. Ann. Bot. 101, 971–982. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn021
Domingos, R.F., Tufenkji, N., Wilkinson, K.J., 2009. Aggregation of titanium dioxide nanoparticles: Role of a fulvic acid. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 1282–1286. https://doi.org/10.1021/es8023594
Elimelech, M., Gregory, J., Jia, X., Williams, R.A., 1995. Particle Deposition and Aggregation: Measurement, Modelling and Simulation, Butterworth-Heinemann. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-04548-3
Erhayem, M., Sohn, M., 2014. Stability studies for titanium dioxide nanoparticles upon adsorption of Suwannee River humic and fulvic acids and natural organic matter. Sci. Total Environ. 468–469, 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.038 Fang, J., Wang, M., Lin, D., Shen, B., 2016. Enhanced transport of CeO2 nanoparticles in
porous media by macropores. Sci. Total Environ. 543, 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.039
Farfaletti, A., Astorga, C., Martini, G., Manfredi, U., Mueller, A., Rey, M., De Santi, G., Krasenbrink, A., Larsen, B.R., 2005. Effect of water/fuel emulsions and a cerium- based combustion improver additive on HD and LD diesel exhaust emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 6792–6799. https://doi.org/10.1021/es048345v
Fernando, I., Zhou, Y., 2019. Impact of pH on the stability, dissolution and aggregation kinetics of silver nanoparticles. Chemosphere 216, 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.10.122
Frederic, L., Le Coustumer, P., Stoll, S., 2013. TiO2 nanoparticles aggregation and
disaggregation in presence of alginate and Suwannee River humic acids. pH and concentration effects on nanoparticle stability. Water Res. 47, 6052–6063.
French, R.A., Jacobson, A.R., Kim, B., Isley, S.L., Penn, R.L., Baveye, P.C., 2009. Influence of ionic strength, pH, and cation valence on aggregation kinetics of titanium
dioxide nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.1021/es802628n
Frimmel, F.H., Abbt-Braun, G., 1999. Basic characterization of reference NOM from Central Europe - Similarities and differences. Environ. Int. 25, 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(98)00116-0
Furman, O., Usenko, S., Lau, B.L.T., 2013. Relative importance of the humic and fulvic fractions of natural organic matter in the aggregation and deposition of silver nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 1349–1356.
García, A., Delgado, L., Torà, J.A., Casals, E., González, E., Puntes, V., Font, X., Carrera, J., Sánchez, A., 2012. Effect of cerium dioxide, titanium dioxide, silver, and gold nanoparticles on the activity of microbial communities intended in wastewater treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 199–200, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.10.057
Ghosh, S., Jiang, W., McClements, J.D., Xing, B., 2011. Colloidal Stability of Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles: Influence of Natural Organic Matter and Synthetic Polyelectrolytes. Langmuir 27, 8036–8043. https://doi.org/10.1021/la200772e Ghosh, S., Mashayekhi, H., Bhowmik, P., Xing, B., 2010. Colloidal stability of Al2O3
nanoparticles as affected by coating of structurally different humic acids. Langmuir 26, 873–879. https://doi.org/10.1021/la902327q
Ghosh, S., Mashayekhi, H., Pan, B., Bhowmik, P., Xing, B., 2008. Colloidal Behavior of Aluminum Oxide Nanoparticles As Affected by pH and Natural Organic Matter. Langmuir 24, 12385–12391. https://doi.org/10.1021/la802015f
Grand View Research, 2017. Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Market Analysis By Application (Energy Storage, Polishing Agent, Personal Care, Pharmaceuticals), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2018 - 2025.
Gui, X., Zhang, Z., Liu, S., Ma, Y., Zhang, P., He, X., Li, Y., Zhang, J., Li, H., Rui, Y., Liu, L., Cao, W., 2015. Fate and phytotoxicity of CeO2 nanoparticles on lettuce
cultured in the potting soil environment. PLOS One 10, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134261
Gunsolus, I.L., Mousavi, M.P.S., Hussein, K., Bühlmann, P., Haynes, C.L., 2015. Effects of Humic and Fulvic Acids on Silver Nanoparticle Stability, Dissolution, and Toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8078–8086. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01496 Guzman, K.A.D., Finnegan, M.P., Banfield, J.F., 2006. Influence of surface potential on
aggregation and transport of titania nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 7688– 7693. https://doi.org/10.1021/es060847g
Hassan, A.A., Li, Z., Sahle-Demessie, E., Sorial, G.A., 2013. Computational fluid dynamics simulation of transport and retention of nanoparticle in saturated sand filters. J. Hazard. Mater. 244–245, 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.11.021 Health Effects Institute (HEI), 2001. Evaluation of Human Health Risk from Cerium
Added to Diesel Fuel. HEI Research Communication 9. North Andover Ma: Flagship Press.
Hotze, E.M., Phenrat, T., Lowry, G. V., 2010. Nanoparticle aggregation: challenges to understanding transport and reactivity in the environment. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 1909–
Hsiung, C.-E., Lien, H.-L., Galliano, A.E., Yeh, C.-S., Shih, Y., 2016. Effects of water chemistry on the destabilization and sedimentation of commercial TiO2 nanoparticles:
Role of double-layer compression and charge neutralization. Chemosphere 151, 145– 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.02.046
Hu, J.D., Zevi, Y., Kou, X.M., Xiao, J., Wang, X.J., Jin, Y., 2010. Effect of dissolved organic matter on the stability of magnetite nanoparticles under different pH and ionic strength conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 3477–3489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.033
Huibers, B.M.J., Pales, A.R., Bai, L., Li, C., Mu, L., Ladner, D., Daigle, H., Darnault, C.J.G., 2017. Wettability alteration of sandstones by silica nanoparticle dispersions in light and heavy crude oil. J. Nanoparticle Res. 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051- 017-4011-7
Huynh, K.A., Chen, K.L., 2011. Aggregation Kinetics of Citrate and Polyvinylpyrrolidone Coated Silver Nanoparticles in Monovalent and Divalent Electrolyte Solutions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 5564–5571. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200157h
Hyung, H., Kim, J.H., 2008. Natural organic matter (NOM) adsorption to multi-walled carbon nanotubes: Effect of NOM characteristics and water quality parameters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 4416–4421. https://doi.org/10.1021/es702916h
International Humic Substance Society (IHSS), 2007. What are Humic Substances? Israelachvili, J.N., 1992. Intermolecular and surface forces. Academic Press, London.
Johnson, A.C., Park, B., 2012. Predicting contamination by the fuel additive cerium oxide engineered nanoparticles within the United Kingdom and the associated risks. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31, 2582–2587. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.1983
Jolivet, J.-P., Henry, M., Livage, J., 2000. Metal oxide chemistry and synthesis : from solution to solid state. John Wiley.
Jung, H., Kittelson, D.B., Zachariah, M.R., 2005. The influence of a cerium additive on ultrafine diesel particle emissions and kinetics of oxidation. Combust. Flame 142, 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2004.11.015
Kah, M., Hofmann, T., 2014. Nanopesticide research: Current trends and future priorities. Environ. Int. 63, 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.11.015
Keller, A.A., McFerran, S., Lazareva, A., Suh, S., 2013. Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials. J. Nanoparticle Res. 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051- 013-1692-4
Keller, A.A., Wang, H., Zhou, D., Lenihan, H.S., Cherr, G., Cardinale, B.J., Miller, R., Ji, Z., 2010. Stability and Aggregation of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles in Natural Aqueous Matrices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1962–1967. https://doi.org/10.1021/es902987d Lahive, E., Jurkschat, K., Shaw, B.J., Handy, R.D., Spurgeon, D.J., Svendsen, C., 2014.
Toxicity of cerium oxide nanoparticles to the earthworm Eisenia fetida: Subtle effects. Environ. Chem. 11, 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN14028
Lazareva, A., Keller, A.A., 2014. Estimating Potential Life Cycle Releases of Engineered Nanomaterials from Wastewater Treatment Plants. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2,
Li, B., Chen, Y., Liang, W., Mu, L., Bridges, W.C., Jacobson, A.R., Darnault, C.J.G., 2017. Influence of cerium oxide nanoparticles on the soil enzyme activities in a soil-grass microcosm system. Geoderma 299, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.03.027
Li, K., Chen, Y., 2012. Effect of natural organic matter on the aggregation kinetics of CeO2
nanoparticles in KCl and CaCl2 solutions: Measurements and modeling. J. Hazard.
Mater. 209–210, 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.01.013
Li, X., Lenhart, J.J., Walker, H.W., 2010. Dissolution-accompanied aggregation kinetics of silver nanoparticles. Langmuir 26, 16690–16698. https://doi.org/10.1021/la101768n
Li, Z., Sahle-Demessie, E., Hassan, A.A., Pressman, J.G., Sorial, G.A., Han, C., 2017. Effects of source and seasonal variations of natural organic matters on the fate and transport of CeO2 nanoparticles in the environment. Sci. Total Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.154
Li, Z., Sahle-Demessie, E., Hassan, A.A., Sorial, G.A., 2011. Transport and deposition of CeO2 nanoparticles in water-saturated porous media. Water Res. 45, 4409–4418.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.05.025
Liang, L., Luo, L., Zhang, S., 2011. Adsorption and desorption of humic and fulvic acids on SiO2 particles at nano- and micro-scales. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng.
Asp. 384, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.03.045
Liu, J., Legros, S., Von Der Kammer, F., Hofmann, T., 2013. Natural organic matter concentration and hydrochemistry influence aggregation kinetics of functionalized
engineered nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 4113–4120. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302447g
Liu, W., Sun, W., Borthwick, A.G.L., Ni, J., 2013. Comparison on aggregation and sedimentation of titanium dioxide, titanate nanotubes and titanate nanotubes-TiO2:
Influence of pH, ionic strength and natural organic matter. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 434, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2013.05.010
Liu, X., Chen, G., Su, C., 2012. Influence of collector surface composition and water chemistry on the deposition of cerium dioxide nanoparticles: QCM-D and column experiment approaches. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 6681–6688. https://doi.org/10.1021/es300883q
Liu, X., Wazne, M., Chou, T., Xiao, R., Xu, S., 2011. Influence of Ca2+ and Suwannee
River Humic Acid on aggregation of silicon nanoparticles in aqueous media. Water Res. 45, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.08.022
Lui, X., Chen, G., Su, C., 2011. Stability and Transport of Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles in Aqueous Environment: Effect of pH, Ionic Strength, and Organic Matter., in: Gordon Research Conference – Environmental Nanotechnology. EPA Science Inventory. Lv, X., Gao, B., Sun, Y., Shi, X., Xu, H., Wu, J., 2014. Effects of humic acid and solution
chemistry on the retention and transport of cerium dioxide nanoparticles in saturated porous media. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2167- 7
Ma, Y., Kuang, L., He, X., Bai, W., Ding, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhao, Y., Chai, Z., 2010. Effects of rare earth oxide nanoparticles on root elongation of plants. Chemosphere 78, 273– 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.10.050
Majumdar, S., Peralta-Videa, J.R., Trujillo-Reyes, J., Sun, Y., Barrios, A.C., Niu, G., Margez, J.P.F., Gardea-Torresdey, J.L., 2016. Soil organic matter influences cerium translocation and physiological processes in kidney bean plants exposed to cerium oxide nanoparticles. Sci. Total Environ. 569–570, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.087
Mashayekhi, H., Ghosh, S., Du, P., Xing, B., 2012. Effect of natural organic matter on aggregation behavior of C60 fullerene in water. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 374, 111–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2012.01.061
Mohd Omar, F., Abdul Aziz, H., Stoll, S., 2013. Aggregation and disaggregation of ZnO nanoparticles: Influence of pH and adsorption of Suwannee River humic acid. Sci. Total Environ. 468–469, 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.044 Nakagawa, K., Murata, Y., Kishida, M., Adachi, M., Hiro, M., Susa, K., 2007. Formation
and reaction activity of CeO2 nanoparticles of cubic structure and various shaped
CeO2-TiO2 composite nanostructures. Mater. Chem. Phys. 104, 30–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2007.02.047
Nanotechnology and Sunscreens, 2007. A consumer guide for avoiding nano- sunscreens. https://doi.org/http://action.foe.org/content.jsp?key=3060
Oriekhova, O., Stoll, S., 2016a. Effects of pH and fulvic acids concentration on the stability of fulvic acids - cerium (IV) oxide nanoparticle complexes. Chemosphere 144, 131– 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.08.057
Oriekhova, O., Stoll, S., 2016b. Stability of uncoated and fulvic acids coated manufactured CeO2 nanoparticles in various conditions: From ultrapure to natural Lake Geneva
waters. Sci. Total Environ. 562, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.184
Ottofuelling, S., der Kammer, F., Hofmann, T., 2011. Commercial Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles in Both Natural and Synthetic Water: Comprehensive Multidimensional Testing and Prediction of Aggregation Behavior. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 10045–10052. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2023225
Palomino, D., Yamunake, C., Le Coustumer, P., Stoll, S., 2013. Stability of TiO2
Nanoparticles in Presence of Fulvic Acids, Importance of pH. J. Colloid Sci. Biotechnol. 2, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1166/jcsb.2013.1033
Peng, X., Luan, Z., Ding, J., Di, Z., Li, Y., Tian, B., 2005. Ceria nanoparticles supported on carbon nanotubes for the removal of arsenate from water. Mater. Lett. 59, 399– 403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2004.05.090
Peralta-Videa, J.R., Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A., Zhao, L., Diaz, B.C., Ge, Y., Priester, J.H., Holden, P.A., Gardea-Torresdey, J.L., 2014. Cerium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles alter the nutritional value of soil cultivated soybean plants. Plant Physiol.