The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Humic Nanoparticles at the Oxide−Water Interface: Interactions with Phosphate Ion Adsorption
Open accessAbstract
In this work, data for the interactions between humic acid (HA) or fulvic acid (FA) with phosphate ions at the surface of goethite (alpha-FeOOH) are presented. The results show very clear differences between HA and FA in their interactions with phosphate at goethite surface. HA is strongly bound to goethite but surprisingly does not strongly affect the phosphate binding, whereas FA is less strongly bound, but these molecules have a very large effect on the phosphate adsorption, and vice versa. Phosphate adsorption to goethite in the presence of adsorbed HA or FA can be well predicted with the LCD model (ligand and charge distribution). According to the model calculations, the nature of the interactions between HA or FA with phosphate at goethite surface is mainly electrostatic. The stronger effects of FA on phosphate adsorption are caused by its spatial location which is closer to the oxide surface, and as a consequence, the electrostatic interactions between adsorbed FA particles and phosphate ions are much stronger than for HA particles. This is the first time that effects of natural organic matter (NOM) on an anion adsorption are predicted successfully using an integrated ion-binding model for oxides and for humics that accounts for chemical heterogeneity of NOM.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Molecular structure in soil humic substances: the new view
Sutton, R., & Sposito, G. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es050778q · Cited by 1,316
Cited by
Interactions of Dissolved Organic Matter with Natural and Engineered Inorganic Colloids: A Review
Philippe, A., & Schaumann, G. E. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es502342r · Cited by 770
Linkages between aggregate formation, porosity and soil chemical properties
Regelink, I. C., Stoof, C. R., Rousseva, S., Weng, L., Lair, G. J., Kram, P., Nikolaidis, N. P., Kercheva, M., Banwart, S., & Comans, R. N. J. (2015) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.01.022 · Cited by 391
Self-citationMia, S., Dijkstra, F. A., & Singh, B. (2017) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/bs.agron.2016.10.001 · Cited by 267
Wang, F., Shih, K., & Leckie, J. O. (2015) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.080 · Cited by 102
Elucidating Mechanisms of Competitive Sorption at the Mineral/Water Interface
Violante, A. (2013) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-405942-9.00003-7 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Weng, L., Van Riemsdijk, W. H., & Hiemstra, T.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2008-11-06
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 8747-8752
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2069902827
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
