The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enhanced Aggregation of Alginate-Coated Iron Oxide (Hematite) Nanoparticles in the Presence of Calcium, Strontium, and Barium Cations
Abstract
Early-stage aggregation kinetics studies of alginate-coated hematite nanoparticles in solutions containing alkaline-earth metal cations revealed enhanced aggregation rates in the presence of Ca2+, Sr2+, and Ba2+, but not with Mg2+. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging of the aggregates provided evidence that alginate gel formation was essential for enhanced aggregation to occur. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) aggregation results clearly indicated that a much lower concentration of Ba2+ compared to Ca2+ and Sr2+ was required to achieve a similar degree of enhanced aggregation in each system. To elucidate the relationship between the alginate's affinities for divalent cations and the enhanced aggregation of the alginate-coated hematite nanoparticles, atomic force microscopy (AFM) was employed to probe the interaction forces between alginate-coated hematite surfaces under the solution chemistries used for the aggregation study. Maximum adhesion forces, maximum pull-off distances, and the work of adhesion were used as indicators to gauge the alginate's affinity for the divalent cations and the resulting attractive interactions between alginate-coated hematite nanoparticles. The results showed that alginate had higher affinity for Ba2+ than either Sr2+ or Ca2+. This same trend was consistent with the cation concentrations required for comparable enhanced aggregation kinetics, suggesting that the rate of alginate gel formation controls the enhanced aggregation kinetics. An aggregation mechanism incorporating the gelation of alginate is proposed to explain the accelerated aggregate growth in the presence of Ca2+, Sr2+, and Ba2+.
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
Hydrogels for biomedical applications
Hoffman, A. S. (2002) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(01)00239-3 · Cited by 4,864
Cited by
Heavy metal removal from water/wastewater by nanosized metal oxides: A review
Hua, M., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Zhang, W., Lv, L., & Zhang, Q. (2012) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.10.016 · Cited by 2,193
Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi
Navarro, E., Baun, A., Behra, R., Hartmann, N. B., Filser, J., Miao, A.-J., Quigg, A., Santschi, P. H., & Sigg, L. (2008) · Ecotoxicology · doi:10.1007/s10646-008-0214-0 · Cited by 1,772
Role of nanomaterials in water treatment applications: A review
Santhosh, C., Velmurugan, V., Jacob, G., Jeong, S. K., Grace, A. N., & Bhatnagar, A. (2016) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2016.08.053 · Cited by 1,256
Nanomaterials-enabled water and wastewater treatment
Zhang, Y., Wu, B., Xu, H., Liu, H., Wang, M., He, Y., & Pan, B. (2016) · NanoImpact · doi:10.1016/j.impact.2016.09.004 · Cited by 417
Jawed, A., Saxena, V., & Pandey, L. M. (2020) · Journal of Water Process Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.101009 · Cited by 297
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, K. L., Mylon, S. E., & Elimelech, M.
- Venue
- Langmuir
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2007-05-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 5920-5928
- ISSN
- 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5827
- OpenAlex
- W1997113148
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.