Modeling Nanomaterial Environmental Fate in ... - ACS Publications

Subscriber access provided by Northern Illinois University

Feature

Modeling nanomaterial environmental fate in aquatic systems Amy Dale, Elizabeth A. Casman, Gregory Victor Lowry, Jamie R Lead, Enrica Viparelli, and Mohammed A Baalousha Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 22 Jan 2015 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 26, 2015

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 18

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Modeling nanomaterial environmental fate in aquatic systems

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Amy L. Dale , Elizabeth A. Casman , Gregory V. Lowry , Jamie R. Lead , Enrica Viparelli , Mohammed 4,5* Baalousha 1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA 2 Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA 3 Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA 4 Center for Environmental Nanoscience and Risk, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA 5 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA

13

Mathematical models improve our fundamental understanding of the environmental behavior, fate,

14

and transport of engineered nanomaterials (NMs, chemical substances or materials roughly 1-100 nm in

15

size) and facilitate risk assessment and management activities.1-3 Although today's large-scale

16

environmental fate models for NMs are a considerable improvement over early efforts, a gap still

17

remains between the experimental research performed to date on the environmental fate of NMs and

18

its incorporation into models. This article provides an introduction to the current state of the science in

19

modeling the fate and behavior of NMs in aquatic environments. We address the strengths and

20

weaknesses of existing fate models, identify the challenges facing researchers in developing and

21

validating these models, and offer a perspective on how these challenges can be addressed through the

22

combined efforts of modelers and experimentalists.

1,2,3

2,3

1,3

4

5

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

23 24

Uses of NM environmental fate models

25

Models are powerful tools for describing the behavior of contaminants in complex natural

26

systems, and thus are essential for scientific and regulatory purposes4,5. For fundamental scientific

27

understanding of environmental fate and behavior of NMs, models can provide a framework to

28

categorize concepts, fill knowledge gaps, and extrapolate and predict missing data. They can also be

29

used to generate scientific hypotheses, which would require further testing via experimental or field

30

studies, test alternative theories about the mechanism underlying an observed experimental result,

31

identify significant scientific uncertainties, and evaluate possible release and exposure scenarios. Fate

32

and behavior models can add value to scientific efforts by exploring the relative influences of the

33

processes contributing to NM fate and behavior in complex ecosystems, thereby identifying dominant

34

processes.

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


35

For regulatory purposes, the aim of investigating the fate and behavior of pollutants is to

36

determine if they pose a risk to environmental and human health and to guide management strategies4.

37

Models are of particular value for NMs, as detection of NMs in environmental systems is very

38

challenging and suitable analytical methods are still under development6. Most NM fate models for

39

aquatic systems are used to predict environmental concentrations (PECs) and compare them to "no

40

adverse effect" concentrations (PNECs) to determine risk7. They have also been used (with mixed

41

success) for (1) comparison of the relative fate of NMs with different chemical identities and/or

42

prioritizing NMs for additional scrutiny,8,9 (2) identification of important fate processes or parameters

43

via parametric analysis or sensitivity analysis,10,11 (3) estimation of potential for long-range transport,10,12

44

and (4) estimation of overall residence times.13 Likely future applications of such models include (5)

45

comparison of the impact of spatially and temporally heterogeneous environmental conditions on fate,

46

(6) evaluation of likely recovery times of contaminated environments should loadings cease, and (7) as a

47

tool for ranking the sources and nature of contamination and feasible remediation strategies.

48

Additionally, advancement in NM modeling may also be beneficial and stimulating for other fields, for

49

instance, to improve our understanding of the fate and transport of contaminants with strong affinity to

50

natural NMs and colloids such as trace metals and organic compounds.

51

The processes that influence NM behavior in the environment include NM surface coating

52

changes (e.g. degradation or replacement by natural organic matter), oxidation, dissolution, sulfidation,

53

advection, diffusion, hetero- and homo-aggregation or disaggregation, sedimentation/resuspension, and

54

deposition14 (Figure 1). The modeling approaches that have been adapted and applied over the past

55

decade to describe NM fate vary widely in terms of which of these processes are included and how they

56

are modeled. We briefly highlight seminal papers in the field, introduce the approaches they apply, and

57

provide our perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. We refer the reader to

58

Gottschalk et al. (2014) and Scheringer et al. (2014) for more extensive reviews of environmental fate

59

models for NMs.7,15

60 61 62

Material Flow Analysis of NMs The earliest approaches to NM fate modeling relied on material flow analysis (MFA), which is a

63

specific assessment methodology developed in the field of industrial ecology to track the stocks and

64

flows of substances into and between technological "compartments" (e.g., wastewater treatment

65

plants, incinerators) and environmental "compartments" (e.g. soil, air, water). Such models have no

66

spatial detail (i.e., they average predicted contaminant mass over the entire environmental 2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 18

Page 3 of 18


67

compartment, such as all surface water in Switzerland), but they do help conceptualize a material's life

68

cycle. Mueller and Nowack (2008) predicted "best" and "worst case" estimates of environmental

69

concentrations (PECs) of Ag, TiO2, and carbon nanotubes released from products in air, water, soil, and

70

landfills in Switzerland using a deterministic MFA model16. All model parameters were later treated as

71

probability distributions rather than single-value estimates in order to better account for large

72

uncertainty in NM production volumes and behavior17,18. The probabilistic approach was then used to

73

model the environmental flow of several NMs for the US, Europe and Switzerland17. MFA models have

74

also been applied recently at regional scales 19 .

75

MFAs spurred early research into the life cycle of NMs in the environment by identifying sewage

76

treatment plants, biosolids, landfills, and incinerators as key intermediaries between the usage phase of

77

nano-enabled products and the environment. They have provoked the risk community to ask if risk

78

assessment methods (both for hazard and exposure) developed for other pollutants can be directly

79

applied to NMs. They have highlighted ongoing uncertainties in the estimation of production volumes

80

and emissions and have been used to rank the environmental risks from NMs. They have also provided

81

provisional quantitative estimates of environmental concentrations, albeit with large uncertainties and

82

limited spatial resolution. Because they are simple, they accommodate probabilistic or statistical

83

methods such as Monte Carlo simulation more easily than other model types. Until data on NM

84

production volumes and environmental releases become available or analytical methods are developed

85

and applied, estimates of environmental emissions from MFAs will continue to be used in process-based

86

environmental fate models such as those described below (e.g., 8,10,21).

87

However, MFAs as they are currently applied to NMs lack spatial resolution and thus are not the

88

most appropriate tool for predicting environmental concentrations. Experimental research and

89

heteroaggregation models show that current generation NMs typically associate strongly with solid

90

phases, leading to sedimentation and the accumulation of NMs in sediments at "hot spots" near points

91

of release11,22,23. Thus the nationally or even regionally averaged PECs reported in MFAs have little

92

practical relevance for regulatory purposes. MFA models also rely more extensively on simplifying

93

assumptions than other fate model types. Size, shape, aggregation state, surface coatings, particle

94

chemistry, and phase changes of NMs are generally not treated explicitly, but are implicit in the choice

95

of transfer factors between environmental compartments17,19,20. Recent probabilistic MFAs have

96

included simple estimates of NM mass loss during sewage treatment due to AgNP sulfidation and ZnO

97

dissolution,9 but this modeling framework is not designed to handle the complexities of NM processes in

98

wastewater treatment facilities and environmental media. 3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


99 100

Process-based Environmental Fate and Transport Models of NMs NMs are largely subject to the same fate and transport processes that have been modeled

101

successfully for organic and ionic contaminants, aerosols, sediments, water, and so on in the

102

atmosphere, soils, sediments, and surface waters (advection, diffusion, and transformation,

103

schematically depicted in Figure 1). Existing fate and transport (F&T) modeling frameworks are capable,

104

with some adaptation, of describing all major NM fate processes. However, different F&T models

105

employ different assumptions with respect to model scale and spatial resolution, whether processes are

106

modeled at steady state or treated as time-variable, and whether transformations and

107

heteroaggregation are expressed as dependent on NP properties, environmental conditions, or both.

108

Some models conserve mass, while others conserve particle number. Such assumptions can radically

109

change predicted results.

110

Several researchers have adapted existing mass balance-based fate models developed for organic

111

contaminants in order to assess the fate of NMs. Boxall et al. (2007) were the first to estimate the

112

concentration of NMs in air, soil and water24. Blaser et al. (2008) used a Rhine river model to estimate

113

silver PECs originating from biocidal plastics and fabrics in wastewater treatment plant effluent, surface

114

waters, and sediments25. Gottschalk et al. (2011) estimated environmental concentrations of TiO2, ZnO,

115

and Ag NPs in a spatially resolved probabilistic model of Swiss rivers. Nanomaterial loss from the water

116

column due to heteroaggregation and settling or chemical transformations was handled simply by

117

comparing an optimistic "complete removal" scenario to a conservative "no removal" scenario12. Liu and

118

Cohen (2014) developed a multimedia (atmosphere, soil, surface water, biota, and sediment) model for

119

NMs based on the fugacity approach developed for organic contaminants. They adapted the model for

120

NMs by binning the NMs by size and using time-independent partitioning ratios for aggregation and

121

attachment of NMs in the different environmental compartments8. NM dissolution was accounted for,

122

but other NM chemical transformations (e.g. sulfidation or interaction with organic matter) and their

123

effect on the pristine NM properties and behavior were not considered.

124

The most recent fate models for NMs have incorporated approaches from colloid science, most

125

particularly kinetic descriptions of heteroaggregation. NMs have been shown to exhibit system and

126

time-dependent heteroaggregation behavior, which challenges the mechanistic foundation26 (but not

127

the immediate practical utility)27 of equilibrium partition coefficients commonly used in fate models of

128

organic compounds. Colloid models, referred to here as "particle transport models" (PTMs), balance

129

particle number rather than mass and are generally mechanistic, meaning that model equations attempt

130

to describe all of the fundamental processes that might govern NM behavior28-30. Empirical and semi4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 18

Page 5 of 18


131

empirical models, in contrast, simplify process descriptions by relying on observed relationships.

132

Although PTMs have been applied extensively to soil systems, little agreement is currently found

133

between these models and experimental data when NMs exhibit non-hyperexponential retention

134

profiles31. A recent analysis of PTMs by Goldberg et al. (2014) finds that simple models can outperform

135

complex alternatives for NMs in soil systems and that multiple PTM alternatives should be considered31.

136

Cornelis (2015) reviewed the three major fate descriptors for NMs in soils (attachment efficiencies,

137

partition coefficients, and retention coefficients) and found all of them lacking, especially partition

138

coefficients.32

139

Heteroaggregation of NMs in soils has not yet been modeled mechanistically in watershed models.

140

Several recent works attempt to scale PTM equations up for use in semi-empirical models of aquatic

141

systems. Arvidsson et al. developed a particle transport model for NMs which accounted for

142

homoaggregation and sedimentation of nano-TiO233 in an aqueous suspension. Praetorius et al. adapted

143

the Rhine river model used by Blaser et al. (2008)25 to include the aggregation framework postulated by

144

Arvidsson et al. (2011)33 and Petosa et al. (2010)29. Meesters et al. (2014) developed a mass-based fate

145

model for NMs (SimpleBox4nano) in rivers that used first-order kinetic rates (aggregation, attachment)

146

to track the colloidal behavior of NMs. Heteroaggregation was calculated based on particle collisions

147

and assumed attachment efficiency. Their model framework can also describe dissolution, but the case

148

study presented only considered TiO2, which is largely insoluble.21

149

In surface water models based on PTMs, the major challenge is "scaling up" mechanistic models,

150

since they are computationally demanding and currently impossible to parameterize adequately for

151

complex environments. Praetorius et al. (2014) favor semi-empirical PTMs and attachment

152

efficiencies,27 whereas Dale et al. favor mass balance alternatives that use simple heuristics to describe

153

heteroaggregation until such time as data become available to improve model parameterization and

154

validation26. Quik et al. showed for simple systems that PTMs can be reliably replaced with first-order

155

mass balance alternatives34. In summary, no consensus on model formulation has yet been reached. A

156

great deal of experimental research on heteroaggregation in complex environments, as well as

157

comparative analysis of alternative NM frameworks, is needed to resolve this debate15,26.

158

Several of the current challenges for the modeling community are common to all NM F&T models.

159

Spatially resolved mechanistic (F&T) models can provide better estimates of NM environmental

160

concentrations than MFAs because they explicitly model relevant environmental processes at a higher

161

spatial resolution than MFAs (river segments as opposed to "all surface water"). However, many F&T

162

models (especially multimedia box models) similarly lack adequate spatial resolution for identifying 5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


163

areas of enhanced accumulation, and still require estimates of sources of NMs often predicted using

164

MFA models. Also, the preponderance of recent NM fate models have assumed steady state conditions

165

and therefore cannot capture time varying effects such as seasonal trends or flow-dependent patterns

166

of sediment accumulation and scour. The development of dynamic models to study the impact of

167

temporal variation on NM fate is likely to be valuable in understanding the behavior of NMs in large

168

scale (e.g. watershed scale) simulations.

169

Modelers have been slow to adopt the most recent research on NM chemical reaction kinetics, even

170

though dissolution rates and other transformations rates have been published recently for several

171

reactive metal and metal oxide NPs including Ag and ZnO NPs. These allow parameterization of even

172

second-order (e.g., sulfide or oxygen-dependent) reactions and non-linear kinetics such as surface

173

passivation during sulfidation (e.g., 35-43). Indeed, no large-scale NM fate models to date have explored

174

transformations beyond simple first-order descriptions of NP dissolution. Similarly, many models do not

175

track dissolution by-products (metal ions) and their speciation, even though the generation of toxic

176

dissolved ions is a primary source of reactive metal and metal oxide NP ecotoxicity44. Dale et al. (2013)

177

adapted a one-dimensional sediment diagenetic model45 to account for sulfidation and oxidative

178

dissolution of silver NPs in sediments and speciation of resulting Ag ions as a function of dissolved

179

oxygen, sulfide, and temperature13. The model was used to examine the persistence of NMs in the

180

sediments and the system properties controlling Ag ion efflux from the sediment to the water column.

181

There are no inherent scale-up issues prohibiting the development of large-scale models implementing

182

such system-dependent chemical transformations. In spite of existing uncertainties surrounding reaction

183

rates, it is better to postulate flawed kinetic models than to ignore the transformations of highly reactive

184

particles (e.g., Ag NPs, ZnO NPs, CuO NPs) entirely.

185 186

Experimental research underpinning NM fate modeling

187

Fundamental research is still needed to determine model structure and parameter values.

188

As a result of over a decade of research into NM fate and effects, it is now relatively straightforward

189

to identify processes affecting NM fate and anticipate the impact of various particle properties and

190

environmental conditions on NM fate. However, experimental research is still needed to prioritize and

191

quantify observed relationships in order to determine model structure and input values. For model

192

development, fundamental research is still badly needed in the following areas:

193


Page 6 of 18

Page 7 of 18


194

(1) Identification of the key physicochemical properties of NPs and environmental conditions that

195

impact NP fate and transport in the environment: Molecular and ionic contaminants can be

196

characterized solely by their chemical identities. In contrast, even NPs with the same chemical

197

identity may exhibit different sizes, shapes, crystallinities, surface coatings, etc., and these

198

differences will affect NP behavior. Similarly, environmental fate can be affected by pH, natural

199

organic matter, dissolved oxygen, ionic strength, and so on46,47. Models may be extremely sensitive

200

to some of these factors but insensitive to others. Modeling efforts at large scales require an

201

objective consensus on which NP properties, environmental properties, and fate and transport

202

processes are needed to assess environmental fate of NMs and which can be safely disregarded.

203

This requires close coordination between modelers and experimentalists. For example, there is

204

increasing consensus that homoaggregation can be safely ignored in environmental media

205

models10,21. Coupled with experimental research, side-by-side comparisons of alternate modeling

206

frameworks and sensitivity and uncertainty analysis will enable modelers to identify the major

207

drivers of NM fate and to determine which simplifying assumptions can be made safely at various

208

scales and which cannot.

209 210

(2) Quantification of reaction rates and heteroaggregation rates in a manner that reflects their

211

dependence on NM properties and environmental conditions. Determining rates of

212

heteroaggregation or chemical transformations is challenging for many reasons: (i) Rates depend

213

not only on the NM intrinsic properties, but also the chemistry of the environment in which NMs

214

occur, both of which are highly variable. (ii) Several NM transformation processes are

215

interdependent48. For instance, aggregation of NMs may slow down their dissolution due to the

216

decrease in the total surface area exposed to the surrounding environment49, with greater effects

217

on compact aggregates. (iii) Many NMs transform to new entities or partially new entities that can

218

retain some of the properties of the pristine NMs14,42, with the transformation rates of the partially

219

transformed NMs being intermediate between pristine and fully transformed NMs. (iv) Simple

220

laboratory systems have not captured behaviors such as disaggregation of heteroaggregates under

221

changing environmental conditions or reaction rate modification by microbes (such as has been

222

postulated for the oxidation of sulfide in metal sulfides formed by NP oxidation13, 47).

223

Most of the research on NP aggregation performed to date has focused on

224

homoaggregation in simple electrolyte solutions.50 The impact of natural organic matter (NOM) has

225

been investigated widely in generally simple solutions, but the impact of more polydispersed and 7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


226

heterogeneous NOM or natural sediments has been rarely investigated. Similarly, the impacts of

227

ionic strength, heterogeneities in natural sediment properties (e.g., size, geochemical identity),

228

NOM types, NM surface coatings, and NM type on heteroaggregation behavior are not yet

229

understood in sufficient detail to be modeled.

230

For inclusion in models, relationships between NM properties, environmental properties, and

231

behavior must be quantified rather than simply observed. This will require assays that are well-

232

controlled but that contain sufficient complexity to capture environmental behaviors. In particular,

233

they can be used to describe rates as a function of environmental parameters and NM properties,

234

both to determine the choice of model inputs and their values, and to determine the functional

235

form of rate equations.

236 237

(3) Finally, we note an ongoing need for further research into the form and (if possible)

238

concentration of NPs within wastewater effluent and biosolids (e.g.,51,52) for use in realistic model

239

scenarios.

240 241

Field and mesocosm-scale data are still needed to calibrate and validate models

242

Models used to estimate PECs of conventional pollutants are calibrated and validated by field

243

and/or laboratory observations.4 This is not generally possible for NMs, since current NM loadings are

244

poorly quantified and detection of NMs in complex environmental media is difficult to impossible.

245

Absence of data for calibrating and validating NM fate models is the biggest obstacle to obtaining

246

accurate predictions of environmental NM concentrations and to confidence that NM fate models are

247

predictive as well as descriptive.7,53 That said, models have many uses (noted previously) and can often

248

provide insights even without complete model calibration and validation. Progress in NM risk

249

assessment modeling will be facilitated by in situ measurement of NM environmental concentrations,

250

forms, and transformations. Data collection, itself, would be facilitated with the development of

251

analytical tools that can quantify NM concentration and speciation at environmentally relevant

252

concentrations, and the development of NM-specific sample extraction protocols from environmentally

253

complex samples6,54,55.

254

We note finally that F&T models only predict exposures. To determine risk, a function of both

255

hazard and exposure, toxicology studies are needed that consider all relevant NP transformation states

256

(as opposed to the current focus on toxicity of pristine NPs).


Page 8 of 18

Page 9 of 18


257

Table 1 summarizes our recommendations for possible enhancements of next-generation NM fate

258

and transport models. Experimental research and data collection are critically needed alongside model

259

development to facilitate these improvements.

260 261 262

Conclusion Although there are ongoing challenges, the NM fate modeling field has evolved in the direction

263

of better environmental and NM chemistry and better descriptions of particle physics. Existing models

264

tend to focus on one or the other, but the next generation will probably incorporate both. The field has

265

also moved from steady state box models to spatially resolved dynamic models, the latter being better

266

suited for identifying risks and evaluating management strategies. Given the evolving state of the

267

science, predicted environmental concentrations from NM fate models of any type must currently be

268

viewed as merely suggestive. However, as frameworks improve and data limitations decrease, the

269

predictive performance of NM fate models could become a valid basis for regulatory decision-making.

270

To date, attention in the NM modeling community has mainly focused on three processes:

271

heteroaggregation, dissolution, and sedimentation. Model formulations describing these three

272

processes have been relatively simple thus far, since data were not previously available to allow model

273

parameterization (e.g. reaction rates and attachment efficiencies). However, NM fate models are

274

developing rapidly. Many other processes, such as disaggregation, resuspension, and reactions with

275

ligands such as NOM, sulfide, phosphate, and chloride are likely to also be considered in the near future,

276

as will be the fate of NM transformation products, which can also have significant environmental

277

impacts. The impact of environmental conditions such as pH, temperature, oxygen or sulfide availability,

278

ionic strength, and natural colloid properties on rates of transformation and heteroaggregation is

279

important, but difficult to quantify at present and rarely modeled as temporally-variable, or spatially-

280

variable, when, in fact, it is always both. This is a major impediment to environmental realism in

281

modeling NP fate and transport. Lastly, the role of surface coatings and NOM on NM fate is not currently

282

understood well enough to be modeled.

283

NM models are evolving to reflect the dynamic and increasingly quantitative state of the science

284

surrounding NM behaviors. These models will better address key NM-specific behaviors, including

285

heteroaggregation and surface area-dependent chemical transformations. They will have improved

286

spatial and temporal resolution. They will be able to handle a greater range of NM types including non-

287

metallic and hybrid NMs56,57, and also other environmental systems including estuarine and coastal 9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


288

environments, and relevant engineered systems, such as landfills and wastewater treatment plants. It

289

may take another generation or more before these models can credibly interface with NM

290

bioaccumulation and trophic transfer models, which are being developed in parallel, but this too is

291

expected. Such efforts, and discussions within the scientific community, should contribute to the

292

development of an acceptable minimum set of principles for modeling NM fate in the aquatic

293

environment in the not-distant future.

294

Though lack of calibration and validation data is a persistent issue, and though the level of detail

295

required to capture all the important features of the fate of NMs in the environment is still debated,

296

significant strides have been made, with each increment adding to the diversity of questions that the

297

models can address and improving confidence in the results.

298 299

Acknowledgements

300

This work was supported by nanoBEE (UK Natural Environmental Research Council, NE/H013148/1),

301

Transatlantic Initiative for Nanotechnology and the Environment (TINE), ModNanoTox (European Union

302

Framework Program VII, NMP-2010-EU-USA), MARINA (European Union Framework Program VII,

303

263215), the US EPA Science to Achieve Results program (R834574), the National Science Foundation

304

(NSF) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under NSF Cooperative Agreement EF-

305

0830093/EF-1266252, the SmartState Center for Environmental Nanoscience and Risk (CENR) at the

306

University of South Carolina, and the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology

307

(CEINT). ALD would like to acknowledge the Philip and Marsha Dowd-Institute for Complex Engineered

308

Systems (ICES) Engineering Fellowship and the EPA STAR Fellowship program for additional financial

309

support. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of

310

the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the EPA. This work has not been

311

subjected to EPA review and no official endorsement should be inferred.

312 313


Page 10 of 18

Page 11 of 18

314


References

315 316 317

1. Johnston, J. M.; Lowry, M.; Beaulieu, S.; Bowles, E., State-of-the-science report on predictive models and modeling approaches for characterizing and evaluating exposure to nanomaterials; EPA/600/R-10/129; 2010.

318 319

2. Kaiser, D. L.; Standridge, S.; Friedersdorf, L.; Geraci, C. L.; Kronz, F.; Meador, M. A.; Pate, B. D.; Rudnitsky, R. G.; Sloter, L. E.; Stepp, D. M., National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan; 2014.

320 321 322

3. OECD Co-operation on risk assessment: prioritisation of important issues on risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials- final report; ENV/JM/MONO(2013)18; Environment Directorate. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT: 2014.

323 324

4. Ramaswami, A.; Milford, J. B.; Small, M. J., Integrated environmental modeling: pollutant transport, fate, and risk in the environment. 1 ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY: 2005.

325 326

5. Schwarzenbach, R. P.; Gschwend, P. M.; Imboden, D. M., Environmental organic chemistry. Wiley-Interscience: 2005.

327 328 329 330

6. von der Kammer, F.; Ferguson, P. L.; Holden, P. A.; Masion, A.; Rogers, K. R.; Klaine, S. J.; Koelmans, A. A.; Horne, N.; Unrine, J. M., Analysis of engineered nanomaterials in complex matrices (environment and biota): General considerations and conceptual case studies. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, 31 (1), 32-49.

331 332

7. Gottschalk, F.; Sun, T.; Nowack, B., Environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials: Review of modeling and analytical studies. Environmental Pollution. 2013, 181 (0), 287-300.

333 334

8. Liu, H. H.; Cohen, Y., Multimedia Environmental Distribution of Engineered Nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (6), 3281-3292.

335 336

9. Sun, T. Y.; Gottschalk, F.; Hungerbühler, K.; Nowack, B., Comprehensive probabilistic modelling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 185 69-76.

337 338 339

10. Praetorius, A.; Scheringer, M.; Hungerbühler, K., Development of Environmental Fate Models for Engineered Nanoparticles: A Case Study of TiO2 Nanoparticles in the Rhine River. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (12), 6705-6713.

340 341

11. Therezien, M.; Thill, A.; Wiesner, M. R., Importance of heterogeneous aggregation for NP fate in natural and engineered systems. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2014, 485-486 (0), 309-318.

342 343 344

12. Gottschalk, F.; Ort, C.; Scholz, R. W.; Nowack, B., Engineered nanomaterials in rivers - Exposure scenarios for Switzerland at high spatial and temporal resolution. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159 (12), 34393445.

345 346

13. Dale, A. L.; Lowry, G. V.; Casman, E. A., Modeling nanosilver transformations in freshwater sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (22), 12920-12928. 11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


347 348

14. Lowry, G. V.; Gregory, K. B.; Apte, S. C.; Lead, J. R., Transformations of Nanomaterials in the Environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (13), 6893-6899.

349 350

15. Scheringer, M., Praetorius, A., and Goldberg, E. S., Environmental Fate and Exposure Modeling of Nanomaterials. In Frontiers of Nanoscience, Nanoscience and the Environment, (7), 89-125. 2014.

351 352

16. Mueller, N. C.; Nowack, B., Exposure Modeling of Engineered Nanoparticles in the Environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42 (12), 4447-4453.

353 354 355

17. Gottschalk, F.; Sonderer, T.; Scholz, R. W.; Nowack, B., Modeled Environmental Concentrations of Engineered Nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, Fullerenes) for Different Regions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (24), 9216-9222.

356 357 358

18. Gottschalk, F.; Sonderer, T.; Scholz, R. W.; Nowack, B., Possibilities and limitations of modeling environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials by probabilistic material flow analysis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29 (5), 1036-1048.

359 360

19. Keller, A. A.; Lazareva, A., Predicted releases of engineered nanomaterials: From global to regional to local. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2013, 1 (1), 65-70.

361 362

20. Keller, A. A.; McFerran, S.; Lazareva, A.; Suh, S., Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials. J. Nanopart. Res. 2013, 15 (6), 1-17.

363 364 365

21. Meesters, J. A. J.; Koelmans, A. A.; Quik, J. T. K.; Hendriks, A. J.; van de Meent, D., Multimedia Modeling of Engineered Nanoparticles with SimpleBox4nano: Model Definition and Evaluation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (10), 5726-5736.

366 367

22. Velzeboer, I.; Quik, J. T. K.; van de Meent, D.; Koelmans, A. A., Rapid settling of nanoparticles due to heteroaggregation with suspended sediment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 33 (8), 1766-1773.

368 369 370 371

23. Lowry, G. V.; Espinasse, B. P.; Badireddy, A. R.; Richardson, C. J.; Reinsch, B. C.; Bryant, L. D.; Bone, A. J.; Deonarine, A.; Chae, S.; Therezien, M.; Colman, B. P.; Hsu-Kim, H.; Bernhardt, E. S.; Matson, C. W.; Wiesner, M. R., Long-Term Transformation and Fate of Manufactured Ag Nanoparticles in a Simulated Large Scale Freshwater Emergent Wetland. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (13), 7027-7036.

372 373 374

24. Boxall, A. B. A.; Chaudhry, Q.; Sinclair, C.; Jones, A.; Aitken, R.; Jefferson, B.; Watts, C., Current and future predicted environmental exposure to engineered nanoparticles. Central Science Laboratory, Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs, London, UK. 2007.

375 376 377

25. Blaser, S. A.; Scheringer, M.; MacLeod, M.; Hungerbühler, K., Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: Contribution of nano-functionalized plastics and textiles. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2008, 390 (2-3), 396-409.

378 379 380

26. Praetorius, A.; Tufenkji, N.; Goss, K. U.; Scheringer, M.; von der Kammer, F.; Elimelech, M., The road to nowhere: equilibrium partition coefficients for nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Nano. 2014, 1 (4), 317-323. 12 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 12 of 18

Page 13 of 18


381 382 383

27. Dale, A. L.; Lowry, G. V.; Casman, E. A., Much ado about α: reframing the debate over appropriate fate descriptors in nanoparticle environmental risk modeling. Environmental Science: Nano. 2015. DOI: 10.1039/C4EN00170B.

384 385

28. Elimelech, M.; Gregory, J.; Jia, X.; Williams, R. A,. Particle deposition and aggregation: Measurement, modeling and simulation., Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford. 1995.

386 387 388

29. Petosa, A. R.; Jaisi, D. P.; Quevedo, I. R.; Elimelech, M.; Tufenkji, N., Aggregation and Deposition of Engineered Nanomaterials in Aquatic Environments: Role of Physicochemical Interactions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (17), 6532-6549.

389 390 391

30. Phenrat, T.; Song, J. E.; Cisneros, C. M.; Schoenfelder, D. P.; Tilton, R. D.; Lowry, G. V., Estimating attachment of nano-and submicrometer-particles coated with organic macromolecules in porous media: development of an empirical model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (12), 4531-4538.

392 393 394

31. Goldberg, E.; Scheringer, M.; Bucheli, T. D.; Hungerbühler, K., Critical Assessment of Models for Transport of Engineered Nanoparticles in Saturated Porous Media. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (21), 12732-12741.

395 396

32. Cornelis, G., Fate descriptors for engineered nanoparticles: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Environmental Science: Nano 2015. DOI: 10.1039/C4EN00122B

397 398 399

33. Arvidsson, R.; Molander, S.; Sandén A.; Hassellöv, M., Challenges in Exposure Modeling of Nanoparticles in Aquatic Environments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 2011, 17 (1), 245-262.

400 401

34. Quik, J. T.; van de Meent, D.; Koelmans, A. A., Simplifying modeling of nanoparticle aggregationsedimentation behavior in environmental systems: A theoretical analysis. Wat. Res. 2014, 62 193-201.

402 403

35. Liu, J.; Hurt, R. H., Ion Release Kinetics and Particle Persistence in Aqueous Nano-Silver Colloids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (6), 2169-2175.

404 405

36. Liu, J.; Sonshine, D. A.; Shervani, S.; Hurt, R. H., Controlled Release of Biologically Active Silver from Nanosilver Surfaces. ACS Nano. 2010, 4 (11), 6903-6913.

406 407

37. Liu, J.; Pennell, K. G.; Hurt, R. H., Kinetics and Mechanisms of Nanosilver Oxysulfidation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (17), 7345-7353.

408 409 410

38. Levard, C.; Reinsch, B. C.; Michel, F. M.; Oumahi, C.; Lowry, G. V.; Brown, G. E., Sulfidation Processes of PVP-Coated Silver Nanoparticles in Aqueous Solution: Impact on Dissolution. Rate Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (12), 5260-5266.

411 412 413

39. Ma, R.; Stegemeier, J.; Levard, C.; Dale, J.; Noack, C. W.; Yang, T.; Brown, G.; Lowry, G., Sulfidation of copper oxide nanoparticles and properties of resulting copper sulfide. Environ. Sci. Nano. 2014, 1 (4), 347-357.



414 415 416

40. Ma, R.; Levard, C. m.; Michel, F. M.; Brown, G. E.; Lowry, G. V., Sulfidation Mechanism for Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and the Effect of Sulfidation on Their Solubility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (6), 2527-2534.

417 418 419

41. Mudunkotuwa, I. A.; Rupasinghe, T.; Wu, C. M.; Grassian, V. H., Dissolution of ZnO Nanoparticles at Circumneutral pH: A Study of Size Effects in the Presence and Absence of Citric Acid. Langmuir. 2011, 28 (1), 396-403.

420 421 422

42. Bian, S. W.; Mudunkotuwa, I. A.; Rupasinghe, T.; Grassian, V. H., Aggregation and Dissolution of 4 nm ZnO Nanoparticles in Aqueous Environments: Influence of pH, Ionic Strength, Size, and Adsorption of Humic Acid. Langmuir. 2011, 27 (10), 6059-6068.

423 424

43. Baalousha, M.; Arkill, K. P.; Romer, I.; Palmer, R. E.; Lead, J. R., Transformations of citrate and Tween coated silver nanoparticles reacted with Na2S. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2015, 502 (0), 344-353.

425 426

44. Maurer-Jones, M. A.; Gunsolus, I. L.; Murphy, C. J.; Haynes, C. L., Toxicity of Engineered Nanoparticles in the Environment. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85 (6), 3036-3049.

427 428

45. Di Toro, D. M.; Mahony, J. D.; Hansen, D. J.; Berry, W., J. A model of the oxidation of iron and cadmium sulfide in sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1996, 15 (12), 2168-2186.

429 430 431

46. Baalousha, M.; Manciulea, A.; Cumberland, S.; Kendall, K.; Lead, J. R., Aggregation and surface properties of iron oxide nanoparticles; influence of pH and natural organic matter. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27 (9), 1875-1882.

432 433

47. Baalousha, M., Aggregation and disaggregation of iron oxide nanoparticles: Influence of particle concentration, pH and natural organic matter. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2009, 407 (6), 2093-2101.

434 435 436

48. Misra, S. K.; Dybowska, A.; Berhanu, D.; Luoma, S. N.; Valsami-Jones, E., The complexity of nanoparticle dissolution and its importance in nanotoxicological studies. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2012, 438 (0), 225-232.

437 438

49. Lin, D.; Tian, X.; Wu, F.; Xing, B., Fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials in the environment. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39 (6), 1896-1908.

439 440 441

50. Baalousha, M.; Nur, Y.; Römer, I.; Tejamaya, M.; Lead, J. R., Effect of monovalent and divalent cations, anions and fulvic acid on aggregation of citrate-coated silver nanoparticles. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2013, 454-455 (0), 119-131.

442 443 444

51. Kaegi, R.; Voegelin, A.; Ort, C.; Sinnet, B.; Thalmann, B.; Krismer, J.; Hagendorfer, H.; Elumelu, M.; Mueller, E., Fate and transformation of silver nanoparticles in urban wastewater systems. Wat. Res. 2013, 47 (12), 3866-3877.

445 446 447

52. Ma, R.; Levard, C.; Judy, J. D.; Unrine, J. M.; Durenkamp, M.; Martin, B.; Jefferson, B.; Lowry, G. V., Fate of zinc oxide and silver nanoparticles in a pilot wastewater treatment plant and in processed biosolids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (1), 104-112. 14 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 14 of 18

Page 15 of 18


448 449 450

53. Gottschalk, F.; Kost, E.; Nowack, B., Engineered nanomaterials in water and soils: A risk quantification based on probabilistic exposure and effect modeling. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32 (6), 1278-1287.

451 452 453

54. Kookana, R. S.; Boxall, A. B.; Reeves, P.; Ashauer, R.; Beulke, S.; Chaudhry, Q.; Cornelis, G.; Fernandes, P. T.; Gan, J. J.; Kah, M., Nanopesticides: Guiding principles for regulatory evaluation of environmental risks. J. Agricult. Food Chem. 2014, 62 (19), 4227-4240.

454 455 456

55. Baalousha, M.; Prasad, A.; Lead, J. R., Quantitative measurement of the nanoparticle size and number concentration from liquid suspensions by atomic force microscopy. Environ. Sci. Process. Impact. 2014, 16 (6), 1338-1347.

457 458 459

56. Saleh, N. B.; Afrooz, A. R. M.; Bisesi Jr, J. H.; Aich, N.; Plazas-Tuttle, J.; Sabo-Attwood, T., Emergent Properties and Toxicological Considerations for Nanohybrid Materials in Aquatic Systems. Nanomaterials. 2014, 4 (2), 372-407.

460 461

57. Aich, N.; Plazas-Tuttle, J.; Lead, J.; Saleh, N., A Critical Review of Nanohybrids: Synthesis, Applications, and Environmental Implications. Environ. Chem. 2014, 11 (6), 609-623.

462 463 464



465 466

Figure 1. Schematic representation of sources and flow of nanomaterials in the environment, and the key

467

processes determining the fate and behavior of nanomaterials in the aquatic environments.

468 469


Page 16 of 18

Page 17 of 18

470 471


Table 1. Proposed next-generation enhancements of nanoparticle F&T models possible through collaboration of modelers and experimentalists Improvements to ... Examples Descriptions of NP heteroaggregation and transport

1. Apply kinetic descriptors of heteroaggregation rather than equilibrium descriptors 2. Model heteroaggregate break-up/disaggregation 3. Express heteroaggregation as a function of environmental drivers (e.g. natural organic matter, pH, ionic strength) and NP properties (e.g., particle size, engineered coating, pHPZC) 4. Include bedload shift and other relevant sediment transport processes in stream models

Descriptions of reactive NP chemistry

5. Express reaction rates as a function of environmental drivers (e.g., oxygen, temperature, pH) and particle properties (e.g., surface area, size) 6. Express rates as a function of particle transformations (e.g., NP dissolution rate as a function of particle sulfidation) 7. Determine rates for both heteroaggregated and unaggregated nanoparticles 8. Determine rates in complex environmental media (e.g., microbially-mediated oxidation rates) 9. Track formation and speciation of reaction by-products (e.g., metal ions) in models 10.

Model spatial resolution

11. Shift from national / regional scale models to watershed scale and smaller to predict local accumulation and effects, facilitate policy analysis 12. Parameterize models with site-specific data (e.g., environmental emissions, stream flow and sediment transport parameters, dissolved oxygen, sulfide, pH, organic carbon)

Model temporal resolution

13. Consider the influence of system hydrology/stream flow dynamics on NP fate 14. Consider seasonal trends

Sensitivity analyses to allow simplification of model structure

Selection of model boundaries

15. Identify NP properties and environmental conditions that are dominant/irrelevant in complex systems for exclusion from models 16. Compare the influence of NP properties to that of environmental drivers to determine whether one or the other can be ignored in complex systems 17. Determine the level of detail needed to model heteroaggregation with natural colloids (NCs) (How many NC size classes to model? Should NC geochemical identity be accounted for?) 18. Perform comparative analysis of mass-based versus particle number-based (PTM) models 19. Devise first-order alternatives to more complex rate equations, where appropriate 20. Determine whether sources and sinks generally ignored in NP fate models are potentially significant (e.g., incinerators, landfill leachate, crop soil runoff, biouptake and trophic transfer)

Model calibration and validation

21. Develop analytical tools to determine NM concentrations and speciation in complex media at environmentally relevant concentrations 22. Collect relevant data from field and mesocosm-scale studies

Risk assessment

23. Make site-specific estimates of NM concentrations and speciation in wastewater effluent and biosolids to facilitate the estimation of realistic PECs 24. Provide PECs at appropriately fine spatial scale 25. Report uncertainty/variability (e.g., spatiotemporal variation in model results) 26. Perform toxicology on environmentally transformed species at environmentally relevant concentrations to update hazard assessments

472



82x44mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 18 of 18

Modeling Nanomaterial Environmental Fate in ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents