ライフサイエンスコーパス: goethite

1 on on iron (oxy)hydroxides (ferrihydrite and goethite).

2 III) oxide phases (primarily nanoparticulate goethite).

3 nce of Ag, Fe(3)O(4) (Magnetite) and FeO(2) (Goethite).

4 ffect it had on the reactive surface area of goethite.

5 or amounts of Cu associated with jarosite or goethite.

6 ompensated Tc(IV) incorporation scenarios in goethite.

7 A low pH was used to maximize FA coatings on goethite.

8 at organic matter can stabilize sorbed Pu on goethite.

9 e forces of 97 +/- 34 pN between E. coli and goethite.

10 sformation to a U(V) species incorporated in goethite.

11 and tailings together with ferrihydrite and goethite.

12 gradually turns the GR into the end-product goethite.

13 ine ferrihydrite but not to more crystalline goethite.

14 ccelerated transformation of ferrihydrite to goethite.

15 and and 3-4% fine fractions of kaolinite and goethite.

16 ter and higher electron turnover compared to goethite.

17 emains strongly bonded on the sand grains as goethite.

18 sition of EPS before and after adsorption to goethite.

19 ly published data set on U(VI) adsorption to goethite.

20 ter aggregates of Mn-bearing nanoparticulate goethite.

21 0%) of EPS was immobilized via adsorption to goethite.

22 ns (>0.79 wt %) resulted in the formation of goethite.

23 of atom exchange between aqueous Fe(II) and goethite.

24 n whereas orthophosphate remains adsorbed on goethite.

25 duced from the reduction of the two types of goethite.

26 enhancement of U(VI) and phosphate uptake on goethite.

27 ibbsite and nearly 20 per mil in the case of goethite.

28 acilitated transformation of ferrihydrite to goethite.

29 ite to more stable Fe(III) minerals, such as goethite.

30 ccurred as nanogoethite or Al/Si-substituted goethite.

31 e(II) by dissolved oxygen in the presence of goethite (1.9 x 10(-6) L s(-1) m(-2)) was experimentally

32 cer method, we found that Al-substitution in goethite (10%), does, however, significantly decrease th

33 ous-phase As(V) formation in the presence of goethite (12.4 x 10(-5) M s(-1) m(-2)) was significantly

34 lon) was -3.91 per thousand for Fe(II)-doped goethite, -2.11 per thousand for FeS, -2.65 per thousand

35 XAS data revealed that it transformed into goethite (21%) at the lower Fe(II) concentration and int

36 hangeable form (thiol-resin and NOM: 53-58%; goethite: 22-29%).

37 ncentration and into lepidocrocite (73%) and goethite (27%) at the higher Fe(II) concentration.

38 zero charge (9.6-10) of this mineral than of goethite (9.1-9.4), and an additional OA surface complex

39 rosite in the pit sediment do not convert to goethite, a process which would release stored acidity b

40 The HS(-) produced subsequently reduces goethite abiotically.

41 Goethite acted as a cementing agent, holding kaolinite a

42 S enrichment in aggregates of ~400 nm in the goethite adsorbed EPS.

43 cant oxidation of the magnetite to maghemite/goethite: All solid associated Tc remained as Tc(IV).

44 this study, its interactions with synthetic goethite (alpha-FeOOH) and akaganeite (beta-FeOOH) parti

45 Compared to the homogeneous case, goethite (alpha-FeOOH) and hematite (alpha-Fe2O3) increa

46 i)carbonate species at surfaces of nanosized goethite (alpha-FeOOH) and lepidocrocite (gamma-FeOOH) p

47 ilitate electron transfer between Fe(II) and goethite (alpha-FeOOH) in abiotic systems.

48 Goethite (alpha-FeOOH) is an important mineral contribut

49 Goethite (alpha-FeOOH) is dispersed throughout the earth

50 work, both the reactivity and aggregation of goethite (alpha-FeOOH) nanoparticles were quantified in

51 lumequine (FLU), and norfloxacin (NOR), with goethite (alpha-FeOOH) or manganese (Mn) oxide, and thei

52 in the preferential incorporation of U into goethite (alpha-FeOOH) over lepidocrocite (gamma-FeOOH),

53 The intrinsic antiferromagnetic goethite (alpha-FeOOH) shows very low magnetization (M(z

54 showed significantly stronger abilities than goethite (alpha-FeOOH) to catalyze the ClO2 disproportio

55 aculture, Oxolinic acid (OA), to a synthetic goethite (alpha-FeOOH) was examined in the presence of m

56 Spinel (modeled as Fe3O4), goethite (alpha-FeOOH), and feroxyhyte (delta-FeOOH) are

57 te streams, including the iron oxyhydroxide, goethite (alpha-FeOOH), which was experimentally shown t

58 densis can enzymatically reduce S(0) but not goethite (alpha-FeOOH).

59 robenzene reduction rates by Fe(2+) bound to goethite (alpha-FeOOH).

60 e was also transformed relatively rapidly to goethite (alphaFeOOH), with the extent of this transform

61 Results from the current study for As(III)/goethite also were compared to results from a prior stud

62 At circumneutral pH values, goethite, amorphous iron oxide, hematite, iron-coated sa

63 CA model combines an existing U(VI) SCM for goethite and a modified U(VI) SCM for kaolinite along wi

64 wertmannite, retarding its transformation to goethite and allowing its partial persistence over the 4

65 ntify the extent of Fe atom exchange between goethite and aqueous Fe(II) that accounts for different

66 tivate the adsorption of Se(IV) and As(V) if goethite and calcite are sufficiently available in under

67 In fact goethite and calcite, two minerals frequently found in a

68 of ferrous iron oxidation in the presence of goethite and dissolved oxygen was the primary reason for

69 Sorption experiments with synthesized goethite and ferrihydrite revealed a 30-times-higher sor

70 he rapid and complete oxidation of Sn(II) by goethite and formation of Sn(IV) (1)E and (2)C surface c

71 amics by adding (57)Fe(II) to (56)Fe-labeled goethite and gamma-Al2O3 and characterized the resulting

72 ative to oxidation of Fe(II)(aq) alone, both goethite and gamma-Al2O3 surfaces increased Fe(II) oxida

73 we examined the impacts of mineral surfaces (goethite and gamma-Al2O3) and organic matter [Suwannee R

74 ate of 4.8 muM day(-1); rates were less with goethite and hematite (0.66 and 0.71 muM day(-1), respec

75 recently demonstrated Ni(II) cycling through goethite and hematite (adsorbed Ni incorporates into the

76 duction of the thermodynamically more stable goethite and hematite changed from complete and fast to

77 of the Pu(IV) colloids is similar to that of goethite and hematite colloids.

78 Subsequent analyses on mixed goethite and hematite crystallization products (pH 9.5 a

79 d Zn(II) release from Ni- and Zn-substituted goethite and hematite during reaction with Fe(II).

80 and Fe(III)-(oxyhydr)oxide minerals such as goethite and hematite leads to rapid recrystallization m

81 lations imply that thermodynamics controlled goethite and hematite reduction rates.

82 Goethite and hematite showed increased solubility at ari

83 inerals (lepidocrocite, 2-line ferrihydrite, goethite and hematite) over an environmentally relevant

84 Stable phases such as goethite and hematite, however, can undergo reductive re

85 ent work has shown that iron oxides, such as goethite and hematite, may recrystallize in the presence

86 s external, white side with an orange mix of goethite and hematite, was abandoned after breakage at C

87 increased as the particle size decreased for goethite and hematite, while for magnetite, the relative

88 e oxides in the soil were mainly crystalline goethite and hematite, with lesser amounts of poorly cry

89 stallization of Cu-, Co-, and Mn-substituted goethite and hematite.

90 ence of arsenate (As(V)) product adsorbed on goethite and in solution.

91 round F-Area aquifer sediments and reference goethite and kaolinite (major reactive phases of F-Area

92 dsorption ability per unit surface area than goethite and kaolinite at pH </= 4.0.

93 harge, along with quartz and kaolinite, then goethite and kaolinite colloids were mobilized and a sha

94 inite dominate U(VI) adsorption at pH < 4.0, goethite and kaolinite edge sites cocontribute to U(VI)

95 ning the relative surface area abundances of goethite and kaolinite in the fine fractions.

96 ur oxidation products during the reaction of goethite and lepidocrocite with aqueous sulfide at diffe

97 the presence of OM, OM reduced the amount of goethite and magnetite formation and increased the forma

98 ring the transformation of ferrihydrite into goethite and magnetite which we characterized by X-ray d

99 deled with this exercise revealing that less goethite and more lepidocrocite formed than expected.

100 Results show that the concentrations of goethite and redox mediator, and the inoculation cell de

101 O3 favored nano/small particle or disordered goethite and some lepidocrocite; oxidation of Fe(II)aq a

102 n in air, mackinawite was oxidized to mainly goethite and sulfur and about 76% of U(IV) was reoxidize

103 luenced by cation substitution of Al(III) in goethite and the presence of anions such as phosphate, c

104 Mobile colloids were mainly goethite and to a lesser extent kaolinite.

105 race element release from Ni(II)-substituted goethite and Zn(II)-substituted hematite during reaction

106 ubation reaction systems of the "strain S12- goethite" and the "strain S12-AQS" were used to investig

107 rbed on iron oxyhydroxides (ferrihydrite and goethite) and, to a lesser extent, Zn-Al layered double

108 (-1) with ferrihydrite, 8.6 muM day(-1) with goethite, and 8.8 muM day(-1) with hematite.

109 The toxicity of ferrihydrite, goethite, and akaganeite was dependent on aggregate size

110 hite, albite, K-feldspar, muscovite, quartz, goethite, and galena ranged over 13 orders of magnitude.

111 1.08 x 10(+2) L (mol min)(-1) for hematite, goethite, and gamma-alumina, respectively.

112 ntify the extents and rates of ferrihydrite, goethite, and hematite reduction over a range of negativ

113 wo types of serpentines, chlorite, smectite, goethite, and hematite) the isotopic exchange and metal-

114 iogenic UO(2) reoxidation with ferrihydrite, goethite, and hematite.

115 F-Area plume sediments and reference quartz, goethite, and kaolinite.

116 )-containing aquifer minerals: ferrihydrite, goethite, and pyrolusite.

117 H(2)O)(6)(2+), suspensions of Fe(II)-amended goethite, and suspensions of Fe(II)-amended hematite.

118 wo commonly studied iron oxides-hematite and goethite-and aqueous Fe2+ reached thermodynamic equilibr

119 estigated the surface reactions of Sn(II) on goethite as a function of pH and Sn(II) loading under an

120 ch systems, NOM will decrease Pu sorption to goethite at all but particularly low pH conditions.

121 ads to a quantitative release of Fe(II) from goethite at low pH, and to the precipitation of magnetit

122 ely, CA, FA, and HA increased Pu sorption to goethite at pH 3, suggesting ternary complex formation o

123 nge the rates and extent of Pu sorption onto goethite at pH 4.

124 vestigated for Ni adsorption to hematite and goethite at pH 7 in the presence of oxalate.

125 e-dimensional distribution of Fe isotopes in goethite at the sub nm scale.

126 e tested the hypothesis that nanoparticulate goethite becomes less susceptible to Fe(2+)-catalyzed re

127 idation rates regardless of pO2 levels, with goethite being the stronger catalyst.

128 In this study, adsorption to quartz, goethite, birnessite, illite, and aquifer sediments indu

129 substances along with magnetite also led to goethite but no magnetite.

130 rsenite As(III) is significantly adsorbed on goethite, but is partially remobilized by CO2 intrusion.

131 re physically separated from ferrihydrite or goethite by 2 cm.

132 sis of glucose-1-phosphate (G1P) adsorbed on goethite by acid phosphatase (AcPase) can be of the same

133 between aqueous Fe(II) and solid Fe(III) in goethite can occur under wide range of geochemical condi

134 rged quartz sand (QS) and positively charged goethite-coated sand (GQS) to assess the role of chemica

135 Under reducing conditions, goethite commonly coexists with aqueous Fe(II) (Fe(II)(a

136 o amorphous ferrihydrite than to crystalline goethite, comparable to methylated oxyarsenates.

137 r to facilitate formation of ternary Pu-DFOB-goethite complexes.

138 that (57)Fe accumulates in extracted Fe(III) goethite components.

139 ), 10(-9)-10(-10) M (238)Pu, and 0.1 g.L(-1) goethite concentrations, at pH 3, 5, 7, and 9.

140 (V) sorbed to iron hydroxides (ferrihydrite, goethite), confirming a strong statistical correlation b

141 f Fe(III) reduction about 2-fold higher than goethite containing fewer defects.

142 ited evidence for Np(V) incorporation during goethite crystallization at the extreme pH of 13.3.

143 ar-complete reduction of schwertmannite- and goethite-derived Fe(III) as well as solid-phase As(V).

144 t [CO(2)(m)] of soil (oxy)hydroxide minerals goethite, diaspore, and gibbsite.

145 The rate coefficients for goethite dissolution by ligands are closely correlated w

146 Goethite dissolution in the presence of reductant or lig

147 Ascorbate alone does not promote goethite dissolution under oxic conditions due to rapid

148 effect of DFOB and ascorbate on the rate of goethite dissolution was observed (total rates greater t

149 acid (HBED)) and a reductant (ascorbate) in goethite dissolution.

150 ibute to U(VI) adsorption at pH 4.0-6.0, and goethite dominates U(VI) adsorption at pH > 6.0.

151 fluence of particle size and pH on extent of goethite exchange with aqueous Fe(II).

152 Despite approximately 90% of the bulk goethite exchanging at pH 7.5, we found no change in min

153 5 muM H2O2 desorbed far less Pu than in the goethite experiments highlighting the contribution of Fe

154 magnetite suggest that for magnetite, unlike goethite, Fe atom diffusion is a plausible mechanism to

155 ctions in heterogeneous iron systems, namely goethite-Fe(II).

156 We show that the mineral goethite, FeOOH, which exists ubiquitously as 'rust' and

157 Vanadate adsorbed to goethite, ferrihydrite, gibbsite, and/or Fe(III)-natural

158 tch experiments where Pu(IV) was adsorbed to goethite for 21 days at pH 4, 6, and 8, the addition of

159 ows that ferrihydrite is a better proxy than goethite for consistently assessing RSA and R-PO(4).

160 ns At 0.2 mM Fe(II), OM completely inhibited goethite formation and stimulated lepidocrocite formatio

161 s in iron oxide reducibility associated with goethite formation were apparent only at the highest tes

162 dary Fe mineralization pathway by inhibiting goethite formation, reducing the amount of magnetite for

163 d formation of goethite, where the amount of goethite formed correlated with observed enhanced growth

164 e extent of atom exchange between Fe(II) and goethite (from 43 to 12%) over a month's time.

165 by the extent of exposed surface area of the goethite grains to the exterior of the mineral coatings.

166 ptake of Fe(II) from solution lead to higher goethite growth rates.

167 Under all conditions, oxidative goethite growth was demonstrated through X-ray diffracti

168 and dissolution with lepidocrocite (Lp) and goethite (Gt) in the presence of 20 or 50 muM desferriox

169 In the goethite/H(2)O(2) system, the overall *OH yield, defined

170 In the background pH of ~6.0, goethite had a positive surface charge, whereas quartz (

171 higher than those reported for reduction of goethite, hematite, and lepidocrocite by S. oneidensis,

172 Lepidocrotite and goethite, identified by synchrotron X-ray diffraction (X

173 urements of reactive iron species present at goethite in aqueous systems (EH,Fe-GT approximately -170

174 se data demonstrate that oxidative growth of goethite in aqueous systems is dependent on major ground

175 isotope fractionation of Hg(II) sorption to goethite in batch systems under different experimental c

176 modelling of Fe(II)/Fe(III) surface sites at goethite in response to oxidation/reduction events.

177 e photochemistry of an aqueous suspension of goethite in the presence of arsenite (As(III)) was inves

178 ide minerals, but it was most pronounced for goethite in the presence of HBED.

179 cts of FA on Pu(IV) sorption/desorption onto goethite in two scenarios: when FA was (1) initially pre

180 ine the adhesion forces between bacteria and goethite in water and to gain insight into the nanoscale

181 isotope fractionation of Hg(II) sorption to goethite is controlled by an equilibrium isotope effect

182 When goethite is exposed to aqueous Fe(2+), rapid and extensi

183 isotherms, demonstrating that Pu sorption to goethite is not concentration-dependent across this conc

184 Co and Mn release from goethite is predicted well using a second-order kinetic

185 uction of U(VI) by Fe(II) in the presence of goethite is thermodynamically favorable.

186 ously invoked to explain Fe atom exchange in goethite, is a possible mechanism, but if it is occurrin

187 xposed to the soil minerals montmorillonite, goethite, kaolinite, and birnessite at pH 5 and pH 7 for

188 ual grasses) to five minerals (ferrihydrite, goethite, kaolinite, illite, montmorillonite) using the

189 The new ternary (quartz/goethite/kaolinite) CA-SCM provides excellent prediction

190 r modeling results indicate that the binary (goethite/kaolinite) CA-SCM under-predicts U(VI) adsorpti

191 Reaction of EPS with goethite led to a preferential adsorption of lipids and

192 suspensions containing 2-line ferrihydrite, goethite, mackinawite, or pyrite.

193 e of the crystalline Fe(III) (oxyhydr)oxides goethite, magnetite and hematite added as potential nucl

194 containing significant Fe and Mn (hematite, goethite, magnetite, and groutite) adsorbed Pu(V) faster

195 ite and a range of other minerals (hematite, goethite, magnetite, groutite, corundum, diaspore, and q

196 issolution and heterogeneous catalysis while goethite mainly caused catalytic oxidation.

197 tter complexes and V(4+) in the structure of goethite may be present, but cannot unequivocally be dis

198 tion and characterization of the AE front in goethite microrods by 3D atom probe tomography (APT).

199 2 can affect the stability of Pu adsorbed to goethite, montmorillonite, and quartz across a wide rang

200 Here, we further investigated if and how goethite morphology and aggregation behavior changed tem

201 The temporal changes in goethite morphology could not be completely explained by

202 ron oxides, particularly naturally occurring goethite nanoparticles (GNPs) because of their nanoscale

203 compare histograms of lengths and widths of goethite nanoparticles as a function of varied solution

204 e results demonstrate that the morphology of goethite nanoparticles does change during recrystallizat

205 grees C) adsorption at surfaces of synthetic goethite nanoparticles reacted with and without HCl and

206 benzene (4-ClNB) by Fe(II) adsorbed onto the goethite nanoparticles with and without added humic subs

207 osed to TiO2 (titania) and/or alpha-FeO(OH) (goethite) nanoparticles at various incubation times (4 o

208 eport the rational synthesis of alpha-FeOOH (goethite) nanowires following a dislocation-driven mecha

209 ious interpretation, substantial exchange of goethite occurred at pH 7.5 ( approximately 90%) and we

210 Partial transformation of schwertmannite to goethite occurred in the zero and low PO4(3-) treatments

211 f U(VI) to U(V) by Fe(II) in the presence of goethite only.

212 e found to be formed either by excitation of goethite or clays.

213 sence of gamma-Al2O3, but either crystalline goethite or ferrihydrite when goethite was present.

214 did not increase the extent of reaction with goethite or hematite, with no reoxidation in this case.

215 eral additions as well as in the presence of goethite or hematite.

216 e particles form an overlayer of crystalline goethite or lepidocrocite with porous structure.

217 rihydrite into thermodynamically more stable goethite or magnetite.

218 solid-bound Hg(II) (carboxyl-/thiol-resin or goethite) over 30 days under constant conditions (pH, Hg

219 efficiency was much higher at the surface of goethite owing to its photocatalytic activity through th

220 wed nitrobenzene reduction rates by inducing goethite particle aggregation, as evidenced by surface c

221 ich could lead to the evolving reactivity of goethite particles in natural environments.

222 Over the course of 30 days, the goethite particles substantially recrystallized, and the

223 recipitate preventing incorporation into the goethite particles.

224 K edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS), goethite phase transformations were investigated by high

225 d the (55)Fe partitioning in the aqueous and goethite phases over 60 days.

226 portant sorbent for U(VI) at pH < 4.0, while goethite plays a major role at pH > 4.0.

227 In this work, Fe(II)/goethite reactivity toward 4-chloronitrobenzene (4-ClNB)

228 ll cases, humic substances suppressed Fe(II)-goethite reactivity.

229 days than between 0 and 30 days, suggesting goethite recrystallization slowed with time.

230 a with a box model indicated that 17% of the goethite recrystallized after 30 days of reaction, and a

231 values of 768 +/- 1 mV for the aqueous Fe2+-goethite redox couple and 769 +/- 2 mV for the aqueous F

232 QS" were used to investigate the dynamics of goethite reduction and AQS redox transformation.

233 aquinone-2-sulfonate (AQS), during microbial goethite reduction by Shewanella decolorationis S12, a d

234 r, whether defects also facilitate microbial goethite reduction in anoxic environments where electron

235 all affect the characteristics of microbial goethite reduction, kinetic transformation between oxidi

236 in coincided with increased crystallinity of goethite, relative to the oxic layers.

237 mation from amorphous iron (oxy)hydroxide to goethite, resulting in pyrite surface passivation.

238 SEM-EDS measurements of SO2-exposed goethite revealed small amounts of sulfur uptake on the

239 in the cementitious high pH plume front, the goethite reversed to a negative charge, along with quart

240 the scanner has been employed to investigate goethite spherules from the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundar

241 e process did not cause major changes to the goethite structure or morphology.

242 d bonds surrounding Fe(III)-vacancies in the goethite structure.

243 Incorporation of Al into goethite substantially decreases the amount of iron atom

244 the reported reductive dissolution rates of goethite, suggesting Fe(II) release is the rate-limiting

245 The goethite support acts as a more efficient catalyst for t

246 Interaction between the goethite surface and 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid

247 eling both a solvated and a protonated (110) goethite surface provided a major breakthrough in the ac

248 ndent enrichment of light Hg isotopes on the goethite surface relative to dissolved Hg (epsilon(202)H

249 centered cubic (bcc) Pu4O7 structure on the goethite surface, confirming that reduction of Pu(V) had

250 at Pu(V) is rapidly reduced to Pu(IV) on the goethite surface.

251 As(V) product was largely restricted to the goethite surface.

252 controlled the retention of MWCNTs, although goethite surfaces played an important secondary role.

253 Goethite surfaces promoted the formation of crystalline

254 l mechanisms of thin water film formation at goethite surfaces subjected to variations in water vapor

255 llonite, but were more tightly adsorbed onto goethite surfaces.

256 Wet chemistry data from U(VI)-equilibrated goethite suspensions at pH 4-7 in the presence of ~100 m

257 opes to differentiate microbial reduction of goethite synthesized by hydrolysis from reduction of goe

258 The results indicate that in simple Pu-NOM-goethite ternary batch systems, NOM will decrease Pu sor

259 synthesized by hydrolysis from reduction of goethite that was further hydrothermally treated to remo

260 In the presence of phosphate and goethite, the relative amounts of precipitated and adsor

261 The decreasing susceptibility of goethite to recrystallize as it reacted with aqueous Fe(

262 contributions of quartz-sand, kaolinite, and goethite to U(VI) adsorption and the potential influence

263 Irradiation of the arsenite/goethite under conditions where dissolved oxygen was pre

264 I) reduction was driven by the production of goethite under the conditions used in these studies.

265 ansfer between aqueous Fe(II) and Fe(III) in goethite under the conditions we studied.

266 lite, and its reaction with ferrihydrite and goethite under variable pH and oxygen concentrations.

267 chanisms of interaction among "quinone-DIRB- goethite" under biotic/abiotic driven.

268 isotopic tracer experiments have shown that goethite undergoes rapid recrystallization without phase

269 ccelerated transformation of ferrihydrite to goethite, via lepidocrocite, for a range of pH and Fe(II

270 stallization of ferrihydrite to hematite and goethite was explored in a range of systems.

271 )-spiked microbial growth medium showed that goethite was formed in the absence of mineral additions

272 At 2 mM Fe(II), whereas goethite was formed in the presence of OM, OM reduced th

273 Pu(IV) and Pu(V) sorption to goethite was investigated over a concentration range of

274 s a function of dissolved Fe(II) where EH of goethite was lower than ferrihydrite at any given Fe(II)

275 er crystalline goethite or ferrihydrite when goethite was present.

276 umic acid (HA) on plutonium (Pu) sorption to goethite was studied as a function of organic carbon con

277 surface of clays (kaolinite, bentonite) and goethite was studied using Suntest setup (lambda > 300 n

278 Goethite was the dominant mineral phase in our IP.

279 uced oxidation of As(III) in the presence of goethite, was heterogeneously oxidized to ferric iron by

280 nium uptake in the presence of phosphate and goethite were examined by extended X-ray absorption fine

281 The goethites were reduced by Geobacter sulfurreducens in th

282 owed a diatom-induced increased formation of goethite, where the amount of goethite formed correlated

283 elease is more pronounced from hematite than goethite, whereas the opposite trend occurs for Ni.

284 n (birnessite) and Fe minerals (jarosite and goethite), which together accounted for nearly 80% of th

285 ng the incorporation mechanism for Tc(IV) in goethite, which has implications for predicting the long

286 t as ferrihydrite with a much less amount of goethite, which preferentially occurred as nanogoethite

287 he rapid transformation of schwertmannite to goethite, which thereby decreases the bioavailability of

288 that bicarbonate is the dominant species on goethite, while a mixture of bicarbonate and carbonate s

289 rfaces promoted the formation of crystalline goethite, while gamma-Al2O3 favored nano/small particle

290 ed the formation of magnetite in addition to goethite, while the addition of humic substances along w

291 Here, we reacted nanoparticulate goethite with (57)Fe-enriched Fe(II)(aq) and used atom p

292 To test this, we reacted nanoparticulate goethite with aqueous Fe(2+) at pH 7.5 over 30 days and

293 t there is a suppression of the reduction of goethite with fewer defects in favor of the reduction of

294 hat a gradient of (57)Fe develops within the goethite with more accumulation of (57)Fe occurring in t

295 When reduced separately, goethite with more defects has an initial rate of Fe(III

296 itial rate of reduction is 6-fold higher for goethite with more defects.

297 oved predictions of the reactivity of Fe(II)-goethite with pollutants based on properties of the humi

298 ry, prior to the subsequent precipitation of goethite within 24 h.

299 was transient with readsorption of the Pu to goethite within 30 days.

300 d that Fe(2+)-catalyzed recrystallization of goethite would not result in changes to individual parti