ライフサイエンスコーパス: goethite

1 III) oxide phases (primarily nanoparticulate goethite).

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

3 at organic matter can stabilize sorbed Pu on goethite.

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

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

6 and tailings together with ferrihydrite and goethite.

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

8 ine ferrihydrite but not to more crystalline goethite.

9 ccelerated transformation of ferrihydrite to goethite.

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

11 ter and higher electron turnover compared to goethite.

12 emains strongly bonded on the sand grains as goethite.

13 sition of EPS before and after adsorption to goethite.

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

15 ter aggregates of Mn-bearing nanoparticulate goethite.

16 0%) of EPS was immobilized via adsorption to goethite.

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

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

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

20 n whereas orthophosphate remains adsorbed on goethite.

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

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

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

24 acilitated transformation of ferrihydrite to goethite.

25 or amounts of Cu associated with jarosite or goethite.

26 ompensated Tc(IV) incorporation scenarios in goethite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37 Goethite acted as a cementing agent, holding kaolinite a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 dissimilatory metal-reducing bacterium) and goethite (alpha-FeOOH), both commonly found in Earth nea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

72 Goethite and hematite showed increased solubility at ari

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

98 1.08 x 10(+2) L (mol min)(-1) for hematite, goethite, and gamma-alumina, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

122 ), 10(-9)-10(-10) M (238)Pu, and 0.1 g.L(-1) goethite concentrations, at pH 3, 5, 7, and 9.

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

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

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

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

127 n function ratio of CO(2)(m)(B) structure in goethite differs from CO(2)(g) by <1 per mil.

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

129 Goethite dissolution in the presence of reductant or lig

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

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

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

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

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

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

136 5 muM H2O2 desorbed far less Pu than in the goethite experiments highlighting the contribution of Fe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

150 A fragment model for goethite has been integrated into a fully atomistic memb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

176 he adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to the goethite mineral is investigated using classical molecul

177 2 can affect the stability of Pu adsorbed to goethite, montmorillonite, and quartz across a wide rang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

199 recipitate preventing incorporation into the goethite particles.

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

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

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

203 that the affinity between S. oneidensis and goethite rapidly increases by two to five times under an

204 tion of ferric (Fe3+)-rich minerals, such as goethite, rather than siderite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

226 eidensis and specifically interacts with the goethite surface to facilitate the electron transfer pro

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

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

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

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

231 Goethite surfaces promoted the formation of crystalline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

251 er crystalline goethite or ferrihydrite when goethite was present.

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

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

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

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

256 Li+ positions of Li+-sorbed and exchanged goethite were reanalyzed on the basis of the correlation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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