Advertisement

Assessing titanium dioxide nanoparticles transport models by Bayesian uncertainty analysis

  • Jin Liu
  • Xiankui Zeng
  • Jichun Wu
  • Xiuyu Liang
  • Yuanyuan Sun
  • Hongbin Zhan
Original Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

With the rapid growth of nanotechnology industry, nanomaterials as an emerging pollutant are gradually released into subsurface environments and become great concerns. Simulating the transport of nanomaterials in groundwater is an important approach to investigate and predict the impact of nanomaterials on subsurface environments. Currently, a number of transport models are used to simulate this process, and the outputs of these models could be inconsistent with each other due to conceptual model uncertainty. However, the performances of different models on simulating nanoparticles transport in groundwater are rarely assessed in Bayesian framework in previous researches, and these will be the primary objective of this study. A porous media column experiment is conducted to observe the transport of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles (nano-TiO2). Ten typical transport models which consider different chemical reaction processes are used to simulate the transport of nano-TiO2, and the observed nano-TiO2 breakthrough curves data are used to calibrate these models. For each transport model, the parameter uncertainty is evaluated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, and the DREAM(ZS) algorithm is used to sample parameter probability space. Moreover, the Bayesian model averaging (BMA) method is used to incorporate the conceptual model uncertainty arising from different chemical reaction based transport models. The results indicate that both two-sites and nonequilibrium sorption models can well reproduce the retention of nano-TiO2 transport in porous media. The linear equilibrium sorption isotherm, first-order degradation, and mobile-immobile models fail to describe the nano-TiO2 retention and transport. The BMA method could instead provide more reliable estimations of the predictive uncertainty compared to that using a single model.

Keywords

Nano-TiO2 transport Conceptual model uncertainty MCMC BMA 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported with the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFC0402802), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)—Xinjiang project (U1503282), the National Key project ‘‘Water Pollution Control’’ of China (2015ZX07204-007), and NSFC (No. 41761134089, 41672233, 41501570).

References

  1. Bayat AE, Junin R, Derahman MN, Samad AA (2015a) TiO2 nanoparticle transport and retention through saturated limestone porous media under various ionic strength conditions. Chemosphere 134:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayat AE, Junin R, Shamshirband S, Chong WT (2015b) Transport and retention of engineered Al2O3, TiO2, and SiO2 nanoparticles through various sedimentary rocks. Sci Rep 5:12–18Google Scholar
  3. Beven K, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models—model calibration and uncertainty orediction. Hydrol Process 6:279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beven K, Freer J (2001) Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J Hydrol 249:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beven K, Smith P, Freer J (2007) Comment on “Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: incoherence of the GLUE methodology” by Pietro Mantovan and Ezio Todini. J Hydrol 338:315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bour A, Mouchet F, Silvestre J, Gauthier L, Pinelli E (2015) Environmentally relevant approaches to assess nanoparticles ecotoxicity: a review. J Hazard Mater 283:764–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Box GE, Tiao GC (1992) Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradford SA, Yates SR, Bettahar M, Simunek J (2002) Physical factors affecting the transport and fate of colloids in saturated porous media. Water Resour Res 38:61–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bredehoeft J (2005) The conceptualization model problem—surprise. Hydrogeol J 13:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks SP (1998) Markov chain Monte Carlo method and its application. J Roy Statist Soc Ser D Stat 47:69–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brusseau ML, Jessup RE, Rao PSC (1989) Modeling the transport of solutes influenced by multiprocess nonequilibrium. Water Resour Res 25:1971–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen G, Liu X, Su C (2011) Transport and retention of TiO2 rutile nanoparticles in saturated porous media under low-Ionic-strength conditions: measurements and mechanisms. Langmuir 27:5393–5402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chowdhury I, Hong Y, Honda RJ, Walker SL (2011) Mechanisms of TiO2 nanoparticle transport in porous media: role of solution chemistry, nanoparticle concentration, and flowrate. J Colloid Interface Sci 360:548–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crump KS (1976) Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms using a Fourier-series approximation. J ACM 23:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davit Y, Debenest G, Wood BD, Quintard M (2010) Modeling non-equilibrium mass transport in biologically reactive porous media. Adv Water Resour 33:1075–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Hoog FR, Knight JH, Stokes AN (1982) An improved method for numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 3:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Draper D (1995) Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:45–97Google Scholar
  18. Dubner H, Abate J (1968) Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms by relating them to finite Fourier cosine transform. J ACM 15:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elimelech M, Gregory J, Jia X, Williams RA (1995) Particle deposition and aggregation: measurement, modeling and simulation. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Fang M, Li X (2016) Application of Bayesian model averaging in the reconstruction of past climate change using PMIP3/CMIP5 multimodel ensemble simulations. J Clim 29:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fang J, Shan X, Wen B, Lin J, Owens G (2009) Stability of titania nanoparticles in soil suspensions and transport in saturated homogeneous soil columns. Environ Pollut 157:1101–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fang J, Xu M, Wang D, Wen B, Han J (2013) Modeling the transport of TiO2 nanoparticle aggregates in saturated and unsaturated granular media: effects of ionic strength and pH. Water Res 47:1399–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godinez IG, Darnault CJ (2011) Aggregation and transport of nano-TiO2 in saturated porous media: effects of pH, surfactants and flow velocity. Water Res 45:839–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Godinez IG, Darnault CJ, Khodadoust AP, Bogdan D (2013) Deposition and release kinetics of nano-TiO2 in saturated porous media: effects of solution ionic strength and surfactants. Environ Pollut 174:106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haario H, Saksman E, Tamminen J (2001) An adaptive metropolis algorithm. Bernoulli 7:223–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hassan AE, Bekhit HM, Chapman JB (2008) Uncertainty assessment of a stochastic groundwater flow model using GLUE analysis. J Hydrol 362:89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hassanzadeh H, Pooladi-Darvish M (2007) Comparison of different numerical Laplace inversion methods for engineering applications. Appl Math Comput 189:1966–1981Google Scholar
  28. Hoeting JA, Madigan D, Raftery AE, Volinsky CT (1999) Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial. Stat Sci 14:382–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joshi N, Ojha CSP, Sharma PK (2012) A nonequilibrium model for reactive contaminant transport through fractured porous media: model development and semianalytical solution. Water Resour Res 48:W10511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc 90:773–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laloy E, Vrugt JA (2012) High-dimensional posterior exploration of hydrologic models using multiple-try DREAM(ZS) and high-performance computing. Water Resour Res 48:W01526Google Scholar
  32. Leij FJ, Bradford SA (2009) Combined physical and chemical nonequilibrium transport model: analytical solution, moments, and application to colloids. J Contam Hydrol 110:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lichtner PC, Tartakovsky DM (2002) Stochastic analysis of effective rate constant for heterogeneous reactions. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 17:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Long TC, Saleh N, Tilton RD, Lowry GV, Veronesi B (2006) Titanium dioxide (P25) produces reactive oxygen species in immortalized brain microglia (BV2): implications for nanoparticle neurotoxicity. Environ Sci Technol 40:4346–4352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lu D, Ye M, Hill MC (2013) Analysis of regression confidence intervals and Bayesian credible intervals for uncertainty quantification. Water Resour Res 48:W09521Google Scholar
  36. Lu D, Ye M, Curtis GP (2015) Maximum likelihood Bayesian model averaging and its predictive analysis for groundwater reactive transport models. J Hydrol 529:1859–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lv XY, Gao B, Sun YY, Dong SN, Wu JC, Jiang BL, Shi XQ (2016) Effects of grain size and structural heterogeneity on the transport and retention of nano-TiO2 in saturated porous media. Sci Total Envir 563:987–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Molnar IL, Johnson WP, Gerhard JI, Willson CS, O'Carroll DM (2015) Predicting colloid transport through saturated porous media: a critical review. Water Resour Res 51:6804–6845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neuman SP (2003) Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 17:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poeter E, Anderson D (2005) Multimodel ranking and inference in ground water modeling. Ground Water 43:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robichaud CO, Uyar AE, Darby MR, Zucker LG, Wiesner MR (2009) Estimates of upper bounds and trends in nano-TiO2 production as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43:4227–4233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rojas R, Feyen L, Dassargues A (2008) Conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling: combining generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation and Bayesian model averaging. Water Resour Res 44:W12418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Russel WB, Saville DA, Schowalter WR (1989) Colloidal dispersions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shi XQ, Ye M, Curtis GP, Miller GL, Meyer PD, Kohler M, Yabusaki S, Wu JC (2014) Assessment of parametric uncertainty for groundwater reactive transport modeling. Water Resour Res 50:4416–4439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stehfest H (1970) Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. Commun ACM 13:47–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sun Y, Gao B, Bradford SA, Wu L, Chen H, Shi X, Wu J (2015) Transport, retention, and size perturbation of graphene oxide in saturated porous media: effects of input concentration and grain size. Water Res 68:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Talbot A (1979) Accurate numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. J Inst Math Appl 23:97–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tian Y, Gao B, Silvera-Batista C, Ziegler KJ (2010) Transport of engineered nanoparticles in saturated porous media. J Nanopart Res 12:2371–2380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trouiller B, Reliene R, Westbrook A, Solaimani P, Schiestl RH (2009) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles induce DNA damage and genetic instability in vivo in mice. Cancer Res 69:8784–8789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsai FTC (2010) Bayesian model averaging assessment on groundwater management under model structure. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:845–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tufenkji N, Elimelech M (2004) Correlation equation for predicting single-collector efficiency in physicochemical filtration in saturated porous media. Environ Sci Technol 38:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Genuchten MT, Wagenet RJ (1989) Two-site/two-region models for pesticide transport and degradation: theoretical development and analytical solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 53:1303–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vrugt JA, Ter Braak CJF (2011) DREAM(D): an adaptive Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation algorithm to solve discrete, noncontinuous, and combinatorial posterior parameter estimation problems. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:3701–3713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vrugt JA, ter Braak CJF, Diks CGH, Robinson BA, Hyman JM, Higdon D (2009) Accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling. Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Sim 10:273–290Google Scholar
  55. Wang QR, Zhan HB (2015) On different numerical inverse Laplace methods for solute transport problems. Adv Water Resour 75:80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang DJ, Bradford SA, Harvey RW, Gao B, Cang L, Zhou DM (2012) Humic acid facilitates the transport of ARS-labeled hydroxyapatite nanoparticles in iron oxyhydroxide-coated sand. Environ Sci Technol 46:2738–2745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wasserman L (2000) Bayesian model selection and model averaging. J Math Psychol 44:92–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiwanitkit V, Sereemaspun A, Rojanathanes R (2008) Visualization of gold nanoparticle on the microscopic picture of red blood cell: implication for possible risk of nanoparticle exposure. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 22:583–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wohling T, Vrugt JA (2011) Multiresponse multilayer vadose zone model calibration using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation and field water retention data. Water Resour Res 47:W04510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Xia T, Kovochich M, Liong M, Madler L, Gilbert B, Shi HB, Yeh JI, Zink JI, Nel AE (2008) Comparison of the mechanism of toxicity of zinc oxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles based on dissolution and oxidative stress oroperties. ACS Nano 2:2121–2134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ye M, Neuman SP, Meyer PD (2004) Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff. Water Resour Res 40:W05113Google Scholar
  62. Ye M, Pohlmann KF, Chapman JB, Pohll GM, Reeves DM (2010) A model-averaging method for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty. Ground Water 48:716–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zakian V (1969) Numerical inversion of Laplace transform. Electron Lett 5:120–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zeng XK, Wu JC, Wang D, Zhu XB (2016) Assessing the pollution risk of a groundwater source field at western Laizhou Bay under seawater intrusion. Environ Res 148:586–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang H (2011) Non-equilibrium transport of heavy metals in soils: Physical and chemical processes. In: Selim HM (ed) Dynamics and bioavailability of heavy metals in the rootzone. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Surficial Geochemistry, Ministry of Education, School of Earth Sciences and EngineeringNanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Integrated Surface Water-Groundwater Pollution Control, School of Environmental Science and EngineeringSouthern University of Science and TechnologyShenzhenChina
  3. 3.Department of Geology and GeophysicsTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations