Reply To: Scripts 2014

Forums Herbalist Scripts Scripts 2014 Reply To: Scripts 2014

#2697
AvatarEK
Keymaster

    Nigella sativa concoction induced sustained seroreversion in HIV patient.
    Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med. 2013;10(5):332-5
    Authors: Onifade AA, Jewell AP, Adedeji WA
    Abstract
    Nigella sativa had been documented to possess many therapeutic functions in medicine but the least expected is sero-reversion in HIV infection which is very rare despite extensive therapy with highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART). This case presentation is to highlight the complete recovery and sero-reversion of adult HIV patient after treatment with Nigella sativa concoction for the period of six months. The patient presented to the herbal therapist with history of chronic fever, diarrhoea, weight loss and multiple papular pruritic lesions of 3 months duration. Examination revealed moderate weight loss, and the laboratory tests of ELISA (Genscreen) and western blot (new blot 1 & 2) confirmed sero-positivity to HIV infection with pre-treatment viral (HIV-RNA) load and CD4 count of 27,000 copies/ml and CD4 count of 250 cells/ mm(3) respectively. The patient was commenced on Nigella sativa concoction 10 mls twice daily for 6 months.. He was contacted daily to monitor side-effects and drug efficacy. Fever, diarrhoea and multiple pruritic lesions disappeared on 5th, 7th and 20th day respectively on Nigella sativa therapy. The CD4 count decreased to 160 cells/ mm3 despite significant reduction in viral load (≤1000 copies/ml) on 30th day on N. sativa. Repeated EIA and Western blot tests on 187th day on Nigella sativa therapy was sero-negative. The post therapy CD4 count was 650 cells/ mm(3) with undetectable viral (HIV-RNA) load. Several repeats of the HIV tests remained sero-negative, aviraemia and normal CD4 count since 24 months without herbal therapy. This case report reflects the fact that there are possible therapeutic agents in Nigella sativa that may effectively control HIV infection.-PMID: 24311845 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
    Recipe—10 mls = 2 tsp 2 times a day
     
    ****************************************************************************
    NANO- CHEMTRAILS
    NANO CHEMTRAILS
    by William Thomas
    If you did not enjoy “traditional” chemtrails raining down on you, you are not going to like the new version, which the United States Air Force promises will feature aerial dumps of programmable “smart” molecules tens of thousands of times smaller than the particles already landing people in emergency rooms with respiratory, heart and gastrointestinal complaints.–Under development since 1995, the military’s goal is to install microprocessors incorporating gigaflops computer capability into “smart particles” the size of a single molecule.–Invisible except under the magnification of powerful microscopes, these nano-size radio-controlled chips are now being made out of mono-atomic gold particles. Networked together on the ground or assembling in the air, thousands of sensors will link into a single supercomputer no larger than a grain of sand.—Brought to you by the same military-corporate-banking complex that runs America’s permanent wars, Raytheon Corp is already profiting from new weather warfare technologies. The world’s fourth largest military weapons maker bought E-Systems in 1995, just one year after that military contractor bought APTI, holder of Bernard Eastlund’s HAARP patents.—Raytheon also owns General Dynamics, the world’s leading manufacturer of military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.–Raytheon also reports the weather for NOAA through its Advanced Weather Information Processing System. According to researcher Brendan Bombaci of Durango, Colorado, these Raytheon computers are directy linked with their UAV weather modification drones. Bombaci reports that NOAA paid Raytheon more than $300 million for this “currently active, 10-year project.”–She goes on to describe the Joint Environmental Toolkit used by the U.S. Air Force in its Weather Weapons System. Just the thing for planet tinkerers.
    GREEN LIGHT
    For public consumption, nano-weather control jargon has been sanitized. “Microelectric Mechanical Sensors” (MMS) and “Global Environmental Mechanical Sensors” sound passively benign. But these ultra-tiny autonomous aerial vehicles are neither M&Ms nor gems. [Space.com Oct 31/05]–According to a U.S. military flier called Military Progress, “The green light has been given” to disperse swarms of wirelessly-networked nano-bots into the troposphere by remotely-controlled UAV drones for “global warming mitigation.”—U.S. Army Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as well as U.S. Air Force drones “are slated to deploy various payloads for weather warfare,” Military Progress asserts. This dual mission – to slow global warming and use weather as a weapon –
    FIGHTING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
    U.S. Military Inc. is already in the climate change business big time. The single biggest burner of petroleum on this planet, its high-flying aircraft routinely rend Earth’s protective radiation shielding with nitrous oxide emissions, while depositing megatons of additional carbon, sulfur and water particles directly into the stratosphere – where they will do three-times more damage than CO2 alone.—Go figure. A single F-15 burns around 1,580 gallons an hour. An Apache gunship gets about one-half mile to the gallon. The 1,838 Abrams tanks in Iraq achieve five gallons to the mile, while firing dusty radioactive shells that will continue destroying human DNA until our sun goes supernova.–A single non-nuclear carrier steaming in support burns 5,600 gallons of bunker fuel in an hour – or two million gallons of bunker oil every 14 days. Every four days, each carrier at sea takes on another half- million gallons of fuel to supply its jets.–The U.S. Air Force consumed nearly half of the Department of Defense’s entire fuel supply in 2006, burning 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel aloft.—While flying two to five-hour chemtrails missions to reflect incoming sunlight and slow global warming, a single KC-10 tanker will burn 2,050 gallons of highly toxic jet fuel every hour. The larger and older KC-135 Stratotanker carries 31,275 gallons of chemtrails and burns 2,650 gallons of fuel per hour.–The EPA says that each gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 pounds of CO2. Each gallon of diesel produces 22.2 pounds of CO2.–Total it up and routine operations by a military bigger than all other world militaries combined puts more than 48 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Nearly half that total could be eliminated by ending the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. [TomDispatch.com June 16/07; huffingtonpost.com Oct 29/07]
    NANO RAIN
    Meanwhile, the 60 year quest for weather warfare continues. Though a drone cannot carry a heavy payload, more sub-microscopic weather modification particles can be crammed into a UAV Predator than all the chemtrail slurry packed into a tanker the size of a DC-10.—According to the air force’s own weather modification study, Owning The Weather 2025, clouds of these extremely teeny machines will be dropped into hurricanes and other weather systems to blend with storms and report real time weather data to each other and a larger sensor network.—Then these smart particles will be used to increase or decrease the storm’s size and intensity – and “steer” it to “specific targets”.—The air force report boasted that nano-chemtrails “will be able to adjust their size to optimal dimensions for a given seeding situation and make adjustments throughout the process.” Instead of being sprayed into the air at the mercy of the winds aloft, as is the fate of normal chemtrails, nano versions will be able to “enhance their dispersal” by “adjusting their atmospheric buoyancy” and “communicating with each other” as they steer themselves in a single coordinated flock within their own artificial cloud.—Nano-chemtrails will even “change their temperature and polarity to improve their seeding effects,[F17]” the air force noted. [Daily Texan July 30/07]–Rutgers University scientist J. Storrs Hall held out the military’s hope that these new nano weather-warrior bots: “Interconnected, atmospherically buoyant, and having navigation capability in three dimensions – clouds of microscopic computer particles communicating with each other and with a control system, could provide tremendous capability.”–Why so cheap? Because nano particles can be potentially self-replicating. That is, they can be made to reproduce themselves until programmed to stop.–Owning The Weather goes on to say that the USAF will “manage and employ a weather-modification capability by the Weather Force Support Element.” These weather forces will use real-time updates from swarms of the nano-size “smart sensors” to model developing weather patterns with a super-duper computer.–Based on continually updated forecast, the weather warriors will fly follow-on missions as needed to tweak the storm. It’s perfect, crows the air force. “The total weather-modification process becomes “a real-time loop of continuous, appropriate, measured interventions, and feedback capable of producing desired weather behavior.”–Weather modification did not work too well with Katrina.–If the notion of inserting Autonomous Intelligence nanobots into weather systems to monitor, steer and mess with them seems risky, just wait. Around the next cloud corner are coming swarms of airborne nano-bots to optimize wind dispersal patterns for germ warfare. Or chemtrails[F18].–But there’s one small hitch. Nobody knows how Earth’s atmosphere works. It is so big, so complex and so unpredictable, even real-time nano-snapshots are ancient history as soon as they are taken.–This is why the air force said, “Advances in the science of chaos are critical to this endeavor.”-. After a decade of trying, not even a 48-hour weather forecast can be made without constant surprises.–Because they cannot be graphed in a cause-and-effect straight line, chaotic “non-linear” weather processes can morph unexpectedly, defying predicted weather modification inputs. –Then there’s the matter of accidental genocide. I mean human health.
    Ailments and Illheath effects
    The chemtrails we are too familiar with after a decade-long dose continue to inflict eye infections, nosebleeds, skin sores, muscle pain, chronic exhaustion, weakened immunity, acute asthma and allergies, short-term memory loss and heart attacks on people in more than a dozen countries. [americanskywatch.com; Chemtrails Confirmed 2008 by William Thomas]–Small particulates like the aluminum oxide found in chemtrails also kill.–Dr. Dan Woodard calls aluminum oxide a “nuisance dust”. This MD says that prolonged exposures to very high concentrations of particulates that are visible in the air “can produce pulmonary fibrosis, somewhat like the silicosis formerly seen in miners.”–“At one time it was thought to precipitate Alzheimer’s disease, but more recent research has shown it is almost certainly unrelated,” Dr. Woodward adds.-It’s the tiny size of chemtrail fallout – one-tenth the width of the human hair – that make people very ill. The EPA warns that there is a strong link between all tiny particles and thousands of premature deaths each year.–Two key studies from the early 1990′s by the Harvard School of Public Health and the American Cancer Society found strong links between high levels of small particles and a rise in death rates. In an article headlined, “Tiny Particles Can Kill” the August 5, 2000 issue of New Scientist pointed to findings in six cities over 16 years showing that “city-dwellers in Europe and the U.S. are dying young because of microscopic particles in the air.”–According to the New York Times, “microscopic motes… are able to infiltrate the tiniest compartments in the lungs and pass readily into the bloodstream.” Particles in the size range called for by the Welsbach Patent describing chemtrails are “most strongly tied to illness and early death, particularly in people who are already susceptible to respiratory problems.” [New York Times Oct 14/06]–The Welsbach Patent calls for megatons of 10 micron-size aluminum oxide particles to be spread in the atmosphere. The EPA calls particles this small “an extreme human health hazard” leading to 5% increased death rate within 24 hrs.–“Hearts as well as lungs can be damaged by ultra-fine particles small enough to get into the bloodstream and inflame tissues and cells,” reports the LA Times. “After they reach the heart, the particles are thought to cause a stress reaction in cells, producing inflammation that contributes to heart disease. The particles also may cause blood clots.” [Los Angeles Times Dec 29/03]–The Neurotoxicology (brain poisoning) division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that exposure to airborne Particulate Matter “is an environmental health risk of global proportions.” [Health Risks Of Aerosoled Particulates PubMed Abstract]–The EPA explains that by penetrating deep into the lungs and circulatory system, these dust-size particles “are implicated in tens of thousands of deaths annually from both respiratory and coronary disease.”– “SMART PARTICLES” IN YOUR BRAIN MAKE YOU BRAINDEAD-Nanoparticles might better be called smartparticles because they make a beeline for the brain as soon as they are inhaled. Not surprisingly, they tend to accumulate and clump in the area of the brain that deals with smell. Too big to pass back through the blood-brain barrier, they become trapped there. [Nature.com Jan 5/04][F19]–Dr. Celine Filippi also observed that nanoparticles inhaled into the lungs are so mall they easily cross the lung barrier and enter the blood. “Particles in the blood can reach the liver, amongst other organs.” [globalresearch.ca Oct 21/07]
    NANO CHEMTRAILS
    Owning The Weather 2025 was published in 1995 and discussed only non-classified military weather modification projects. Hall’s Overview of Nanotechnology also appeared in 1995, when nanotech was in its Frankenstein infancy. Since then, many sources tell us, nanotech has gone exponential. [nanotech-now.com]
    Nano Chemtrails Chemtrail Mix
    “They have them,” he confirmed. The U.S. Air Force has occasionally added nanoparticles to the chemtrail mix to demonstrate proof of concept.–“We’re way beyond science fiction,” Hank confirmed. “You can hide just about anything you want in a chemtrail – including nanotubes[F20]. Chemtrails are being altered for whatever spectrum of wavelength they’re trying to bounce off of them.
     
    MORGELLONS
    What about Morgellons? Is there any connection between this bizarre and frightening malady and nano experiments?”You’re not going to like this. “Morgellons is one unintended manifestation of nano spray experiments.”Morgellons manifests – or presents” – as intolerable itching in the skin followed by alien eruptions of thin hairs or tendrils through the skin. “It’s basically the same as excreting something through a hair follicle,” Hank said.He meant a toxin – something foreign to the body.”If you manufacture a liquid super-cyrstalline structure, vibrate it a little and give it an electrical charge – it will form into a chain.”–[F21]These nanotubes will be invisible to the eye, of course. But their tendency to clump together could eventually make them big enough to be photographed and posted on the web.— “Much of it is still up there,” Hank went on to explain. This is because nanoparticles are so light and small they tend bind to bind with oxygen molecules. And piggybacking on oxygen particles makes them buoyant.–“It travels worldwide,” “Some of it comes down. Whatever it’s exposed to up there it brings down here. We get exposed to it. We breathe it in, we ingest it. It accrues in the same spot every time. And attracts more of it… ” In the liver.- And brain—-“The fallout would look like a prion disease,” Hank said.-“Fallout from nanoparticles would eat holes in our brains?”-“Pretty much. Nano particles are ionized particles that go to what attracts them…. Because of their electro-chemical properties, they are attracted to the potassium-calcium channel in the brain.”–Think about it, he said. “If they are capable of withstanding the corrosive upper atmosphere – corrosive sunlight and all those (industrial) chemicals – what would they have to be manufactured out of? Does the body manufacture anything that can deal with that? Who will come forward and say these are good?[F22]
    TOP C
    **************************************************************************
    [F1]Utilizing Unpasteurized Milk or fermented milk –not the pasteurized pus they call milk
    [F2]Approximately 2 oz of whey to 8 oz of water
    [F3]Now you have to wonder who would be stupid enough to use this—and who are they going to test it on—what test subjects
    [F4]1000 people—out of how many?? 6 million—how many were infected in one area 367—the balance was in another area—this is not an out break—there have been more people in the usa that have had a supposed AIDS condition then this—this is a total scam
    [F5]YAY –canada is now in the extermination business
    [F6]Doesn’t this re assuring??
    [F7]WOW only 1 test on Humans and the rest on apes or chimpanzees or monkeys—I feel even less assured
    [F8]So are we talking Prisoners or Military personnel who will be told the would be there duty to serve the country by protecting people through there sacrifice
    [F9]In other words –they have no real clue to the actual effect and if it will even work based on the design—big hype and sensation to sell people on a supposed issue that would require a specific environment or a triggering mechanism or possibly a compromised system that would allow this to be viable
    [F10]Hey the human race is been equated to a monkey—how interesting—there maybe some anatomical similarities—but that is not saying anything
    [F11]This is still a form of GMO or GE—a play on words—to eliminate certain aspects of the fruit so that others maybe more pronounced—will throw the chemistry of the fruit out of balance and may cause other unwanted side effects from eating this
    [F12]This was the initial sales on the GMO and GE in the first place—the idea that this would have been more effective and higher yield etc—and it turned out was less productive –more costly –resource intense-non effective—and yet this exploitation and experimentation is still going on—and would not be surprised that the reason for outbreaks happening planet wide is a direct or indirect result of this technology
    [F13]This is such BS and a lot of double speech—one we are genetically modifying the plant by”editing” lets call it what it really is modifying the original template and reducing or removing something that should be in the plant and adding something else—and they have had such an abysmal record so far this wil cause a depletion in the body—this tampering with genetics will be the undoing of societies and will cause a depletion of vital essentials that may be deemed unnecessary by those who are playing for profit and life control
    [F14]The question—is how is this going to be done—by inserting a virus —like they did with other crops—the mosaic virus which is so virulent to the plants that there genetic structure is completely written over—and causes a plethora of side effects
    [F15]This is not accurate they have increased nutrient values with genetics —but there were side effects as well –with rice
    [F16]So it all boils down to who gets paid off to accept this BS on words
    [F17]This goes on internally as well as soon as the frequencies activate these nanobots they will infest specific areas of the body—lung tissue—brain—intestines—muscles—they get activated and replicate—in conjunction with the genetics you are consuming this will cause extreme debilitation and depending on age will cause extreme unhealthy—
    [F18]Already happening
    [F19]This part of the article is out dated—the nano silver can pass through the blood brain barrier —there are reports that the silver nano has been found to congest in the brain as well
    [F20]Nanotubes are usually carbon nano fibres that are 200times stronger then diamond and are usually used as some form of conduit
    [F21]Validating what I have said as well do not use a zapper and frequenciy devices would have to modulate on several different frequencies or a defence mechanism to offset what you throw at it
    [F22]These are polymers—carbon nanotubes—200times stronger and harder then diamond—we have nothing in the immune system that can break this down—so the only thing to do is flush this out with materials that can enter into the cells where a lot of this concentrates—and to flush out and to restore what the chemtrails displace
    *******************************************************************************************************************************************************
    TOP D
    HOME
     
    Show of the Month August 30 2014
    Transformations of Nanomaterials in the Environment
    Onion extract structural changes during in vitro digestion and its potential antioxidant effect on brain lipids
    Hot bath for the treatment of chronic renal failure
    Antioxidant and anti-cancer cell proliferation activity of propolis extracts from two extraction methods
    Environmental Transformations of Silver Nanoparticles- Impact on Stability and Toxicity
    *************************************************************************
    Transformations of Nanomaterials in the Environment
    † Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
    ‡ Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
    § Contaminant Chemistry and Ecotoxicology Program, CSIRO Land and Water, Locked Bag 2007, Kirrawee NSW 2232, Australia
    School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, U.K.
    # Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208
    Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46 (13), pp 6893–6899
    DOI: 10.1021/es300839e
    Publication Date (Web): May 14, 2012
    Copyright © 2012 American Chemical Society
    *E-mail: [email protected]
    This article is part of the Transformations of Nanoparticles in the Environment special issue.
    Biography
    Greg Lowry is a Professor of Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA and Deputy Director of the Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEINT). Kelvin Gregory is an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Simon Apte leads the Contaminant Chemistry and Ecotoxicology Program at CSIRO Land and Water, Sydney Australia. Jamie Lead is Professor of Environmental Nanoscience at the University of Birmingham, UK, and Professor of Environmental Nanoscience and Risk at the University of South Carolina, USA.
    Air Pollution and Industrial Hygiene
    Abstract
    Increasing use of engineered nanomaterials with novel properties relative to their bulk counterparts has generated a need to define their behaviors and impacts in the environment. The high surface area to volume ratio of nanoparticles results in highly reactive and physiochemically dynamic materials in environmental media. Many transformations, e.g. reactions with biomacromolecules, redox reactions, aggregation, and dissolution, may occur in both environmental and biological systems. These transformations and others will alter the fate, transport, and toxicity of nanomaterials. The nature and extent of these transformations must be understood before significant progress can be made toward understanding the environmental risks posed by these materials.
     
    Introduction
    The nanotechnology field continues to grow rapidly and the increasing use of engineered nanomaterials (NMs) in commercial products translates into an increasing presence in the biosphere. Engineered NMs are manufactured materials having at least one dimension in the nanoscale (ca. 1–100 nm) dimension. Naturally occurring NMs are also ubiquitous in the environment, resulting from both natural processes and from anthropogenic impacts (e.g., flocculation of nanometer-scale metal oxides in acid mine drainage). The extremely small sizes of both naturally occurring and engineered NMs results in a high percentage of surface atoms which can result in novel properties and reactivity compared to a larger size material with the same chemical composition.(1, 2) Examples of such engineered NMs include semiconductors like quantum dots which have different optical and electrical properties depending on their size,(3) and gold nanoparticles (NPs) that are typically inert but become catalytic as their size is decreased to a few nanometers.(4) NMs are becoming increasingly complex and include those with coatings that target specific cells in the body(5) or that are engineered from more than one NM for optimized utility (e.g., carbon nanotubes (CNTs) doped with quantum dots(6)). These newly emergent materials that will soon enter manufacturing supply chains are unique and xenobiotic (e.g., metal oxide NP-decorated graphene sheets(7)). The lack of a natural analog for these new materials complicates the forecasting of their fate, transport, reactivity and toxicity in environmental systems. The uncertain effects resulting from the novel properties exhibited by NMs have given rise to concerns by citizens and governments throughout the world, and a justified increase in environmental health and safety (EHS) research aimed at assessing the potential for NMs to harm the environment or human health. An overall goal of these research activities is to correlate the properties of NMs to their behavior in the environment and their effects on living organisms.(8)
    Assessing the environmental and human health implications of nanomaterials requires an understanding of the potential exposure routes and toxicological effects from acute and chronic exposures. To date, the predominant focus of the global research endeavor has been defining the fate, transport, and toxic properties of pristine or “as manufactured” nanomaterials. However, the high surface to volume ratio and reactivity of NMs makes them highly dynamic in environmental systems. The resulting transformations of the NMs will affect their fate, transport, and toxic properties. For example, metallic silver NPs will oxidize and may become sulfidized in the environment.(9) Sulfidation of the particles changes their aggregation state, surface chemistry, and charge, as well as their ability to release toxic Ag+ ions(10) and therefore their persistence and toxicity. Similarly, the interaction between NMs and humic substances (HS) including natural organic matter (NOM) results in a nanoscale coating of the NMs,(11) analogous to protein coronas in mammalian systems,(12) that dramatically changes their aggregation, deposition, and toxic properties.(13, 14)–Because environmental systems are dynamic and stochastic, the physicochemical changes that accompany engineered and incidental coatings, as well as subsequent reactions in the environment, greatly complicate the understanding of risks associated with the release of NMs in the environment. We currently lack sufficient knowledge of the types, rates, and extent of transformations expected for NMs in environmental and biological systems. By extension, we also fail to understand the impact of those transformations on the fate, transport, and toxicity of NMs. To correctly forecast the environmental and human health risks associated with these materials, we must endeavor to broaden our knowledge of the transformations of NMs.
    The U.S. National Research Council has recently proposed a new framework for nano EHS research.(8) This committee recommended that research should focus on understanding “critical elements of nanomaterial interactions”, needed for assessing exposure, hazards, and hence risks posed by engineered nanomaterials (Figure 1). These critical elements include physical, chemical, and biological transformations that ultimately influence NM persistence, bioavailability/biouptake, reactivity, and toxicity.
     
    Figure 1. Nanomaterial transformations are critical processes affecting NM interactions. Transformations include physical and chemical transformations, biologically mediated transformations, and interactions with macromolecules and biomacromolecules. Adapted from ref 8.
    Oxidation and reduction (redox) reactions, dissolution, sulfidation, aggregation, and adsorption of macromolecules and molecules/ions all readily occur in the environment and in biological systems. These transformations greatly impact NM behavior. In some cases, these transformations may enhance toxicity potential (e.g., chemical weathering of the shell of a Cd–Se quantum dot that releases toxic ions from the particle core).(15) In other cases, these transformations have been shown to decrease effects (e.g., adsorption of NOM decreased the short-term bactericidal effects of C60, Ag NPs, and Fe(0) NPs,(13, 14, 16) but increased bioaccumulation(17)[F1]). Some transformations can potentially limit NM persistence in the environment (e.g., dissolution of ZnO NPs).(18) There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the role that transformations have on both exposure and biological effects across the whole life cycle of NMs.—-Nanomaterials are commonly produced with an organic capping agent or stabilizer, often a small anion or polymer (Table 1). Transformations of the material can therefore affect the core material, the capping agent, or both.[F2] For example, the simple coordination of ZnS nanoparticles (NPs) with water molecules can alter their crystalline phase and properties.(19) The capping agent may be bioavailable and removed by bacteria.(20) Indeed, the rate, extent, and type of transformations possible will depend on the properties of the initial NM, its coating, and its surrounding chemical and biological environment. Importantly, many transformations are slow or effectively irreversible and cannot necessarily be predicted using thermodynamics.[F3] Here, we briefly review what is known about chemical, physical, and biologically mediated transformations of NMs in natural systems and their effects on the resulting NM behavior. We also discuss state-of-the-science knowledge and instrumentation gaps preventing us from quantifying and predicting these transformations in biological and environmental media.
    Table 1. Representative Nanomaterials and Capping Agents/Coatings
     
    typical capping agents/coatings
    nanomaterial
    inorganic and small organic molecules
    synthetic and organic macromolecules
    zinc oxide
    2-mercaptoethanol, triethoxycarprylsilane, triethanolamine, acetate
    polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polysaccharides,
    silver
    citrate, decanethiol, tannic acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)
    polyethylene glycol (PEG), PVP, gum arabic
    gold
    citrate, octanethiol, cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB), cysteine, tannic acid
    biotin, bovine serum albumin (BSA), polypeptides
    cerium oxide
    oleic acid
    PVP, poly(acrylic acid)-octyl amine
    titanium dioxide
    oleic acid
    Poly(acrylic acid)
    quantum dots (CdSe, CdS)
    Silica (inorganic), zinc sulfide (inorganic), citrate, mercaptopropionic acid
    PEG, aminodextran
    iron oxide
    dodecylamine, oleic acid
    BSA, poly(acrylic acid), poly(methacrylic acid), PEG
    zerovalent iron (ZVI)
    Au, Pd, Pt, Ni
    carboxymethyl cellulose, xanthan gum, polypropylene glycol
     
    NM Transformations and Their Effect on NM Behavior