Using bio-based CaCO3 functionalized sediment to simultaneously remove algae and COD through adsorption and sedimentation in water source reservoirs

Supplementary Information

a School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China.
b Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, State Key Laboratory of Regional Environment and Sustainability, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China.
c University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.

* Corresponding to: Jinyi Qin (jinyi.qin@chd.edu.cn), Ming Su (mingsu@rcees.ac.cn)

Figures and/or tables are provided below as the supplementary evidences to the main text.

Supplementary methods

Langmuir equation (Veith and Sposito, 1977)

The equation for the pseudo-first-order kinetic model is (Eq. S1 and S2):

\(\ln(q_{e,cal} - q_{t}) = \ln q_{e} - k_{1}t\) (S1)

\(\ln(q_{e} - q_{t}) = \ln q_{e} - k_{1}t\) (S2)

The equation for the pseudo-second-order kinetic model is (Eq. S3):

\(\frac{t}{q_{t}} = \frac{1}{k_{2}q_{e}^{2}} + \frac{t}{q_{e}}\) (S3)

\(q_{e} = \frac{C_{i} - C_{f}}{S}\) (S4)

\(q_{t} = \frac{C_{i} - C_{t}}{S}\) (S5)

Where, \(q_{e}\) (μg g−1) (Almomani and Bhosale, 2021) is the experimental equilibrium adsorption capacity of the adsorbent; \(q_{t}\) (μg g−1) (Almomani and Bhosale, 2021) is the equilibrium adsorption amount of the adsorbent at time \(t\) (min); \(q_{e,cal}\) and \(q_{e}\) (μg g−1) are the theoretical and actual equilibrium adsorption amounts, respectively; \(k_{1}\) (min−1) is the pseudo-first-order kinetic model constant, \(k_{2}\) (g (mg min) −1 ) is the pseudo-second-order kinetic model constant.

The equilibrium adsorption data were analyzed using both Langmuir (Eq. S6) and Freundlich (Eq. S8) isotherm models (Almomani and Bhosale, 2021) to characterize the adsorption process.

\(q_{e} = \frac{q_{m}K_{L}C_{e}}{1 + K_{L}C_{e}}\) (S6)

\(R_{L} = \frac{1}{1 + K_{L}C_{e}}\) (S7)

\(q_{e} = K_{F}\left( C_{e} \right)^{\frac{1}{n}}\) (S8)

Where, \(q_{m}\) is the maximum Chl-a concentration adsorbed on unit mass of micro-nano CaCO3 (μg g−1), \(K_{L}\)is the Langmuir adsorption constant (μg L−1); \(R_{L}\)is the separation coefficient (Eq. S6); \(K_{F}\) is the Freundlich adsorption constant (μg g−1) (L μg−1)1/n; \(C_{e}\) is the adsorption equilibrium solution concentration (μg L-1), and \(1/n\) is the adsorption intensity coefficient (Huang et al., 2020). A value of \(1/n\) in the range \(0 < 1/n < 1\) indicates favorable adsorption with high affinity, while \(1/n > 1\) suggests poor adsorption and low surface affinity. The closer \(1/n\) is to 0, the stronger the adsorption intensity; conversely, larger \(1/n\) values reflect increased surface heterogeneity and weaker adsorption.

A dimensionless separation factor (\(R_{L}\)) is introduced from the Langmuir equation to evaluate whether the adsorption of bio-CaCO3 to algae is a favorable spontaneous reaction (Eq. S9).

\(R_{L} = \frac{1}{(1 + K_{L}C_{0})}\) (S9)

When \(R_{L} > 1\), it is unfavorable for the material’s adsorption; when \(R_{L} = 1\), the material’s adsorption is linear; when \(R_{L}\)=0, the material’s adsorption is irreversible; when \({0 < R}_{L} < 1\), it indicates that the material’s adsorption process is favorable. In the range of 0~1, the larger the value, the more favorable it is for the material to remove pollutants.

Young’s equation (Novak and Brune, 1985)

\[ \begin{aligned} G_{h_{0}}^{AB} &= 2\Bigg[\sqrt{\gamma_{\omega}^{+}}\left(\sqrt{\gamma_{f}^{-}} + \sqrt{\gamma_{m}^{-}} - \sqrt{\gamma_{\omega}^{-}}\right) \\ &\quad + \sqrt{\gamma_{\omega}^{-}}\left(\sqrt{\gamma_{f}^{+}} + \sqrt{\gamma_{m}^{+}} - \sqrt{\gamma_{\omega}^{+}}\right) \\ &\quad - \sqrt{\gamma_{f}^{-}\gamma_{m}^{+}} - \sqrt{\gamma_{f}^{+}\gamma_{m}^{-}}\Bigg] \\[1em] G_{h_{0}}^{LW} &= -2\left(\sqrt{\gamma_{m}^{LW}} + \sqrt{\gamma_{\omega}^{LW}}\right)\left(\sqrt{\gamma_{f}^{LW}} + \sqrt{\gamma_{\omega}^{LW}}\right) \end{aligned} \] (S10)

\[ \Delta G_{h_{0}}^{EL} = \frac{\varepsilon_{r}\varepsilon_{0}\kappa}{2}(\xi_{m}^{2} + \xi_{f}^{2})\lbrack(1 - {\cot h}(\kappa h_{0}) + \frac{2\xi_{m}\xi_{f}}{\xi_{m}^{2} + \xi_{f}^{2}}(\csc h(\kappa h_{0}))\rbrack \] (S11)

Where \(G_{h_{0}}^{AB}\), \(G_{h_{0}}^{LW}\) and \(\Delta G_{h_{0}}^{EL}\) is the individual interaction per unit area at \(h_0\), \(\gamma^-\) and \(\gamma^+\) are the electron donor and electron acceptor components of surface tension, respectively, and \(\gamma^{LW}\) is the Lifshitz–van der Waals component. The subscript \(w\) denotes the aqueous medium, and \(\theta\) is the contact angle \(\zeta m\) and \(\zeta p\) (mV) are the membrane and particle zeta potentials.

\[ \begin{aligned} \frac{(1 + \cos\varphi)}{2}\gamma_{l}^{\mathrm{Tol}} &= \sqrt{\gamma_{l}^{\mathrm{LW}}}\sqrt{\gamma_{s}^{\mathrm{LW}}} + \sqrt{\gamma_{l}^{-}}\sqrt{\gamma_{s}^{+}} + \sqrt{\gamma_{l}^{+}}\sqrt{\gamma_{s}^{-}} \\ \gamma^{\mathrm{Tol}} &= \gamma^{\mathrm{LW}} + \gamma^{\mathrm{AB}} \end{aligned} \] (S12)

\(\gamma^{AB} = 2\sqrt{\gamma_{l}^{-}\gamma_{s}^{+}}\) (S13)

\(\kappa = \sqrt{\frac{e^{2}\sum_{}^{}{n_{i}z_{i}}}{\varepsilon\varepsilon_{0}\kappa T}}\) (S14)

Where \(e\) is the elementary charge, \(i\) is the number concentration of the ions in the dispersed solution, \(Z_{i}\) is the valence of the ions, \(k\) is the Boltzmann constant, and \(T\) is the absolute temperature, (\(\varepsilon_{0}=8.85\times 10^{-12}\text{CV}^{-1}m^{-1}\)) (Oss, 1993) is the dielectric constant of vacuum, (\(\varepsilon = 78.5\)) is the dielectric constant of water.

DFT Calculations

All density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed using the Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP) (Kresse and Furthmüller, 1996). The exchange–correlation interactions were treated using the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) with the Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof (PBE) functional (Perdew et al., 1996). To account for dispersion forces, Grimme’s DFT-D3 empirical correction was applied (Grimme et al., 2010). A vacuum slab of approximately 15 Å was introduced perpendicular to the surface to eliminate interactions between periodic images.

A plane-wave cutoff energy of 450 eV was used. Brillouin zone sampling was conducted using a Γ-centered Monkhorst–Pack k-point mesh of 3 × 3 × 1 (Monkhorst and Pack, 1976). Full geometric optimizations were carried out until the residual force on each atom was less than 0.02 eV/Å and the total energy convergence threshold was set to 10-5 eV.

The adsorption energy (\(\Delta E\)) was calculated according to Eq. S15:

\(\Delta E = E_{ads/surf} - E_{\text{surf}} - E_{\text{ads}}\) (S15)

where \(E_{\text{ads/surf}}\) is the total energy of the adsorbate–substrate system, \(E_{surf}\) is the energy of the clean surface, and \(E_{ads}\) is the energy of the isolated adsorbate in vacuum.

Response surface design (Anderson-Cook et al., 2009)

A Box Behnken Design (BBD) was employed to optimize the algae removal process with minimal experimental runs. Three key factors—mass fraction of nano-CaCO3 (A), the molar ratio of Ca2+ to CO32- (B), and reaction time (C)—were selected as independent variables. The removal efficiencies of Chl-a (\(Y_1\)) and COD (\(Y_2\)) served as response variables. A total of 17 experimental runs were determined (S16). The independent variables were coded as \(X_1\), \(X_2\) and \(X_3\) (S17), and a second-order polynomial model was used to fit the response data.

\(N=2^k+2k+C_0\) (S16)

Where \(N\) is the number of experiments; \(k\) is the number of experimental factors,\(k = 3\); \(C_{0}\) is the number of repeated experiments at the center point, \(C_{0} = 3\).

\(Z_i=\frac{X_i-X_0}{\Delta X}\) (S17)

Where: \(Z_{i}\) is the dimensionless coded value of the i-th influencing factor; is the actual value of the i-th influencing factor; \(X_{0}\) is the actual value of \(X_{i}\ \)at the center point; \(\mathrm{\Delta}X\) is the difference between the actual value of the high level and the actual value of the center level of each influencing factor.

The quadratic polynomial model (S18) was applied to predict system behavior and identify optimal conditions:

\(Y = \beta_{0} + \sum_{i = 1}^{K}\beta_{i}X_{i} + \sum_{i = 1}^{k - 1}{\sum_{j = i + 1}^{k}{\beta_{ij}X_{i}}}X_{j} + \sum_{i = 1}^{k}{\beta_{ij}X_{i}^{2}}\) (S18)

where: \(Y\) represents the predicted response (removal efficiency), \(\beta_{0}\) is the constant coefficient, \(\beta_{i}\) are linear effect coefficients, \(\beta_{ij}\) are interaction effect coefficients, \(\beta_{ii}\) are quadratic effect coefficients, \(X_{i}\) and \(X_{j}\) denote coded values of independent variables.

Supplementary figures

Supplementary Fig. 1

Supplementary Fig. 1: Variations in CO32-, HCO3⁻, and total carbonate concentration (CO32- + HCO3⁻) under different pH conditions. As pH increased, the CO32-/HCO3⁻ ratio rose markedly, indicating enhanced conversion of HCO3⁻ to CO32-, which coincided with elevated CaCO3 concentrations (A). Effect of CaCO3 dosage on Chl-a removal and pH. Bio-CaCO3 exhibited significantly higher removal efficiency than original CaCO3, with a peak at 8% dosage. The pH values also slightly increased with Bio-CaCO3 addition (B).

Supplementary Fig. 2

Supplementary Fig. 2: Adsorption isotherm fitting of three algal species onto unmodified and Bio-CaCO3-modified materials using Langmuir and Freundlich models. (A) Chlorella, (B) Microcystis aeruginosa, and (C) Limnothrix. Symbols represent experimental data for original and Bio-CaCO3-treated samples, while solid lines correspond to model fitting curves. The Langmuir model (blue) describes monolayer adsorption on homogeneous surfaces, whereas the Freundlich model (orange) reflects multilayer adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces.

Supplementary Fig. 3

Supplementary Fig. 3: Kinetic modeling of algal adsorption onto unmodified and Bio-CaCO3-modified materials. (A) Pseudo-second-order model fitting; (B) Pseudo-first-order model fitting. Symbols represent experimental data for three algal species (Chlorella, Limnothrix, and Microcystis aeruginosa) under original and Bio-CaCO3-modified conditions. Solid and dashed lines denote corresponding model fittings. The pseudo-second-order model (A) generally provided a better fit to the experimental data, indicating chemisorption as the dominant rate-controlling mechanism.

Supplementary Fig. 4

Supplementary Fig. 4: Removal rates of Chlorella, Microcystis aeruginosa, and Limnothrix by modified sediment over time (0–300 min). All three algal species exhibited a rapid increase in removal efficiency during the initial phase, eventually reaching adsorption saturation. Limnothrix showed the highest removal rate, followed by Chlorella and Microcystis aeruginosa.

Supplementary Fig. 5

Supplementary Fig. 5: X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of original and biologically modified CaCO3 (Bio-CaCO3). The diffraction peaks corresponding to CaCO3 and SiO2 are identified. Compared with the original sample, Bio-CaCO3 exhibits enhanced peak intensity and crystallinity of CaCO3, indicating improved mineralization and structural ordering induced by biological modification.

Supplementary Fig. 6

Supplementary Fig. 6: Changes in particle size and BET surface area of CaCO3 under different reaction times. Particle size increased with prolonged reaction, while BET surface area generally showed a decreasing trend, indicating structural densification over time.

Supplementary Fig. 7

Supplementary Fig. 7: Chl-a removal efficiency and pH variation over time under three sediment treatments: Original sediment, Inorganic CaCO3, and Bio-CaCO3. Bio-CaCO3 exhibited the highest removal efficiency, peaking at over 95% at 60 min, while maintaining a pH closest to that of natural water.

Supplementary Fig. 8

Supplementary Fig. 8: SEM images illustrating the morphological distinction between CaCO3 obtained via conventional chemical synthesis and biogenic formation, underscoring the in-situ structural adaptability of bio-CaCO3 within sediments. (A) Chemically synthesized CaCO3 presenting well-faceted hexagonal calcite (HC). (B) Biogenic CaCO3 showing spherulitic vaterite (SV) aggregates. (C) Bio-CaCO3 from this study, predominantly composed of amorphous micro–nanospheres with localized development of hexagonal calcite at particle peripheries, indicating in-situ secondary growth from amorphous precursors while preserving a high-reactivity, amorphous-rich framework.

Supplementary Fig. 9

Supplementary Fig. 9: A static image of an animated character (Supplementary File: FigS9.gif). Time-resolved molecular dynamics snapshot showing the adsorption configuration of glucuronic acid on an unmodified silanol-rich silica surface. Silicon atoms are shown in beige, oxygen in red, carbon in grey, and hydrogen in white. The molecular conformation illustrates hydrogen bonding interactions between the hydroxyl/carboxyl groups of glucuronic acid and surface silanol groups, corresponding to the structural model used for bond length and bond angle trajectory analysis in Fig. S11A–D.

Supplementary Fig. 10

Supplementary Fig. 10: A static image of an animated character (Supplementary File: FigS10.gif). Atomic configuration from DFT molecular dynamics simulation showing the interaction between glucuronic acid and the bio-CaCO3–modified silica surface. Gray, red, white, beige, black, and green spheres represent C, O, H, Si, Ca–C carbonate groups, and Ca atoms, respectively. Ca atoms form coordination bonds with surface oxygen atoms and bridge carbonate groups to the silica substrate, illustrating the Ca–O–Si linkage and multi-point anchoring mechanism at the bio-CaCO3–modified interface. This structural model corresponds to that used for bond length and bond angle trajectory analyses shown in Fig. S11E–H.

Supplementary Fig. 11

Supplementary Fig. 11: Time-resolved trajectories of bond length and bond angle variations derived from DFT molecular dynamics simulations of glucuronic acid interacting with sediment surfaces. (A–D) Unmodified silanol-rich silica surface (corresponding to the atomic configuration in panel J): (A) C–O (18–56) bond length variation, (B) O–H···O (72–57) hydrogen bond distance, (C) Ca–O (137–107) coordination distance, and (D) C–O (107–29) bond length. (E–H) Bio-CaCO3–modified silica surface (corresponding to the atomic configuration in panel I): (E) O–C–O (72–56–18) bond angle variation, (F) Si–O–Si (56–18–57) bond angle evolution, (G) O–Ca–O (173–107–29) bond angle variation, and (H) C–O–Si (107–29–108) bond angle variation. (I–J) Atomistic configurations showing labeled atoms used for trajectory extraction: (I) bio-CaCO3–modified silica surface, (J) unmodified silica surface.

Supplementary tables

Supplementary Table 1

Ingredients Content (%) Unit
pH 7.59±0.1
TDS 283.88±0.5 mg L-1
TH 106.94±0.5 mg L-1(CaCO3)
EC 62.17±1.5 μS cm-1
TP 20±0.3 μg L-1
TN 3.2±0.04 mg L-1
COD(Mn) 3.0±0.2 mg L-1
K+ 0.91±0.03 mg L-1
Na+ 9.55±0.05 mg L-1
Ca2+ 83.53±0.2 mg L-1
Mg2+ 25.96±0.1 mg L-1
Cl- 12.99±0.03 mg L-1
SO42- 12.27±0.02 mg L-1
HCO3- 201.73±0.3 mg L-1
Supplementary Table 1: The measured parameters include pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), total hardness (as CaCO3), electrical conductivity (EC), and major nutrient and ion concentrations. These values represent typical background conditions of a clean drinking water reservoir. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).

Supplementary Table 2

Ingredients Content (%)
SiO2 68.72
Al2O3 19.56
Fe2O3 4.19
MgO 1.01
CaO 1.12
Na2O 0.75
K2O 2.9
MnO 0.06
P2O5 0.22
TiO2 0.86
SO3 0.53
Cl 0.05
Zn 0.01
Sr 0.01
Supplementary Table 2: Chemical composition of the sediment sample based on X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. SiO2 and Al2O3 were the dominant components, followed by Fe2O3, K2O, and minor amounts of CaO, MgO, and other trace elements.

Supplementary Table 3

Detection liquid \(\gamma^{LW}\) \(\gamma^{+}\) \(\gamma^{-}\) \(\gamma^{AB}\) \(\gamma^{Tol}\)
Ultrapure water 21.8 25.5 25.5 51.0 72.8
Formamide 39.0 2.28 39.6 19.0 58
Diiodomethane 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.8
Supplementary Table 3: Surface tension (mJ m-2) of the probe liquid, according to (Oss, 1995, 1995).

Supplementary Table 4

Factor -1 0 1
A: Added fraction of CaCO3 (%) 2 8 14
B: Residual free Ca2+ (%) 0 50 100
C: Time of reaction (min) 10 60 110
Supplementary Table 4: Codes and levels of experimental factors for BBD

Supplementary Table 5

Time (min) Chlorella vulgaris (μg L-1) Microcystis aeruginosa (μg L-1) Limnothrix sp. (μg L-1)
Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental
1 1139.4 1145.02 3245.2 3273.1 970.3 980.38
3 1142.7 1001.16 3252.6 2147.44 954.8 350.36
5 1135.3 968.22 3238.9 2113.0 940.1 85.24
15 1137.9 855.88 3248.7 2097.76 910.2 67.86
30 1140.1 516.42 3240.3 2095.94 885.4 47.4
60 1132.6 472.26 3235.8 2086.22 860.5 23.7
120 1139.0 472.26 3242.1 2059.28 880.2 23.54
180 1128.0 444.84 3238.0 2035.9 900.7 23.7
240 1133.8 421.3 3244.5 2035.58 920.9 23.7
300 1130.0 421.3 3239.9 2032.66 945.6 20.46
Supplementary Table 5: Time-course of Chl-a concentrations in centrifugation-only controls & Bio-CaCO3-treated groups for three algal species.

Supplementary Table 6

Equilibrium parameters of adsorption Adsorption kinetics
Category Langmuir Freundlich First-order kinetic Secondary- orderkinetic
KL 1/n KF K1 K2×10-6
(L μg-1) (μg g−1) (L μg−1)1/n (min-1) (g (μg min)-1)
Chlorella Original 0.009 0.418 40.378 0.014 6.35
Bio- CaCO3 0.011 0.391 50.331 0.0184 6.05
Microcystis aeruginosa Original 0.002 0.495 26.24 0.0168 2.689
Bio- CaCO3 0.003 0.436 43.36 0.0185 2.280
Limnothrix Original 0.004 0.841 12.24 0.0152 3.960
Bio- CaCO3 0.003 0.964 13.29 0.0191 3.841
Supplementary Table 6: Equilibrium and Adsorption kinetics of algae on biomodified sediments parameters

Supplementary Table 7

Surface free energy parameters (mJ m-2) Aii (×10-21 J)
γ+ γ- γ A132 (×10-21J) Surface energy(mN m-1)
Modified Sediments 0.6 31.61 39.99 57.58 5.41 48.69
Algae organisms 0.21 56.54 48.18 69.37 55.07
5.12
Unmodified Sediments 0.08 34.72 38.88 55.99 42.21
MilliQ water 25.5 25.5 21.8 31.39
Supplementary Table 7: Surface energy characteristics and calculated Hamaker constants (A132) for assessing sediment–algae interactions.

Supplementary Table 8

Surface/ Solution Zeta potential Contact angle (°) Surface tension values ( mJ m-2) ΔGAB
(mV) θW θF θD γLW γ+ γ- (mJ m-2)
Modified Sediments -9.65 45°66’ 34°62’ 39°24’ 39.99 0.60 31.61 31.282
Organisms -5.78 7°2’ 9°2’ 18°6’ 48.18 0.21 56.54
26.373
Unmodified Sediments -14.6 49°46’ 44°76’ 42°26’ 38.88 0.08 34.72
Supplementary Table 8: Contact angle of CaCO3 with algae cells and surface thermodynamic parameters

Supplementary Table 9

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Response 1 Response 2
Std Run Mass fraction of CaCO3 Residual free Ca2+ (%) Time Y1: Chl-a removal rate Y2: COD removal rate
(%) - (min) (%) (%)
1 12 2 0 60 73.76 73.99
2 8 14 0 60 87.58 68.21
3 2 2 100 60 76.59 84.6
4 16 14 100 60 90.25 42.77
5 6 2 50 10 75.31 79.77
6 9 14 50 10 84.59 65.9
7 7 2 50 110 80.05 90.17
8 13 14 50 110 93.47 71.68
9 17 8 0 10 82.74 79.77
10 10 8 100 10 85.23 50.94
11 4 8 0 110 87.29 63.58
12 11 8 100 110 92.3 76.3
13 14 8 50 60 92.89 87.98
14 1 8 50 60 93.78 84.89
15 5 8 50 60 92.94 90.88
16 3 8 50 60 93.06 86.12
17 15 8 50 60 93.83 90.32
Supplementary Table 9: Experimental design and results for BBD

Supplementary Table 10

Mass fraction of CaCO3(%) Residual free Ca2+(%) Time of reaction(min) Removal- Chl-a (%) Removel-COD (%)
Observed Predicted Observed Predicted
7.51 56 85.35 92.67 93.83 87.23 88.64
7.51 56 85.35 91.98 93.83 86.54 88.64
Supplementary Table 10: Optimal operating conditions for Chl-a and COD removal efficiency

References

Almomani, F., Bhosale, R.R., 2021. Bio-sorption of toxic metals from industrial wastewater by algae strains Spirulina platensis and Chlorella vulgaris: Application of isotherm, kinetic models and process optimization. Science of The Total Environment 755, 142654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142654
Anderson-Cook, C.M., Borror, C.M., Montgomery, D.C., 2009. Response surface design evaluation and comparison. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 139, 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2008.04.004
Grimme, S., Antony, J., Ehrlich, S., Krieg, H., 2010. A consistent and accurateab initioparametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-d) for the 94 elements h-pu. The Journal of Chemical Physics 132. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3382344
Huang, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Zhang, L., Ye, F., Wang, J., Shang, J., Liao, Q., 2020. Impact of sediment characteristics on adsorption behavior of typical antibiotics in lake taihu, china. Science of The Total Environment 718, 137329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137329
Kresse, G., Furthmüller, J., 1996. Efficient iterative schemes forab initiototal-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Physical Review B 54, 11169–11186. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.54.11169
Monkhorst, H.J., Pack, J.D., 1976. Special points for brillouin-zone integrations. Physical Review B 13, 5188–5192. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.13.5188
Novak, J.T., Brune, D.E., 1985. Inorganic carbon limited growth kinetics of some freshwater algae. Water Research 19, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(85)90203-9
Oss, C.J. van, 1995. Hydrophobicity of biosurfaces — origin, quantitative determination and interaction energies. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 5, 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-7765(95)01217-7
Oss, C.J. van, 1993. Acid—base interfacial interactions in aqueous media. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 78, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-7757(93)80308-2
Perdew, J.P., Burke, K., Ernzerhof, M., 1996. Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Physical Review Letters 77, 3865–3868. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.77.3865
Veith, J.A., Sposito, G., 1977. On the use of the langmuir equation in the interpretation of “adsorption” phenomena. Soil Science Society of America Journal 41, 697–702. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1977.03615995004100040015x