The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Zinc nitrate

Zinc nitrate is an inorganic compound with the chemical formula Zn(NO3)2.
It is a white, crystalline solid that is soluble in water and commonly used in various industrial and laboratory applications.
Zinc nitrate has a wide range of uses, including as a chemical reagent, a wood preservative, and a component in fertilizers and pyrotechnics.
It is also used in the production of other zinc compounds and in the treatment of certain medical conditions.
Researching the optimal protocols and procedures for working with zinc nitrate can be enhanced through the use of AI-driven tools like PubCompare.ai, which can help identify the best literature, pre-prints, and patents to improve reproducibility and accuracy in your experiments.
By leveraging these resources, you can optimize your zinc nitrate research and achieve better outcomes.

Most cited protocols related to «Zinc nitrate»

Agarose-normal melting (molecular biology grade-MB), agarose-low melting (MB), sodium chloride (analytical reagent grade-AR), potassium chloride (AR), disodium hydrogen phosphate (AR), potassium dihydrogen phosphate (AR), disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (disodium EDTA) (AR), tris (AR), sodium hydroxide (AR), sodium dodecyl sulphate / sodium lauryl sarcosinate (AR), tritron X 100 (MB), trichloro acetic acid, zinc sulphate (AR), glycerol (AR), sodium carbonate (AR), silver nitrate (AR), ammonium nitrate (AR), silicotungstic acid (AR), formaldehyde (AR) and lymphocyte separation media (Ficoll/ Histopaque 1077 [Sigma]/ HiSep [Himeda]).
Publication 2011
ammonium nitrate dodecyl sulfate Edetic Acid Ficoll Formaldehyde Glycerin histopaque Lymphocyte Potassium Chloride potassium phosphate, monobasic Sepharose silicotungstic acid Silver Nitrate sodium carbonate Sodium Chloride Sodium Hydroxide sodium phosphate, dibasic Sodium Sarcosinate Trichloroacetic Acid Tromethamine Zinc Sulfate
We estimated population-level exposures for different groups (e.g., race/ethnicity) to PM2.5 and for the following 14 PM2.5 components measured by the U.S. EPA’s national monitoring network: sulfate (SO42–), nitrate (NO3), ammonium (NH4+), organic carbon matter (OCM), elemental carbon (EC), sodium ion (Na+), aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), chlorine (Cl), nickel (Ni), silicon (Si), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), and zinc (Zn). These components were selected because they contribute ≥ 1% to total PM2.5 mass for yearly or seasonal averages, and/or have been associated with adverse health outcomes in previous studies including mortality, heart rate, heart rate variability, and low birth weight (Bell et al. 2007 (link), 2009 (link); Dominici et al. 2007 (link); Franklin et al. 2008 (link); Huang et al. 2012 (link); Lippmann et al. 2006 (link); Ostro et al. 2007 (link), 2008 (link); Rohr et al. 2011 (link); Wilhelm et al. 2012 (link)).
Daily air pollution measures were obtained for 2000 through 2006 (U.S. EPA 2011a ). Pollutant monitors were matched to U.S. census tracts, which are geographic units representing small subdivisions of a county and are the smallest spatial unit for which demographic variables of interest were available. Tracts from the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2007 ) were designed to have an optimal population of 4,000 persons (range, 1,500–8,000) and to follow government boundaries (e.g., county), geographic features (e.g., rivers), or other identifiable features (e.g., roadways), where possible. The median land area of the 2000 census tracts in the continental United States was 5.06 km2.
Census tracts in the continental United States were included in our analysis if they had PM2.5 component monitors in operation for ≥ 3 years with ≥ 180 days of observations during the study period. Results were based on 219 monitors in 215 census tracts. Land use near monitors was 43% residential, 34% commercial, 8% industrial, 8% agricultural, and 4% forest.
We calculated long-term averages for each pollutant and 2000 census tract with a monitor for that pollutant. If multiple monitors were present for the same pollutant in a single tract, we averaged daily monitor values within a tract, and then averaged daily values to generate long-term averages. The population and area of census tracts varied. The mean (± SD) distance between a census tract’s centroid and monitor was 2.3 km ± 4.9 km (median 0.8 km; maximum 46.7 km).
For each census tract, we considered population characteristics (U.S. Census 2007 ):
We excluded census tracts with populations ≤ 100 (n = 1; for tract with population = 1). For each population characteristic and category (e.g., race/ethnicity, Hispanic), we estimated the average exposure to each pollutant for that group in the United States as a whole by weighting levels in each census tract by the population as
where Yik is the national average estimated exposure to pollutant k for persons with characteristic i (e.g., Hispanic), j is the number of census tracts with pollutant data (J = 215), Pi,j is the number of persons with characteristic i in census tract j, and xjk is the concentration of pollutant k for census tract j. This provides an estimate of average exposure for each pollutant and population group, accounting for population size and pollutant levels in each census tract. In addition, we performed univariate regression to estimate differences in exposure to PM2.5 and for each component according to census tract characteristics (e.g., percentage of persons unemployed), which are expressed as the percent change in exposure compared with overall mean levels associated with a 10% increase in a given population characteristic.
Whereas the regression analysis investigated whether some groups had higher exposures than others among areas with monitors, we further contrasted population characteristics between census tracts with and without monitors for PM2.5 or its components. We calculated population characteristics for census tracts with and without monitors and performed univariate logistic regression to estimate the percent increase in the probability of a census tract having a monitor with a 10% increase in each population characteristic. This analysis investigated whether some populations are better covered by the existing monitoring network than others.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2012
Birth data. Birth certificate data for Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, DC, and West Virginia (USA), from 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2007 were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics (Atlanta, GA). Data that were provided include county of residence, county of birth, birth order, trimester of first prenatal care, date of last menstrual period (LMP), gestational age, infant’s sex and birth weight, as well as maternal and paternal ages and races, and maternal education, marital status, alcohol consumption, and smoking during pregnancy. Further description of these data is available elsewhere (Bell et al. 2007b (link)).
Births with unspecified county of residence or birth, plural deliveries (e.g., twins), gestational period > 44 weeks, gestational period < 37 weeks (nonterm births), birth weight < 1,000 g or > 5,500 g, different counties of residence and delivery, or impossible gestational age and birth weight combinations were excluded from analysis (Alexander et al. 1996 (link)). Births also were excluded if LMP was missing or the estimated birth based on LMP and gestational length was > 30 days from the midday of the birth month reported on the birth certificate.
Air pollution and weather data. PM2.5 chemical components data were obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Explorer (U.S. EPA 2010a). PM10 and PM2.5 total mass, CO, NO2, O3, and SO2 data were obtained from the U.S. EPA Air Quality System for 1999–2007 (U.S. EPA 2010b). We included only counties with PM2.5 chemical component data because these exposures are our primary focus. PM10, PM2.5, and PM2.5 chemical components were measured every 3–6 days. Gaseous pollutants were measured daily, although O3 was measured mainly during the warm season. Some monitors began or ceased observation during the study period. We investigated PM2.5 chemical components identified by previous research and literature review to have potential links to health and/or contribute substantially to PM2.5 total mass: aluminum, ammonium ion, arsenic, cadmium, calcium, chlorine, elemental carbon, lead, mercury, nickel, nitrate, organic carbon matter, silicon, sodium ion, sulfur, titanium, vanadium, and zinc (Bell et al. 2007a (link); Franklin et al. 2008 (link); Haynes et al. 2011 (link); Ostro et al. 2007 (link); Zanobetti et al. 2009 (link)).
We calculated apparent temperature (AT), a measure that reflects overall temperature discomfort (Kalkstein and Valimont 1986 ), based on daily temperature and dew point temperature data obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (2010) . If weather data were unavailable for a given county, we assigned the AT value for the closest county with weather data.
Exposure estimation. For each birth we calculated the average level of each pollutant during gestation and each trimester, and average AT during each trimester. Delivery date was estimated based on self-reported LMP and gestational length, assuming conception 2 weeks after LMP. We defined trimesters as 1–13 weeks, 14–26 weeks, and week 27 to delivery, as in previous studies (Bell et al. 2007b (link)).
Exposures were estimated based on county of residence. Not all counties had data for all pollutants. Measurements from multiple monitors in the same county on the same day were averaged to generate daily pollutant -levels. To avoid biases due to changes in measurement frequency, daily pollutant levels and AT values were combined to estimate weekly exposures, which were then averaged to estimate gestational or trimester exposure. Births for which exposure estimates were unavailable for > 25% of the weeks in any trimester for a given pollutant were excluded from analyses of that pollutant.
Statistical analysis. Each birth was cate-gorized as low or normal birth weight using clinically defined LBW (< 2,500 g). Logistic regression was used to estimate associations between LBW and gestational exposure to each pollutant with adjustment for maternal race (African American, Caucasian, other), marital status (married, unmarried), tobacco consumption during pregnancy (yes, no, unknown), alcohol consumption during pregnancy (yes, no, unknown), highest education (< 12 years, 12 years, 13–15 years, > 15 years, unknown), age (< 20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, ≥ 40 years), infant sex (male, female), gestational length (37–38, 39–40, 41–42, 43–44 weeks), the trimester prenatal care began (1st, 2nd, 3rd, no care, unknown), first in birth order (yes, no, unknown), delivery method (vaginal, cesarean section, unknown), average AT for each trimester, season of birth, and year of birth. In addition we included regional indicators to adjust for local factors such as area-level socioeconomic conditions (Table 1). We conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to first births to assess the influence of multiple births by the same mother on associations (Zhu et al. 1999 (link)).
For pollutants showing statistically significant associations with LBW in single--pollutant models, we conducted two-pollutant models that included pairs of pollutants that were not highly correlated (correlation < 0.5). Similarly, for pollutants associated in single-pollutant model, we assessed effects by trimester using a model with trimesters’ exposures included simultaneously. Because trimester exposures could be correlated, we performed sensitivity analysis with trimester exposures adjusted to be orthogonal using a method we published previously (Bell et al. 2007b (link)). In brief, we predicted exposures of two trimesters using exposure level of a given trimester (reference trimester), calculated their residuals, and put them into models besides exposure of reference trimester. This approach can avoid covariance among trimester exposures. This procedure was repeated using each trimester as the reference trimester, and we have four models for trimester analysis in total (main model and three models as sensitivity -analyses). Further description of this approach is available elsewhere (Bell et al. 2007b (link)).
Additional analyses were conducted for pollutants that showed statistically robust results in two-pollutant models. We included interaction terms between gestational pollutant exposures and sex or race to investigate whether some populations are particularly susceptible, because previous analysis found higher relative risks associated with ambient air pollution in some populations than in others (Bell et al. 2007b (link)). Statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05 for the entire analyses.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2012
To examine the possible role of PM components (i.e., transition metals, ions, and crustal soil tracers) on the city-to-city variation of PM10 mortality risk estimates, we analyzed the association between the key FPM components from the FPM speciation network and the NMMAPS PM10 daily mortality risk estimates. The speciation data were obtained from the U.S. EPA Air Quality System (AQS) for the years 2000–2003 (U.S. EPA 2003 ). The NMMAPS PM10 mortality risk estimates (updated estimates using generalized linear modeling) for the 90 largest U.S. MSAs (for the time-series analysis that was conducted for 1987–1994) were obtained from the JHSPH Internet-based Health and Air Pollution Surveillance System (IHAPSS) website (JHSPH 2003 ). Although there were more than 40 FPM species, we focused on the 16 key components that were most closely associated with major source categories: aluminum, arsenic, Cr, copper, elemental carbon, Fe, manganese, Ni, nitrate, organic carbon, lead, selinium, silicon, sulfate, V, and zinc. First, for each FPM monitor, quarterly averages were computed from 24-hr average values (of at least every 6th-day schedule) when > 50% of scheduled samples were available. Second, an annual average for each FPM monitor was computed (but only when the four complete quarter averages were available). Third, the annual average values were then averaged across available monitors for each MSA. The resulting MSA-averaged FPM component values were then matched with the 60 NMMAPS MSAs that had FPM speciation data. Most of the annual speciation data were highly skewed. Therefore, we examined both raw and log-transformed data. The PM10 mortality risk estimates (expressed as percent excess deaths per 10-μg/m3 increase in PM10) were then regressed on each of the FPM components, with weights based on the SE of the PM10 risk estimates.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2006
Air Pollution Aluminum Arsenic Carbon Copper Ions Manganese Nitrates Silicon Sulfates, Inorganic Transition Elements Zinc
The PM2.5 mass and species concentration data were obtained online from the EPA Technology Transfer Network Air Quality System [29 ].
We selected the same cities studied by Franklin et al [30 (link)], but also included Chicago, IL, as we had MEDICARE and sufficient speciation data between 2000 and 2003. These cities were originally chosen due to availability of daily PM2.5 data. For most of these cities, the metropolitan county encompassed the city and much of its suburbs, but we used multiple counties for Boston (Suffolk, Norfolk, and Middlesex), and Minneapolis-St. Paul (Ramsey and Hennepin). Henceforth we refer to the analyzed geographical areas as communities.
The STN monitors operate on a 24 hour schedule and collect particles on Teflon, nylon or quartz filters which are analyzed for trace elements using X-ray fluorescence, for ions using ion chromatography and for organic and elemental carbon using thermal-optical analysis.
The EPA maintains multiple PM2.5 mass sites, but typically only one PM2.5 speciation site within a county. In order to use all the available PM2.5 monitoring sites, the 24-hour integrated mass concentrations were averaged over the county using a method previously described [31 (link)]. Briefly, we computed local daily mean concentrations using an algorithm that accounts for the different monitor-specific means and variances. However, before averaging, any monitor that was not well correlated with the others (r < 0.8 for two or more monitor pairs within a community) was excluded as it likely measured a local pollution source and would not represent the general population exposure over the entire county. The number of monitors across the counties varied between 1 and 4.
Based on results from previous epidemiological studies [26 (link)-33 (link)] we focused on the species with different sources and toxicological background. In particular we focus on the paper of Franklin et al [30 (link)] who also screened the STN data for inconsistencies based on the percentage of data below the minimum detection limit and with quality control flags. We therefore examined the following species: Arsenic (As), Aluminium (Al), Bromine (Br), Chromium (Cr), Iron (Fe), Lead (Pb), Manganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni), Potassium (K), Silicon (Si), Vanadium (V), Zinc (Zn), ions nitrate (NO3-), Sulfate (SO42-), ammonium (NH4+), sodium (Na+), elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC).
For all available observations we computed the ratio between each species and PM2.5 mass and then took averages by season across all years to obtain season- and community-specific long-term mean seasonal concentration ratios.
Meteorological data including daily mean temperature and dew point temperature from the predominant weather station in each community were acquired from the National Climatic Data Center [34 ].
Full text: Click here
Publication 2009
Aluminum Ammonium Arsenic Bromine Carbon Chromatography Chromium Climate Fluorescence Ions Iron Manganese Nickel Nitrates Nylons Potassium Quartz Roentgen Rays Silicon Sodium Sulfates, Inorganic Teflon Trace Elements Vanadium Vision Zinc

Most recents protocols related to «Zinc nitrate»

Not available on PMC !
To prepare a 50 mL solution of zinc nitrate with a ratio of 2:1, 25 g of zinc nitrate was added to 50 mL of distilled water and dissolved with a magnetic stirrer for 30 minutes. Zinc nitrate completely dissolves in distilled water to form a clear, colorless solution.
Publication 2024
In experimental exposure in the lab, Two hundred and forty Nile tilapia (30 ± 5 g b.w.) were distributed into glass aquaria containing 10% LC50 of lead nitrate (PbNO3) [34 (link)] and zinc sulfate (ZnSO4) [35 ], 14.33 mg/L and 6.398 mg/L, respectively, for 4, 6, and 8 weeks.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2024
All chemicals, lead nitrate (Pb(NO3)2), Zinc nitrate (Zn(NO3)2), Cadmium nitrate (Cd(NO3)2), Nickel nitrate (Ni(NO3)2), potassium permanganate (KMnO4), Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2), Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), nitric acid (HNO3), Zinc sulfate heptahydrate (ZnSO4.7H2O), and potassium hydroxide (KOH) were provided by Merck company (Germany) and used without any further purification.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2024
To synthesize CeO2-ZIF-8-HA: Dissolve zinc nitrate, dimethylimidazole and QT separately. Add CeO2 and QT to the dimethylimidazole solution first and mix well with it, then add zinc nitrate solution to the mixed solution slowly drop by drop. The solution was stirred at room temperature for about half an hour, and the precipitate was washed by centrifugation to obtain C/Q@ZIF-8. The micelle surface was then modified with HA by EDC/NHS cross-linking reaction to obtain the C/Q@ZIF-8-HA with CD44 activity targeting.
To synthesize CeO2@ZIF-8-HA: Briefly, dissolve zinc nitrate and dimethylimidazole separately. Add CeO2 to the dimethylimidazole solution and mix it well, then add zinc nitrate solution to the mixed solution slowly drop by drop. The solution was stirred at room temperature and reacted for about half an hour, and the precipitate was washed by centrifugation to get CeO2@ZIF-8. The micelle surface was then modified with HA by EDC/NHS cross-linking reaction to obtain the CeO2@ZIF-8-HA with CD44 activity targeting.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2024
Zinc nitrate and sodium hydroxide were precursors in a wet chemical process to create zinc oxide nanoparticles (Zn NPs), with sodium borohydrate serving as a stabilizing agent. The procedure, adapted from Behera [19 ] with some modifications, began by dissolving approximately 2.79 g of zinc nitrate hexahydrate [Zn (NO3)2·6H2O] in 100 mL of distilled deionized water through vigorous stirring for one hour. A solution of 0.48 g of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in 60 mL of distilled deionized water was then prepared, and 1 mL of 1% NaBH4 was added after the dissolution of zinc nitrate. Sodium hydroxide solution was slowly added dropwise to the mixture using a burette, stirring overnight for 12 h to achieve a reduced nanosize. The resulting precipitate was left to settle, then dried in an oven at 80 °C after being filtered under suction and repeatedly cleaned with distilled dH2O. The obtained zinc hydroxide (Zn (OH)2) was transformed into ZnO through calcination in a muffle at 500 °C, yielding the desired smaller-sized ZnO nanoparticles.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2024

Top products related to «Zinc nitrate»

Sourced in United States, Germany, India, United Kingdom, Australia, China, Spain, Cameroon, Brazil, Italy, Latvia, Poland
Zinc nitrate hexahydrate is a chemical compound with the formula Zn(NO3)2·6H2O. It is a colorless crystalline solid that is soluble in water and commonly used in various laboratory applications.
Sourced in Germany, United States, India, United Kingdom, Italy, China, Spain, France, Australia, Canada, Poland, Switzerland, Singapore, Belgium, Sao Tome and Principe, Ireland, Sweden, Brazil, Israel, Mexico, Macao, Chile, Japan, Hungary, Malaysia, Denmark, Portugal, Indonesia, Netherlands, Czechia, Finland, Austria, Romania, Pakistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Norway, Colombia, New Zealand, Lithuania
Sodium hydroxide is a chemical compound with the formula NaOH. It is a white, odorless, crystalline solid that is highly soluble in water and is a strong base. It is commonly used in various laboratory applications as a reagent.
Sourced in United States, Germany, India, China
Zinc nitrate is an inorganic compound with the chemical formula Zn(NO3)2. It is a crystalline solid that is soluble in water and commonly used as a laboratory reagent.
Sourced in United States, Germany, India, United Kingdom, Italy, China, Poland, France, Spain, Sao Tome and Principe, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Belgium, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Switzerland
Silver nitrate is a chemical compound with the formula AgNO3. It is a colorless, water-soluble salt that is used in various laboratory applications.
Sourced in Germany, United States, Italy, India, United Kingdom, China, France, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Sao Tome and Principe, Brazil, Ireland, Japan, Belgium, Portugal, Singapore, Macao, Malaysia, Czechia, Mexico, Indonesia, Chile, Denmark, Sweden, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Finland, Hungary, Austria, Israel, Norway, Egypt, Argentina, Greece, Kenya, Thailand, Pakistan
Methanol is a clear, colorless, and flammable liquid that is widely used in various industrial and laboratory applications. It serves as a solvent, fuel, and chemical intermediate. Methanol has a simple chemical formula of CH3OH and a boiling point of 64.7°C. It is a versatile compound that is widely used in the production of other chemicals, as well as in the fuel industry.
Sourced in United States, Germany, China, Australia
2-Methylimidazole is a heterocyclic organic compound. It is a colorless or white crystalline solid with a melting point of approximately 149°C. 2-Methylimidazole is commonly used as a building block in the synthesis of various chemical compounds. Its core function is to serve as a versatile intermediate in organic chemistry.
Sourced in Germany, United States, United Kingdom, Italy, India, France, China, Australia, Spain, Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Brazil, Poland, Sao Tome and Principe, Singapore, Chile, Malaysia, Belgium, Macao, Mexico, Ireland, Sweden, Indonesia, Pakistan, Romania, Czechia, Denmark, Hungary, Egypt, Israel, Portugal, Taiwan, Province of China, Austria, Thailand
Ethanol is a clear, colorless liquid chemical compound commonly used in laboratory settings. It is a key component in various scientific applications, serving as a solvent, disinfectant, and fuel source. Ethanol has a molecular formula of C2H6O and a range of industrial and research uses.
Sourced in Germany, United States, United Kingdom, India, Italy, France, Spain, Australia, China, Poland, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Singapore, Sao Tome and Principe, Malaysia, Brazil, Hungary, Chile, Belgium, Denmark, Macao, Mexico, Sweden, Indonesia, Romania, Czechia, Egypt, Austria, Portugal, Netherlands, Greece, Panama, Kenya, Finland, Israel, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Norway
Hydrochloric acid is a commonly used laboratory reagent. It is a clear, colorless, and highly corrosive liquid with a pungent odor. Hydrochloric acid is an aqueous solution of hydrogen chloride gas.
Sourced in United States, Germany, India
Zinc nitrate hexahydrate (Zn(NO3)2·6H2O) is a crystalline compound that consists of zinc, nitrate, and water molecules. It is a common laboratory reagent used in various chemical applications.
Sourced in China
Zinc nitrate hexahydrate is an inorganic compound with the formula Zn(NO3)2·6H2O. It is a crystalline solid that is commonly used as a laboratory reagent and in various industrial applications. The core function of zinc nitrate hexahydrate is to serve as a source of zinc ions and nitrate ions in chemical reactions and processes.

More about "Zinc nitrate"

Zinc Nitrate: Unlocking Versatility in Research and Applications

Zinc nitrate, also known as Zn(NO3)2, is a versatile inorganic compound with a wide range of industrial, laboratory, and medical applications.
This white, crystalline solid is highly soluble in water and has been extensively studied for its unique properties and potential uses.
Beyond its primary form, zinc nitrate can also be found in the hexahydrate variant, Zn(NO3)2·6H2O, which adds an additional layer of complexity to its chemistry and applications.
Researchers working with zinc nitrate may also encounter related compounds such as sodium hydroxide, silver nitrate, methanol, 2-methylimidazole, ethanol, and hydrochloric acid, which can be used in various synthesis and purification processes.
Optimizing research with zinc nitrate can be enhanced through the use of AI-driven tools like PubCompare.ai, which can help identify the best protocols, pre-prints, and patents from the scientific literature.
By leveraging these resources, researchers can improve the reproducibility and accuracy of their experiments, leading to better outcomes and a deeper understanding of this versatile compound.
Whether you're exploring zinc nitrate's potential as a chemical reagent, wood preservative, fertilizer component, or in the production of other zinc compounds, PubCompare.ai can be a valuable asset in your research toolkit.
By comparing the latest findings and best practices, you can streamline your experimental design, enhance efficiency, and potentially unlock new applications for this fascinating inorganic material.