Full Text:   <1137>

Summary:  <274>

CLC number: 

On-line Access: 2022-07-19

Received: 2021-12-10

Revision Accepted: 2022-01-27

Crosschecked: 2022-07-19

Cited: 0

Clicked: 1086

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714


Dong YE


Hai-ning WANG


-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 2022 Vol.23 No.7 P.505-526


Review of elemental mercury (Hg0) removal by CuO-based materials

Author(s):  Dong YE, Xiao-xiang WANG, Run-xian WANG, Xin LIU, Hui LIU, Hai-ning WANG

Affiliation(s):  College of Quality & Safety Engineering, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China; more

Corresponding email(s):   Richard32@126.com, whnfyy@163.com

Key Words:  Hg0 capture capability, CuO-based materials, Hg0 removal mechanisms, Gas components, Simultaneous removal of multiple pollutants

Share this article to: More |Next Article >>>

Dong YE, Xiao-xiang WANG, Run-xian WANG, Xin LIU, Hui LIU, Hai-ning WANG. Review of elemental mercury (Hg0) removal by CuO-based materials[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science A, 2022, 23(7): 505-526.

@article{title="Review of elemental mercury (Hg0) removal by CuO-based materials",
author="Dong YE, Xiao-xiang WANG, Run-xian WANG, Xin LIU, Hui LIU, Hai-ning WANG",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science A",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",

%0 Journal Article
%T Review of elemental mercury (Hg0) removal by CuO-based materials
%A Dong YE
%A Xiao-xiang WANG
%A Run-xian WANG
%A Xin LIU
%A Hui LIU
%A Hai-ning WANG
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A
%V 23
%N 7
%P 505-526
%@ 1673-565X
%D 2022
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/jzus.A2100627

T1 - Review of elemental mercury (Hg0) removal by CuO-based materials
A1 - Dong YE
A1 - Xiao-xiang WANG
A1 - Run-xian WANG
A1 - Xin LIU
A1 - Hui LIU
A1 - Hai-ning WANG
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science A
VL - 23
IS - 7
SP - 505
EP - 526
%@ 1673-565X
Y1 - 2022
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/jzus.A2100627

Mercury emission has become a great environmental concern because of its high toxicity, bioaccumulation, and persistence. Adsorption is an effective method to remove Hg0 from coal-fired flue gas, with adsorbents playing a dominant role. Extensive investigations have been conducted on the use of cuO-based materials for Hg0 removal, and some fruitful results have been obtained. In this review, we summarize advances in the application of cuO-based materials for Hg0 capture. Firstly, the fundamentals of CuO, including its crystal information and synthesis methods, are introduced. Then, the Hg0 removal capability of some typical CuO-based adsorbents is discussed. Considering that coal-fired flue gas also contains a certain amount of NO, SO2, H2O, NH3, and HCl, the impacts of these species on adsorbent Hg0 removal efficiency are summarized next. By generalizing the mechanisms dominating the Hg0 removal process, the rate-determining step and the key intermediates can be discovered. Apart from Hg0, some other air pollutants, such as CO, NOx, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), account for a certain portion of flue gas. In view of their similar abatement mechanisms, simultaneous removal of Hg0 and other air pollutants has become a hot topic in the environmental field. Considering the Hg0 re-emission phenomena in wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD), mercury capture performance under different conditions in this device is discussed. Finally, we conclude that new adsorbents suitable for long-term operation in coal-fired flue gas should be developed to realize the effective reduction of mercury emissions.




Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article


[1]AbboudiM, MessaliM, KadiriN, et al., 2011. Synthesis of CuO, La2O3, and La2CuO4 by the thermal-decomposition of oxalates precursors using a new method. Synthesis and Reactivity in Inorganic, Metal-Organic, and Nano-Metal Chemistry, 41(6):683-688.

[2]BalamuruganB, MehtaBR, ShivaprasadSM, 2001. Surface-modified CuO layer in size-stabilized single-phase Cu2O nanoparticles. Applied Physics Letters, 79(19):3176-3178.

[3]BalasundaramK, SharmaM, 2018. Concurrent removal of elemental mercury and SO2 from flue gas using a thiol-impregnated CaCO3-based adsorbent: a full factorial design study. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(16):15518-15528.

[4]BessingerBA, VlassopoulosD, SerranoS, et al., 2012. Reactive transport modeling of subaqueous sediment caps and implications for the long-term fate of arsenic, mercury, and methylmercury. Aquatic Geochemistry, 18(4):297-326.

[5]BlytheGM, RichardsonMK, DeneCE, et al., 2010. Field study of mercury partitioning and re-emissions in wet FGD systems. Proceedings of the 8th Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega Symposium.

[6]BogackiJ, MarcinowskiP, MajewskiM, et al., 2018. Alternative approach to current EU BAT recommendation for coal-fired power plant flue gas desulfurization wastewater treatment. Processes, 6(11):229.

[7]BourneLC, YuPY, ZettlA, et al., 1989. High-pressure electrical conductivity measurements in the copper oxides. Physical Review B, 40(16):10973-10976.

[8]ChakrabortyS, DasA, BegumMR, et al., 2011. Vibrational properties of CuO nanoparticles synthesized by hydrothermal technique. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1349(1):841-842.

[9]ChangL, ZhaoYC, LiHL, et al., 2017. Effect of sulfite on divalent mercury reduction and re-emission in a simulated desulfurization aqueous solution. Fuel Processing Technology, 165:138-144.

[10]ChenDY, ZhaoSJ, QuZ, et al., 2018. Cu-BTC as a novel material for elemental mercury removal from sintering gas. Fuel, 217:297-305.

[11]ChoiY, KimJ, MoonI, 2020. Simulation and economic assessment of using H2O2 solution in wet scrubber for large marine vessels. Energy, 194:116907.

[12]DevarajanD, LianP, BrooksSC, et al., 2018. Quantum chemical approach for calculating stability constants of mercury complexes. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 2(11):1168-1178.

[13]DuW, YinLB, ZhuoYQ, et al., 2015. Performance of CuOx‒neutral Al2O3 sorbents on mercury removal from simulated coal combustion flue gas. Fuel Processing Technology, 131:403-408.

[14]FanXP, LiCT, ZengGM, et al., 2012. The effects of Cu/HZSM-5 on combined removal of Hg0 and NO from flue gas. Fuel Processing Technology, 104:325-331.

[15]FangYR, GuoYB, 2018. Copper-based non-precious metal heterogeneous catalysts for environmental remediation. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 39(4):566-582.

[16]GallowayB, RoykoM, SasmazE, et al., 2018. Mercury oxidation over Cu-SSZ-13 catalysts under flue gas conditions. Chemical Engineering Journal, 336:253-262.

[17]GaoFY, YanH, TangXL, et al., 2021. Simultaneous removal of gaseous CO and elemental mercury over Cu-Co modified activated coke at low temperature. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 101:36-48.

[18]GingerichDB, GrolE, MauterMS, 2018. Fundamental challenges and engineering opportunities in flue gas desulfurization wastewater treatment at coal fired power plants. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 4(7):909-925.

[19]HeP, ZhangZZ, PengXL, et al., 2018. Mercury capture by manganese modified copper oxide. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 85:201-206.

[20]HsuCJ, ChiouHJ, ChenYH, et al., 2019. Mercury adsorption and re-emission inhibition from actual WFGD wastewater using sulfur-containing activated carbon. Environmental Research, 168:319-328.

[21]HsuCJ, AtkinsonJD, ChungA, et al., 2021. Gaseous mercury re-emission from wet flue gas desulfurization wastewater aeration basins: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 420:126546.

[22]JampaiahD, ChalkidisA, SabriYM, et al., 2019. Role of ceria in the design of composite materials for elemental mercury removal. The Chemical Record, 19(7):‍1407-1419.

[23]JiaL, FanBG, YaoYX, et al., 2018. Study on the elemental mercury adsorption characteristics and mechanism of iron-based modified biochar materials. Energy & Fuels, 32(12):12554-12566.

[24]JiangXC, HerricksT, XiaYN, 2002. CuO nanowires can be synthesized by heating copper substrates in air. Nano Letters, 2(12):1333-1338.

[25]LeeJ, ChoH, MoonI, et al., 2021. Techno-economic assessment of carbonate melt flue gas desulfurization process. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 146:107227.

[26]LeeJ, AhnY, ChoH, et al., 2022. Economic performance assessment of elemental sulfur recovery with carbonate melt desulfurization process. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 158:123-133.

[27]LiHL, WuSK, WuCY, et al., 2015. SCR atmosphere induced reduction of oxidized mercury over CuO–CeO2/TiO2 catalyst. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(12):7373-7379.

[28]LiHL, ZhuL, WuSK, et al., 2017. Synergy of CuO and CeO2 combination for mercury oxidation under low-temperature selective catalytic reduction atmosphere. International Journal of Coal Geology, 170:69-76.

[29]LiJY, WuQR, WangYY, et al., 2021. Improvement of NH3 resistance over CuO/TiO2 catalysts for elemental mercury oxidation in a wide temperature range. Catalysis Today, 376:276-284.

[30]LiY, YangXY, RookeJ, et al., 2010. Ultralong Cu(OH)2 and CuO nanowire bundles: PEG200-directed crystal growth for enhanced photocatalytic performance. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 348(2):303-312.

[31]LimJ, ChoiY, KimG, et al., 2020. Modeling of the wet flue gas desulfurization system to utilize low-grade limestone. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 37(12):2085-2093.

[32]LimJ, ChoH, KimJ, 2021. Optimization of wet flue gas desulfurization system using recycled waste oyster shell as high-grade limestone substitutes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318:128492.

[33]LimJ, JeongS, KimJ, 2022. Deep neural network-based optimal selection and blending ratio of waste seashells as an alternative to high-grade limestone depletion for SOx capture and utilization. Chemical Engineering Journal, 431:133244.

[34]LiuDJ, ZhouWG, WuJ, 2017. Effect of Ce and La on the activity of CuO/ZSM-5 and MnOx/ZSM-5 composites for elemental mercury removal at low temperature. Fuel, 194:115-122.

[35]LiuDJ, LuC, WuJ, 2018a. CuO/g-C3N4 nanocomposite for elemental mercury capture at low temperature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 20(10):277.

[36]LiuDJ, LuC, WuJ, 2018b. Gaseous mercury capture by copper-activated nanoporous carbon nitride. Energy & Fuels, 32(8):8287-8295.

[37]LiuDJ, LiCE, WuJ, et al., 2020. Novel carbon-based sorbents for elemental mercury removal from gas streams: a review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 391:123514.

[38]LiuH, ChangL, LiuWJ, et al., 2020. Advances in mercury removal from coal-fired flue gas by mineral adsorbents. Chemical Engineering Journal, 379:122263.

[39]LiuJP, HuangXT, LiYY, et al., 2006. Hierarchical nanostructures of cupric oxide on a copper substrate: controllable morphology and wettability. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 16(45):4427-4434.

[40]LiuZ, LiuDY, ZhaoBT, et al., 2020. Mercury removal based on adsorption and oxidation by fly ash: a review. Energy & Fuels, 34(10):11840-11866.

[41]LiuZL, WangDL, PengB, et al., 2017. Mercury re-emission in the smelting flue gas cleaning process: the influence of arsenite. Energy & Fuels, 31(10):11053-11059.

[42]LongYF, HeZ, LiXY, et al., 2022. Removal of elemental mercury from flue gas using the magnetic attapulgite by Mn-Cu oxides modification. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(10):14058-14069.

[43]MaYP, XuHM, QuZ, et al., 2014. Absorption characteristics of elemental mercury in mercury chloride solutions. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 26(11):2257-2265.

[44]MaYP, XuTF, LiL, et al., 2021. Core-shell nanostructure α-Fe2O3/SnO2 binary oxides for the catalytic oxidation and adsorption of elemental mercury from flue gas. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 9(2):105137.

[45]MeiJ, WangC, KongLN, et al., 2019. Outstanding performance of recyclable amorphous MoS3 supported on TiO2 for capturing high concentrations of gaseous elemental mercury: mechanism, kinetics, and application. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(8):4480-4489.

[46]MeiJ, WangC, KongLN, et al., 2020. Remarkable improvement of Ti incorporation on Hg0 capture from smelting flue gas by sulfurated γ-Fe2O3: performance and mechanism. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 381:120967.

[47]MeiZJ, ShenZM, ZhaoQJ, et al., 2008. Removing and recovering gas-phase elemental mercury by CuxCo3-xO4 (0.75≤x≤2.25) in the presence of sulphur compounds. Chemosphere, 70(8):1399-1404.

[48]NeupaneMP, KimYK, ParkIS, et al., 2009. Temperature driven morphological changes of hydrothermally prepared copper oxide nanoparticles. Surface and Interface Analysis, 41(3):259-263.

[49]OmineN, RomeroCE, KikkawaH, et al., 2012. Study of elemental mercury re-emission in a simulated wet scrubber. Fuel, 91(1):93-101.

[50]PengB, LiuZL, ChaiLY, et al., 2016. The effect of selenite on mercury re-emission in smelting flue gas scrubbing system. Fuel, 168:7-13.

[51]PoizotP, HungCJ, NikiforovMP, et al., 2003. An electrochemical method for CuO thin film deposition from aqueous solution. Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 6(2):C21-C25.

[52]PowellKJ, BrownPL, ByrneRH, et al., 2005. Chemical speciation of environmentally significant heavy metals with inorganic ligands. Part 1: the Hg2+–Cl–, OH–, CO32–, SO42–, and PO43– aqueous systems (IUPAC technical report). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 77(4):739-800.

[53]RadhakrishnanA, RejaniP, BeenaB, 2014. Synthesis, characterization and antimicrobial properties of CuO nanoparticles against gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial strains. International Journal of Nano Dimension, 5(6):519-524.

[54]SunPX, MeiJ, WangC, et al., 2021. Outstanding performance of CuO/Fe-Ti spinel for Hg0 oxidation as a co-benefit of no abatement: significant promotion of Hg0 oxidation by CuO loading. Catalysis Science & Technology, 11(6):2316-2326.

[55]TangL, LiCT, ZhaoLK, et al., 2018. A novel catalyst CuO-ZrO2 doped on Cl- activated bio-char for Hg0 removal in a broad temperature range. Fuel, 218:366-374.

[56]ToboonsungB, SingjaiP, 2011. Formation of CuO nanorods and their bundles by an electrochemical dissolution and deposition process. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 509(10):4132-4137.

[57]UlyankinaA, LeontyevI, MaslovaO, et al., 2018. Copper oxides for energy storage application: novel pulse alternating current synthesis. Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing, 73:111-116.

[58]van LoonLL, MaderEA, ScottSL, 2001. Sulfite stabilization and reduction of the aqueous mercuric ion: kinetic determination of sequential formation constants. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 105(13):3190-3195.

[59]VidyasagarCC, NaikYA, VenkateshaTG, et al., 2012. Solid-state synthesis and effect of temperature on optical properties of CuO nanoparticles. Nano-Micro Letters, 4(2):73-77.

[60]WangC, ZhangXF, MeiJ, et al., 2020. Outstanding performance of magnetically separable sulfureted MoO3/Fe-Ti spinel for gaseous Hg0 recovery from smelting flue gas: mechanism and adsorption kinetics. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(12):7659-7668.

[61]WangHN, MaW, YanJB, et al., 2020. Smart modification of HZSM-5 with manganese species for the removal of mercury. ACS Omega, 5(30):19277-19284.

[62]WangHY, WangBD, ZhouJL, et al., 2019. CuO modified vanadium-based SCR catalysts for Hg0 oxidation and NO reduction. Journal of Environmental Management, 239:17-22.

[63]WangJ, KongX, DuR, et al., 2012. Removal of vapor-phase elemental mercury over a CuO/AC catalyst. The 2nd International Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (EESD 2012), p.64-67.

[64]WangPY, SuS, XiangJ, et al., 2013. Catalytic oxidation of Hg0 by CuO-MnO2-Fe2O3/γ‍-Al2O3 catalyst. Chemical Engineering Journal, 225:68-75.

[65]WangY, SiWZ, PengY, et al., 2019. Investigation on removal of NO and Hg0 with different Cu species in Cu-SAPO-34 zeolites. Catalysis Communications, 119:91-95.

[66]WangZ, LiuJ, YangYJ, et al., 2020. AMn2O4 (A=Cu, Ni and Zn) sorbents coupling high adsorption and regeneration performance for elemental mercury removal from syngas. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 388:121738.

[67]WenXY, LiCT, FanXP, et al., 2011. Experimental study of gaseous elemental mercury removal with CeO2/γ-Al2O3. Energy & Fuels, 25(7):2939-2944.

[68]XiangWJ, LiuJ, ChangM, et al., 2012. The adsorption mechanism of elemental mercury on CuO (1 1 0) surface. Chemical Engineering Journal, 200-202:91-96.

[69]XuJF, JiW, ShenZX, et al., 1999. Preparation and characterization of CuO nanocrystals. Journal of Solid State Chemistry, 147(2):516-519.

[70]XuW, AdewuyiYG, LiuYX, et al., 2018. Removal of elemental mercury from flue gas using CuOx and CeO2 modified rice straw chars enhanced by ultrasound. Fuel Processing Technology, 170:21-31.

[71]XuWQ, WangHR, ZhouX, et al., 2014. CuO/TiO2 catalysts for gas-phase Hg0 catalytic oxidation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 243:380-385.

[72]YangC, SuXT, WangJD, et al., 2013. Facile microwave-assisted hydrothermal synthesis of varied-shaped CuO nanoparticles and their gas sensing properties. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 185:159-165.

[73]YangJP, ZhaoYC, ZhangJY, et al., 2014. Regenerable cobalt oxide loaded magnetosphere catalyst from fly ash for mercury removal in coal combustion flue gas. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(24):14837-14843.

[74]YangR, MeiCL, WuXS, et al., 2019. Mn-Cu binary metal oxides with molecular-scale homogeneity for Hg0 removal from coal-fired flue gas. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 58(41):19292-19301.

[75]YangSJ, GuoYF, YanNQ, et al., 2011a. Elemental mercury capture from flue gas by magnetic Mn-Fe spinel: effect of chemical heterogeneity. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 50(16):9650-9656.

[76]YangSJ, GuoYF, YanNQ, et al., 2011b. Nanosized cation-deficient Fe-Ti spinel: a novel magnetic sorbent for elemental mercury capture from flue gas. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 3(2):209-217.

[77]YangW, LiuYX, WangQ, et al., 2017. Removal of elemental mercury from flue gas using wheat straw chars modified by Mn-Ce mixed oxides with ultrasonic-assisted impregnation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 326:169-181.

[78]YangW, LiY, ShiS, et al., 2019. Mercury removal from flue gas by magnetic iron-copper oxide modified porous char derived from biomass materials. Fuel, 256:115977.

[79]YangYJ, LiuJ, ZhangBK, et al., 2017. Experimental and theoretical studies of mercury oxidation over CeO2-WO3/TiO2 catalysts in coal-fired flue gas. Chemical Engineering Journal, 317:758-765.

[80]YangYJ, MiaoS, LiuJ, et al., 2019a. Cost-effective manganese ore sorbent for elemental mercury removal from flue gas. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(16):9957-9965.

[81]YangYJ, LiuJ, WangZ, et al., 2019b. Interface reaction activity of recyclable and regenerable Cu-Mn spinel-type sorbent for Hg0 capture from flue gas. Chemical Engineering Journal, 372:697-707.

[82]YangYJ, LiuJ, WangZ, et al., 2019c. Nature of active sites and an oxygen-assisted reaction mechanism for mercury capture by spinel-type CuMn2O4 sorbents. Energy & Fuels, 33(9):8920-8926.

[83]YangYJ, LiuJ, DingJY, et al., 2022. Mercury/oxygen reaction mechanism over CuFe2O4 catalyst. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 424:127556.

[84]YeD, WangXX, WangRX, et al., 2021. Recent advances in MnO2-based adsorbents for mercury removal from coal-fired flue gas. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 9(5):105993.

[85]YiYY, LiCT, ZhaoLK, et al., 2018. The synthetic evaluation of CuO-MnOx-modified pinecone biochar for simultaneous removal formaldehyde and elemental mercury from simulated flue gas. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(5):4761-4775.

[86]YuanGQ, JiangHF, LinC, et al., 2007. Shape- and size-controlled electrochemical synthesis of cupric oxide nanocrystals. Journal of Crystal Growth, 303(2):400-406.

[87]YueHF, LuP, SuW, et al., 2019. Simultaneous removal of NOx and Hg0 from simulated flue gas over CuaCebZrcO3/r-Al2O3 catalysts at low temperatures: performance, characterization, and mechanism. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(13):13602-13618.

[88]ZhangHC, WangT, LiuJ, et al., 2020. Promotional effect of sulfur trioxide (SO3) on elemental mercury removal over Cu/ZSM-5 catalyst. Applied Surface Science, 511:145604.

[89]ZhangJ, DuanYF, ZhaoWX, et al., 2016. Removal of elemental mercury from simulated flue gas by combining non-thermal plasma with calcium oxide. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing, 36(2):471-485.

[90]ZhangQ, MeiJ, SunPX, et al., 2020. Mechanism of elemental mercury oxidation over copper-based oxide catalysts: kinetics and transient reaction studies. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 59(1):61-70.

[91]ZhangX, GuoYG, LiuWM, et al., 2008. CuO three-dimensional flowerlike nanostructures: controlled synthesis and characterization. Journal of Applied Physics, 103(11):114304.

[92]ZhangXY, CuiL, LiYZ, et al., 2019. Adsorption and oxidation of mercury by montmorillonite powder modified with different copper compounds. Energy & Fuels, 33(8):7852-7860.

[93]ZhangZ, LiuJ, WangZ, et al., 2021a. Bimetallic Fe-Cu-based metal-organic frameworks as efficient adsorbents for gaseous elemental mercury removal. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 60(1):781-789.

[94]ZhangZ, LiuJ, WangZ, et al., 2021b. Efficient capture of gaseous elemental mercury based on novel copper-based metal-organic frameworks. Fuel, 289:119791.

[95]ZhaoB, YiHH, TangXL, et al., 2019. Using CuO-MnOx/AC-H as catalyst for simultaneous removal of Hg0 and NO from coal-fired flue gas. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 364:700-709.

[96]ZhaoLL, HuangY, ChenHY, et al., 2017. Study on the preparation of bimetallic oxide sorbent for mercury removal. Fuel, 197:20-27.

[97]ZhengW, LiHL, YangZQ, et al., 2021. Advances in flue gas mercury abatement by mineral chalcogenides. Chemical Engineering Journal, 411:128608.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion


Please provide your name, email address and a comment

Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE