4.7 Article

Magnetic zirconium-based metal-organic frameworks for selective phosphate adsorption from water

Journal

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
Volume 552, Issue -, Pages 134-141

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2019.05.022

Keywords

Magnetic Fe3O4 core-shell; Phosphate adsorption; Metal-organic frameworks; Selective adsorption

Funding

  1. National Special Program of Water Environment [2017ZX07204]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although adsorbents can effectively remove phosphate from water, most are difficult to separate from water and their phosphate removal efficiencies are adversely affected by coexisting anions or humic acid. Here, a magnetic core-shell composite with Fe3O4 as the core and carbon as the shell (denoted as MFC) was functionalized with a metal-organic framework, UiO-66, and its phosphate adsorption ability was studied. The composite (denoted as MFC@UiO-66) was effectively separated from water within 1 min under an external magnetic field. The kinetics of phosphate adsorption onto MFC@UiO-66 was controlled by the intraparticle diffusion process, suggesting that the Zr in UiO-66 played an important role in phosphate adsorption. The isotherm for phosphate adsorption onto MFC@UiO-66 was well described by the Freundlich model. The adsorbent exhibited higher affinity toward phosphate than toward coexisting anions (e.g., Cl-, NO3-, and SO42-), reflecting high phosphate adsorption selectivity. The adsorption affinity of MFC@UiO-66 to phosphate increased with the increasing temperature, but decreased with increasing pH. The presence of dissolved humic acid negligibly affected phosphate adsorption onto MFC@UiO-66 because of its size-exclusion effects. The used adsorbent was easily regenerated with NaOH solution, and the sorbent displayed stable phosphate adsorption behavior after five regeneration cycles. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available