4.7 Article

Understanding the adsorption of sulfonamide antibiotics on MIL-53s: Metal dependence of breathing effect and adsorptive performance in aqueous solution

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 535, 期 -, 页码 159-168

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.09.090

关键词

MIL-53s; Adsorption; Sulfamethoxazole; Breathing effect

资金

  1. Major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment [2017ZX07202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This investigation is based on experimental data to deeply understand the unusual adsorption behavior of the flexible MIL-53s in aqueous solution. In contrast to the strongly flexible MIL-53(Cr) and MIL-53(Al) with large pore form (Ip) in water and in their anhydrous state, MIL-53(Fe) exhibits narrow pore form (np) or very narrow pore form (vnp), indicating that breathing effect depends on the nature of the metal. Sulfamethoxazole (SMZ) adsorption results demonstrated that the maximum adsorption capacities predicted by Langmuir model were 1.85, 1.78 and 0.314 mmol/g for MIL-53(Cr), MIL-53(Al), and MIL-53(Fe), respectively. The adsorption equilibrium was rapidly reached within 60 min and the kinetic data best fitted with the pseudo second order model. The lp form of MIL-53(Cr) and MIL-53(Al) in aqueous solution provided the easy entrance for contaminants, lead to lower binding energy and caused modifications of the hydrophobic/hydrophilic character, which all enhanced their adsorption capacities for SMZ. However, the np form of MIL-53(Fe) with small inner pores and hydrophilicity compromised its adsorption capacity for SMZ. The experimental results revealed electrostatic interactions, hydrogen bonding, and pi-pi interaction/stacking contributed to the adsorption of SMZ on MIL-53s as well. In summary, the complexation of different metal nodes to MOFs is accompanied by the diversity of properties, which significantly affect their adsorptive performance. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据