4.7 Article

Removal of hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] from aqueous solutions by the diatomite-supported/unsupported magnetite nanoparticles

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 173, 期 1-3, 页码 614-621

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.08.129

关键词

Magnetite; Diatomite; Chromium; Adsorption; Transmission electron microscopy

资金

  1. GIGCAS [IS-1111]
  2. National Natural Scientific Foundation of China [40872042]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [GIGCX-07-11/21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diatomite-supported/unsupported magnetite nanoparticles were prepared by co-precipitation and hydrosol methods, and characterized by X-ray diffraction, nitrogen adsorption, elemental analysis, differential scanning calorimetry, transmission electron microscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The average sizes of the unsupported and supported magnetite nanoparticles are around 25 and 15 nm, respectively. The supported magnetite nanoparticles exist on the surface or inside the pores of diatom shells, with better dispersing and less coaggregation than the unsupported ones. The uptake of hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] on the synthesized magnetite nanoparticles was mainly governed by a physico-chemical process, which included an electrostatic attraction followed by a redox process in which Cr(VI) was reduced into trivalent chromium [Cr(III)]. The adsorption of Cr(VI) was highly pH-dependent and the kinetics of the adsorption followed a pseudo-second-order model. The adsorption data of diatomite-supported/unsupported magnetite fit well with the Langmuir isotherm equation. The supported magnetite showed a better adsorption capacity per unit mass of magnetite than unsupported magnetite, and was more thermally stable than their unsupported counterparts. These results indicate that the diatomite-supported/unsupported magnetite nanoparticles are readily prepared, enabling promising applications for the removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solution. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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