4.7 Article

Competitive adsorption characteristics of fluoride and phosphate on calcined Mg-Al-CO3 layered double hydroxides

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 213, 期 -, 页码 100-108

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.01.069

关键词

Calcined Mg-Al-CO3; Layered double hydroxides; Competitive adsorption; Fluoride; Phosphate

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2010ZY34, 2011YXL006, 2011PY0182]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences [2010-005, 11K02ESPCR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With synthetic wastewater, competitive adsorption characteristics of fluoride and phosphate on calcined Mg-Al-CO3 layered double hydroxides (CLDH) were investigated. A series of batch experiments were performed to study the influence of various experimental parameters, such as pH, contact time, and order of addition of the anions on the competitive adsorption of fluoride and phosphate on CLDH. It was found that the optimal pH is around 6 and it took 24 h to attain equilibrium when fluoride and phosphate were simultaneous added. The order of addition of anions influenced the adsorption of fluoride and phosphate on CLDH. The kinetic data were analyzed using the pseudo first-order and pseudo second-order models and they were found to fit very well the pseudo second-order kinetic model. Data of equilibrium experiments were fitted well to Langmuir isotherm and the competitive monolayer adsorption capacities of fluoride and phosphate were found to be obviously lower than those of single anion at 25 degrees C. The results of X-ray diffraction, Scanning Electron Microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray analyses, and ATR-FTIR demonstrate that the adsorption mechanism involves the rehydration of mixed metal oxides and concomitant intercalation of fluoride and phosphate ions into the interlayer to reconstruct the initial LDHs structure. (C) 2012 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