4.7 Article

Influence of trace elements on the textural properties of synthetic chrysotile: Complementary insights from macroscopic and nanoscopic measurements

期刊

MICROPOROUS AND MESOPOROUS MATERIALS
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 81-90

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2013.08.032

关键词

Chrysotile; Trace element; Sequestration; Textural properties; Nanotubes

资金

  1. French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS)
  2. Universite Joseph Fourier (UJF) in Grenoble
  3. French ministry of research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study shows that the presence of Li, Sb, As and B as trace elements significantly influences textural properties such as particle size distribution, morphology and specific surface area of chrysotile synthesized under hydrothermal conditions (P = 8.2 MPa, T = 300 degrees C and high-alkaline pH (13.5)). Conversely, traces of Cs did not have any textural effect under these conditions. Furthermore, chrysotile nanotubes size and morphology depend strongly on the element considered. Indeed, large chrysotile with cylinder in cylinder morphology (outer diameter up to 50 nm) precipitated in the presence of Li, Sb and As. This implies lower specific surface area (124-160 m(2) g(-1)) compared to undoped chrysotile (184 m(2) g(-1) with about 14 nm in width). The presence of boron favors the precipitation of thin fibrous nanotubes similar to undoped chrysotile in width, but significantly longer, with tubes length that can reach three microns in length. In this case, the specific surface area increase slightly from 184 to 196 m(2)/g. The solid-liquid partition coefficient for each investigated trace element was determined using Langmuir equation. This well-tubular geo-material can be used as a model to better understand the effects of trace elements on the precipitation of minerals that are relevant in Earth systems (e.g., serpentinization processes) and societal applications (e.g., asbestos toxicity and CO2 sequestration). (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. 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