4.6 Article

Rational design and preparation of magnetic imprinted polymers for removal of indole by molecular simulation and improved atom transfer radical polymerization

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 605-616

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3ra43875a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB821500]
  2. National Natural Science Fund [21106056, 21174057]
  3. Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation of China [BK2011512]
  4. Scientific Research Foundation of Jiangsu University [11A279]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Novel magnetic imprinted polymers are designed by molecular simulation from a comprehensive perspective and prepared rationally by combining the modified surface imprinting technique with the improved atom transfer radical polymerization. The simulation results show that interaction intensity between indole and monomers are simultaneously affected by complex conformation, charge transfer and binding energy. The optimal monomer for the removal of indole is AM and the best ratio is 1 : 4 in the studied three monomers. To verify the reliability and accuracy of the simulation results, three kinds of novel magnetic imprinted polymers are prepared with different monomers. The experimental results show that molecular simulation is reliable in processing the pre-assembled complexes of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs). The MIPs using AM as monomer display the highest selectivity (2.561) and bonding percentage (31.062%). Structural superiority of the optimal adsorbent is reflected by using several characterization methods. A series of static adsorption tests such as kinetic, isotherm and selectivity are used to analyse the adsorption performance. The test results show that the novel adsorbents conform to the Elovich kinetic equation and follow the Langmuir isotherm model. Meanwhile, they display higher selectivity towards indole than towards other analogues. The novel adsorbents have potential application value in the denitrogenation field.

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

4.6
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