4.7 Article

Phenol adsorption and desorption with physically and chemically tailored porous polymers: Mechanistic variability associated with hyper-cross-linking and amination

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 361, 期 -, 页码 162-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.08.068

关键词

Porous polymers; Phenol adsorption; Amine functionalization; Hyper-cross-linking; Adsorbent regeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding phenol adsorption-desorption mechanisms allows adsorbent tailoring to improve capacity and adsorbent reuse. Amberlite (TM) XAD4, a commercial styrenic polymer that is convenient to physically and chemically modify, was functionalized with dimethylamine (DMA) or trimethylamine (TMA) and/or hyper-cross-linked with 1,2-dichloroethane. These modifications were applied to enhance individual and/or synergistic phenol adsorption mechanisms, including hydrogen bonding, electrostatic interactions, and pi-pi dispersion forces. While XAD4-DMA adsorbs more phenol at pH = 6, XAD4-TMA has 23% higher capacity at pH = 11 due to adsorbate deprotonation that increases electrostatic interactions. Combining hyper-cross-linking with amination maximizes adsorption capacity due to synergistic impacts associated with increased micropore volume and surface affinity. Amine groups reduce desorption efficiency by 6-94% due to stronger adsorbate-adsorbent interactions compared to pi-pi dispersion forces. Isobutanol, which forms hydrogen bonds, is the most efficient desorption solvent, followed by chloroform, which has the same polarity index but does not hydrogen bond. n-Hexane only desorbs phenol removed with pi-pi dispersion forces and is not appropriate to regenerate aminated polymers. 0.1 N NaOH is an environmentally benign solvent for regenerating as-received XAD4 and XAD4-DMA, but not XAD4-TMA. Understanding phenol adsorption mechanisms allows development of physiochemically modified polymers with increased phenol adsorption capacity and regeneration efficiency.

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