4.7 Article

Direct epitaxial synthesis of magnetic Fe3O4@UiO-66 composite for efficient removal of arsenate from water

期刊

MICROPOROUS AND MESOPOROUS MATERIALS
卷 276, 期 -, 页码 68-75

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2018.09.017

关键词

Magnetic; UiO-66; MOFs; Adsorption; Arsenic removal

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51778598, 51478449]
  2. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China [2011DFB91710]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Facile fabrication of magnetic metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) using a direct epitaxial approach for eliminating arsenic from water is highly desirable. Herein, a two-step solvothermal method of elegant design is proposed to synthesize Fe3O4@UiO-66. Such resulting composite was systematically characterized using powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), Fourier transform infrared (FUR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), N-2 adsorption-desorption isotherms, and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Results clearly reveal that this novel composite exhibits a unique core-shell structure with high specific surface area and plentiful micropores as well as good thermal stability. Specifically, batch adsorption data for arsenate demonstrate that a pseudo-second order kinetic model (R-2 = 0.9996) better describes this adsorption process than a pseudo-first order model (R-2 = 0.8582), revealing the chemical interaction between the composite and arsenate. The Freundlich model with better coefficient (R-2 = 0.9566) further verified multi-layer heterogeneous adsorption, which may be ascribed to the unique core-shell structure of this composite (Fe3O4@UiO-66). Its excellent adsorption performance for arsenate (73.2 mg (As) g(-1) (adsorbent)) is comparable to most MOFs-containing adsorbents but is also magnetic, allowing for ready separation of the composite from aqueous solution. Given this combination of qualities, this new composite could offer a promising alternative for wastewater remediation.

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