4.7 Article

Ionic liquid-multi walled carbon nanotubes composite tablet for continuous adsorption of tetracyclines and heavy metals

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 286, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124937

关键词

Ionic liquid; Multi walled carbon nanotubes; Composite tablets; Heavy metals; Tetracyclines

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81673316]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new composite tablet consisting of ionic liquid and multi-walled carbon nanotubes was prepared for the continuous adsorption of tetracyclines and heavy metal ions. The tablet showed high adsorption efficiency and could be recycled efficiently.
As the new kind of adsorbent, a 0.15 g ionic liquid-multi walled carbon nanotubes (IL-MWCNTs) composite tablet was prepared for the continuous adsorption of tetracyclines (TCs) and heavy metal ions from their aqueous solutions for the first time. Benzothiazole ionic liquid (N-butyl benzothiazole hexafluoroborate, [C(4)Bth][PF6]) was found selective for these objects, which was loaded into MWCNTs before tabletting under 5-20 MPa. Preparation operation was easy and the optional magnetic core (0.6 mm x 8 mm) could make it revolve in solution stably for accelerating mass transfer. Then the novel composite tablet was comprehensively characterized by scanning electron microscopy, thermogravimetry, Zeta potential and spectral analysis. Afterwards, the effects of main factors on adsorption results were investigated. Under unoptimized conditions, the adsorption efficiency of TCs, Cr6+ and Cu2+ could reach 99.76%, 94.10% and 84.60% by single tablet, respectively. It was also found that the adsorbed TCs could enhance the subsequent adsorption of copper ions. The experimental data fit well with pseudo-second-order model and Langmuir model (R-2 >= 0.99). By elution with 5 mol/L NaOH solution, the newly prepared composite tablet could be recycled and more than 90% adsorbate could be removed. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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