4.8 Article

Uranium In Situ Electrolytic Deposition with a Reusable Functional Graphene-Foam Electrode

期刊

ADVANCED MATERIALS
卷 33, 期 38, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adma.202102633

关键词

electrolytic deposition; extraction capacity; graphene foam; local pH; nuclear energy; reusability; uranium extraction

资金

  1. DTRA [HDTRA1-20-2-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An in situ electrolytic deposition method using 3D-FrGOF as the working electrode for extracting uranium from aqueous solution is reported, showing high efficiency and low energy consumption. The method successfully reduces uranium concentration in seawater to below US EPA drinking water limits, with the electrode being efficiently regenerated and recycled multiple times.
Nuclear fission produces 400 GWe which represents 11% of the global electricity output. Uranium is the essential element as both fission fuel and radioactive waste. Therefore, the recovery of uranium is of great importance. Here, an in situ electrolytic deposition method to extract uranium from aqueous solution is reported. A functionalized reduced graphene oxide foam (3D-FrGOF) is used as the working electrode, which acts as both a hydrogen evolution reaction catalyst and a uranium deposition substrate. The specific electrolytic deposition capacity for U(VI) ions with the 3D-FrGOF is 4560 mg g(-1) without reaching saturation, and the Coulombic efficiency can reach 54%. Moreover, reduction of the uranium concentration in spiked seawater from 3 ppm to 19.9 ppb is achieved, which is lower than the US Environmental Protection Agency uranium limits for drinking water (30 ppb). Furthermore, the collection electrode can be efficiently regenerated and recycled at least nine times without much efficiency fading, by ejecting into 2000 ppm concentrated uranium solution in a second bath with reverse voltage bias. All these findings open new opportunities in using free-standing 3D-FrGOF electrode as an advanced separation technique for water treatment.

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

4.8
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