4.6 Article

Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticle Nanodevices Based on Fe3O4 Coated by Megluminic Ligands for the Adsorption of Metal Anions from Water

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 10775-10788

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c00558

关键词

-

资金

  1. [B63C22000010005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The uptake ability of ad hoc functionalized magnetic nanostructured devices towards arsenic, chromium, and boron ions has been investigated. The results show that the use of meglumine-based ligands to coat magnetite nanoparticles leads to a higher adsorption capacity for these metal ions compared to other magnetic nanostructured materials. The nanomaterial can be efficiently removed from water using an external magnetic stimulus, and it can be reused up to five cycles.
Y The uptake ability toward arsenic(V), chromium(VI), and boron(III) ions of ad hoc functionalized magnetic nanostructured devices has been investigated. To this purpose, ligands based on meglumine have been synthesized and used to coat magnetite nanoparticles (Fe3O4) obtained by the co-precipitation methodology. The as-prepared hybrid material was characterized by infrared spectroscopy (IR), X-ray diffraction, thermogravimetric analysis, and scanning electron microscopy combined with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis. Moreover, its magnetic hysteresis properties were measured to evaluate its magnetic properties, and the adsorption kinetics and isothermal models were applied to discern between the different adsorption phenomena. Specifically, the better fitting was observed by the Langmuir isotherm model for all metal ions tested, highlighting a higher uptake in arsenic (28.2 mg/g), chromium (12.3 mg/g), and boron (23.7 mg/g) sorption values if compared with other magnetic nanostructured materials. After adsorption, an external magnetic stimulus can be used to efficiently remove nanomaterials from the water. Finally the nanomaterial can be reused up to five cycles and regenerated for another three cycles.

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