4.7 Article

Direct ink writing of porous SiC ceramics with geopolymer as binder

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 42, 期 15, 页码 6815-6826

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2022.08.004

关键词

3D printing; Porous SiC ceramics; Carbothermal reduction; Hierarchical porous structure; Reusable adsorbent

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [52072090, 51872063]
  2. Heilongjiang Touyan Innovation Team Program
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province [YQ2019E002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a novel strategy for direct ink writing of porous SiC parts using geopolymers (GP) as binders and sintering SiC/GP composites at high temperatures via carbothermal reduction was reported. The results showed that porous SiC carriers with high porosity and hierarchical porous structure could be obtained by adjusting the treatment temperatures, which could be used for the removal of hazardous materials from wastewater.
We herein report a novel strategy for direct ink writing of porous SiC parts by using geopolymers (GP) as binders and sintering SiC/GP composites at high temperatures via carbothermal reduction. The effects of treatment temperatures on the microstructure, pore size distribution and compressive strength of SiC/GP composites were systematically investigated. The total porosity of porous SiC carriers was as high as 76.4 vol% after being sintered at 1800 degrees C and exhibited a much broader pore size distribution (pore volumes) between 39 nm and 13.951 mu m (-1.68 mL/g) accompanied by an interconnected hierarchical porous structure. After loading lamellar graphene oxide into the porous SiC carrier to form GO/SiC adsorbents, they exhibited fast and near-unity removal of methylene blue, and the adsorption efficiency still exceeded 82.0% after multiple times usage. These results prove that it is possible to remove hazardous materials from wastewater using reusable porous SiC ceramics as reusable adsorbent carriers.

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