4.8 Article

Revealing the Pore Size-Dependent Sorption Mechanism of Toluene and Cetane in Porous Carbon by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 57, 期 12, 页码 5003-5012

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07086

关键词

hierarchical porous carbon; toluene; cetane; adsorption mechanism; NMR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study applies nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to investigate the adsorption mechanism of toluene and cetane in carbon materials at the molecular level. The results reveal the adsorption sites of these contaminants in different-sized pores and show that hierarchical porous carbons are the most effective adsorbents for coexisting contaminants.
The adsorption of contaminants by porous carbon has been extensively studied by conventional isotherm and kinetic methods. However, the co-adsorption behavior and sorption sites of multiple contaminants in different-sized pores remain unclear. Herein, the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) approach is performed to investigate the adsorption mechanism of toluene and cetane in the confined space of carbon at the molecular level. The ring current effect induces the variation in the NMR chemical shifts of in-pore adsorbed toluene and cetane, realizing the identification of pore-dependent adsorption sites for contaminant removal. Cetane has a slower adsorption kinetic but a higher binding energy than toluene, which could squeeze toluene from micropores to larger pores with increasing adsorption quantity. This leads to a stronger competitive adsorption effect in small micropores than in mesopores. Accordingly, hierarchical porous carbons are determined to be the most effective adsorbents for the adsorption of coexisting contaminants. This study not only provides an effective NMR method to reveal the adsorption mechanism in the confined space of porous carbon at the molecular level but also offers new insights into the pore size-dependent adsorption of activated carbon for petroleum contaminant 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