4.7 Article

Influence of crystal topology and interior surface functionality of metal-organic frameworks on PFOA sorption performance

期刊

MICROPOROUS AND MESOPOROUS MATERIALS
卷 236, 期 -, 页码 202-210

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2016.08.046

关键词

Metal-organic frameworks; PFOA sorption; Topological effects; ZIF-L

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of Taiwan [MOST 104-2628-E-002-009-MY3, MOST 105-2221-E-002-056-MY2, NSC 100-2221-E-002-043-MY3]
  2. National Taiwan University [NTU-CDP-105R7814]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perfiuorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is an emerging persistent organic pollutant. This paper reports on the use of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) as sorbents for the removal of PFOA from aqueous solutions. Specifically, we investigated the effects of topology and surface functionality on PFOA sorption and the uptake kinetics of MOF materials. Zeolitic imidazolate framework-7 (ZIF-7) and ZIF-8 share the same topology but differ in their organic ligands. ZIF-8 and ZIF-L comprise the same metal ion and organic ligand differ in their crystal structure. ZIF-8 and ZIF-L were used to evaluate the effects of MOF topology on their,effectiveness as PFOA sorbents. The PFOA sorption performance of ZIF-7, ZIF-8, and ZIF-L was then compared with the performance of two commercialized sorbents, zeolite 13X and activated carbon. ZIF-8 and ZIF-L were shown to outperform the two commercial sorbents and the PFOA sorption capacity and kinetics of ZIF-L are comparable to the benchmark values achieved for PFOA. It appears that the interlayer spacing within ZIF-L plays a key role in sorption performance by reducing the structural restrictions found inmost three-dimensional porous materials and thereby allowing for the faster diffusion of PFOA. The discoveries in this work could assist in the development of guidelines for the design of new high-performance sorbents for small-molecule pollutants in aqueous phase. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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