4.7 Article

Adsorptive removal of methylchlorophenoxypropionic acid from water with a metal-organic framework

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 270, 期 -, 页码 22-27

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.02.007

关键词

Adsorption; Methylchlorophenoxypropionic acid; Metal-organic frameworks; UiO-66; Adsorption mechanism

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korea government (MSIP) [2013R1A2A2A01007176]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013R1A2A2A01007176] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the first time, the adsorptive removal of methylchlorophenoxypropionic acid (MCPP) from water, using a metal-organic framework (MOF), namely Zr-benzenedicarboxylate (UiO-66), was investigated to determine the applicability of MOFs in the removal of hazardous herbicides/pesticides from contaminated water. Compared with activated carbon, UiO-66 has a very high adsorption rate (kinetic constant 30 times that of activated carbon). This rapid adsorption is remarkable because the pore size of UiO-66 is smaller than that of activated carbon. Moreover, the adsorption capacity of UiO-66 is higher than that of activated carbon especially at low MCPP concentrations (similar to 7.5 times at 1 ppm of MCPP). These rapid and high uptakes by UiO-66 suggest that there is a special mechanism for interactions between MCPP and UiO-66. Additionally, the adsorbent can be reused for adsorptive removal by washing the spent adsorbent with a simple solvent. MOFs such as UiO-66 are therefore potential adsorbents for use in the adsorptive removal of MCPP from contaminated water. A plausible adsorption mechanism is suggested based on the effects of pH on the zeta potential of the adsorbent and on adsorption. For the adsorption of MCPP by UiO-66, electrostatic and pi-pi interactions might both be important. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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