4.6 Article

Experimental and theoretical studies on competitive adsorption of aromatic compounds on reduced graphene oxides

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 4, 期 15, 页码 5654-5662

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6ta00890a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21577032, 21225730, 91326202, 21207135, 41273134]
  2. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
  3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Radiation Medicine of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
  4. Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University [41-130-36-HiCi]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [JB2015001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The individual and competitive adsorption studies of benzene, aniline and naphthylamine on reduced graphene oxides (rGOs) were investigated by batch experiments and theoretical density functional theory (DFT). Experimental results indicate that (1) in all the single, binary, and ternary aromatic compound systems, the sequence of maximum adsorption capacity is naphthylamine > aniline > benzene on rGOs; (2) the overall adsorption capacity of rGOs is in the order of ternary > binary > single system. The DFT calculations indicate that (1) the adsorption energy (E-ad) follows the order of E-ad (benzene) < E-ad (aniline) < E-ad (naphthylamine); (2) the binding energy (Ebd) values of aromatic mixtures indicate that the intramolecular interactions between the aromatic compounds themselves have an important influence on their adsorption on rGOs. The DFT calculations are in good agreement with the batch adsorption results. These findings are very important and useful to understand the mechanisms of adsorption of aromatic compounds on rGOs as well as assessing the effect of the benzene-ring number and polar functional groups on the adsorption of coexisting aromatic compounds on rGOs. The contents are important for the application of rGOs in environmental pollution management.

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