4.4 Review

Critical analysis of various supporting mediums employed for the incapacitation of silver nanomaterial for aniline and phenolic pollutants: A review

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 248-263

出版社

KOREAN INSTITUTE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11814-017-0192-0

关键词

Silver Nanoparticles; Nitroaniline; Nitrophenols; Catalytic Reduction; Review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study comprehensively summarizes the specific contributions of using silver nanomaterial for the removal of nitroaniline (NAs) and nitrophenols (NPs), as well as the advantages and disadvantages of entrapment mediums for preventing aggregation. It also provides a comparison between commonly employed removal practices and catalytic reductive techniques.
An enormous number of specific case studies have been reported that deal with the removal methodologies customarily employed for the reduction of common aqua-soluble pollutants [particularly nitrophenols (NPs) and nitroaniline (NAs)]. However, reviews that not only organize the literature in some presentable form but also work as a guideline for new scholars looking to exploit the field of nanocatalysis are surprisingly non-existent. Here in, an attempt has been made to comprehensively summarize the basic issues along with an insight to specific contributions devoted to NAs and NPs removal by utilizing the nanomaterial of silver. Furthermore, keeping in mind the significance of the surface functionalization of nanomaterial in catalysis, advantages/disadvantages of several entrapment mediums generally adopted for preventing the aggregation of nanomaterial are also summarized. A generalized overview of the various commonly employed removal practices along with its comparison to the catalytic reductive technique is also presented in the study. Finally, remaining unaddressed problems associated with this field and future directions for engineering cost-efficient and effective nanocatalyst assemblies are discussed in the end.

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

4.4
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