4.8 Article

Selenite Uptake by Ca-Al LDH: A Description of Intercalated Anion Coordination Geometries

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 1624-1632

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04644

关键词

-

资金

  1. Labex OSUG (Investissements d'avenir) [ANR10 LABX56]
  2. Project SCYPE from ministry of innovation economy and competitiveness [CGL206-78783-C2-1-R]
  3. NEEDS program from the CNRS
  4. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  5. French National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Layered double hydroxides (LDHs) are anion exchangers with a strong potential to scavenge anionic contaminants in aquatic environments. Here, the uptake of selenite (SeO32-) by Ca-Al LDHs was investigated as a function of Se concentration. Thermodynamic modeling of batch sorption isotherms shows that the formation of SeO32--intercalated AFm (hydrated calcium aluminate monosubstituent) phase, AFm-SeO3, is the dominant mechanism controlling the retention of Se at medium loadings. AFm-Cl-2 shows much stronger affinity and larger distribution ratio (R-d similar to 17800 L kg(-1)) toward SeO32- than AFm-SO4 (R-d similar to 705 L kg(-1)). At stoichiometric SeO32- loading for anion exchange, the newly formed AFm-SeO3 phase results in two basal spacing, i.e., 9.93 +/- 0.06 angstrom and -11.03 +/- 0.03 angstrom. Extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectra indicate that the intercalated SeO32- forms inner-sphere complexes with the Ca-Al-O layers. In situ X-ray diffraction (XRD) shows that basal spacing of Ca-Al-LDHs have a remarkable linear relationship with the size of hydrated intercalated anions (i.e., Cl-, MoO42-, and SeO32-). Contrary to AFm-SeO3 with inner-sphere SeO32- complexes in the interlayer, the phase with hydrogen-bonded inner-sphere complexed SeO32- is kinetically favored but thermodynamically unstable. This work offers new insights about the determination of intercalated anion coordination geometries via XRD analyses.

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