4.6 Article

Synthesis and characterization of sulfate and dodecylbenzenesulfonate intercalated zinc-iron layered double hydroxides by one-step coprecipitation route

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOLID STATE CHEMISTRY
卷 180, 期 5, 页码 1636-1647

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jssc.2007.03.016

关键词

layered double hydroxides; ZnFe(II)Fe(III) GR2(SO42-); dodecylbenzene-sulfonate-ZnFe-LDHs; coprecipitation; Rietveld analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inorganic sulfate- and organic dodecylbenzenesulfonate (DBS)-intercalated zinc-iron layered double hydroxides (LDHs) materials were prepared by one-step coprecipitation method from a mixed salt solutions containing Zn(II), Fe(II) and Fe(III) salts. The as-prepared samples have been characterized by X-ray powder diffraction (XRD), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), low-temperature nitrogen adsorption, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP), and Mossbauer spectroscopy (MS). The XRD analyses demonstrate the typical LDH-like layered structural characteristics of both products. The room temperature MS results reveal the characteristics of both the Fe(II) and Fe(III) species for SO42--containing product, while only the Fe(III) characteristic for DBS-containing one. The combination characterization results and Rietveld analysis illustrate that the SO42--containing product possesses the Green Rust two (GR2)-like crystal structure with an approximate chemical composition of [Zn-0.0435 center dot Fe-0.094(II)center dot Fe-0.470(III)center dot(OH)(2)]center dot(SO42-)(0.235)center dot 1.0H(2)O, while the DBS-containing one exhibits the common LDH compound-like structure. The contact angle measurement indicates the evident hydrophobic properties of DBS-containing nanocomposite, compared with SO42--containing product, due to the modification of the internal and external surface of LDHs by the organic hydrophobic chain of DBS. (c) 2007 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

4.6
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