4.7 Article

Adsorption of ciprofloxacin, bisphenol and 2-chlorophenol on electrospun carbon nanofibers: In comparison with powder activated carbon

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 447, 期 -, 页码 120-127

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2015.01.042

关键词

Electrospun carbon nanofibers; Adsorption; Ciprofioxacin; Bisphenol; 2-Chlorophenol

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CB936002]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21407019]
  3. [PCSIRT_13R05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon nanofibers (CNFs) were prepared by electrospun polyacrylonitrile (PAN) polymer solutions followed by thermal treatment. For the first time, the influence of stabilization procedure on the structure properties of CNFs was explored to improve the adsorption capacity of CNFs towards the environmental pollutants from aqueous solution. The adsorption of three organic chemicals including ciprofloxacin (CIP), bisphenol (BPA) and 2-chlorophenol (2-CP) on electrospun CNFs with high surface area of 2326 m(2)/g and micro/mesoporous structure characteristics were investigated. The adsorption affinities were compared with that of the commercial powder activated carbon (PAC). The adsorption kinetics and isotherms showed that the maximum adsorption capacities (q(m)) of CNFs towards the three pollutants are sequenced in the order of CIP > BPA > 2-CP, which are 2.6-fold (CIP), 1.6-fold (BPA) and 1.1-fold (2-CP) increase respectively in comparison with that of PAC adsorption. It was assumed that the micro/mesoporous structure of CNFs, molecular size of the pollutants and the it electron interaction play important roles on the high adsorption capacity exhibited by CNFs. In addition, electrostatic interaction and hydrophobic interaction also contribute to the adsorption of CNFs. This study demonstrates that the electrospun CNFs are promising adsorbents for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. (C) 2015 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

4.7
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