4.7 Article

Performance of rattle-type magnetic mesoporous silica spheres in the adsorption of single and binary antibiotics

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 174, 期 1, 页码 221-230

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2011.09.003

关键词

gamma-Fe2O3/mSiO(2) spheres; Tetracycline; Sulfamethazine; Adsorption

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21077046, 21107037, 21176107]
  2. Ph.D. Programs Foundation of Ministry of Education of China [20093227110015]
  3. Ph.D. Innovation Programs Foundation of Jiangsu Province [CX10B_276Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rattle-type gamma-Fe2O3/mesoporous silica spheres (gamma-Fe2O3/mSiO(2) spheres) were synthesized with a facial and selectively etching strategy. The prepared particles were characterized by FT-IR, XRD,TEM, SEM, VSM, Raman spectroscopy and nitrogen adsorption-desorption analysis, and the results indicated that gamma-Fe2O3/mSiO(2) spheres exhibited magnetic property (M-s = 14.43 emu g(-1)) and composed of mesoporous silica (mean diameter, thickness and pore size was 660 nm, 60 nm, and 2.29 nm, respectively). Then the gamma-Fe2O3/mSiO(2) spheres were employed as sorbents to remove tetracycline (TC) and sulfamethazine (SMZ) in both single and binary aqueous solutions. The adsorption kinetics of gamma-Fe2O3/mSiO(2) spheres were well-described by the pseudo-second-order equation, initial adsorption rate, and half-adsorption time. The Langmuir isotherm model was fitted to the equilibrium data better than that for Freundlich model, and the monolayer adsorption capacity of gamma-Fe2O3/mSiO(2) spheres for TC and SMZ were 0.0791 mmol g(-1) and 0.0342 mmol g(-1) at 298K, respectively. In binary systems, SMZ adsorption onto gamma-Fe2O3/mSiO(2) spheres was more affected by the simultaneous presence of competitive antibiotics than that for TC. In addition, the reusability of the material without obviously deterioration in performance was observed at least four repealed cycles. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. 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