4.8 Article

Nonlinearity of Cationic Aromatic Amine Sorption to Aluminosilicates and Soils: Role of Intermolecular Cation-π Interactions

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 47, 期 24, 页码 14119-14127

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es403389a

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF ADVANCE-PAID [0620101, 0620087]
  2. Fletcher Family Fund (Bowdoin College)
  3. Clare Boothe Luce Foundation
  4. Coles, Freedman, Hughes Family
  5. Division Of Human Resource Development
  6. Direct For Education and Human Resources [0620101, 0620087] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through the study of substituted anilines and benzylamines, we demonstrated that cooperative cation-pi, pi-pi, and van der Waals interactions can increase aromatic cationic amine sorption to Na/Ca-montmorillonite well beyond the extent expected by cation exchange alone. Cationic amines exhibiting cooperative interactions displayed nonlinear S-shaped isotherms and increased affinity for the sorbent at low surface coverage; parallel cation exchange and cooperative interactions were noted above a sorption threshold of 0.3-2.3% of exchange sites occupied. Our experiments revealed the predominance of intermolecular cation-pi interactions, which occurred between the pi system of a compound retained on the surface via cation exchange and the cationic amine group of an adjacent molecule. Compounds with greater amine charge/area and electron-donating substituents that allowed for greater electron density at the center of the aromatic ring showed a greater potential for cation-pi interactions on montmorillonite surfaces. However, benzylamine sorption to nine soils, at charge loadings comparable to the experiments with montmorillonite, revealed no significant cooperative interactions. It appears that cation-pi interactions may be likely in soils with exceptionally high cation exchange capacities (>0.7 mol charge/kg) and low organic matter contents, abundant in montmorillonite and other expanding clay minerals.

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