4.2 Article

Removal of dispersant-stabilized carbon nanotubes by regular coagulants

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages 1364-1370

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(11)60933-9

Keywords

water treatment; coagulants; nanomaterial; surfactant; natural organic matter

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program (973) of China [2008CB418204]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21077089, 40873072]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Qianjiang Talent Program [2010R10041]
  4. Zhejiang Provincial Innovative Research Team of Water Treatment Functional Materials and their Application

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coagulation followed by sedimentation, as a conventional technique in the water treatment plant, can be the first line of defense against exposures of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) to aquatic organisms and human beings, which has been rarely documented. This study investigated the removal of dispersant-stabilized CNT suspensions by poly aluminum chloride (PACl) and KAl(SO4)(2)center dot 12H(2)O (alum), with a focus on the effects of dispersant type, coagulant type and dosage. PACl performed better than alum in the removal of tannic acid-, humic acid-, and sodium dodecyl benzenesulfonate-stabilized CNTs, but worse for polyethylene glycol octylphenyl ether (TX 100)-stabilized CNTs. Neither coagulant could effectively precipitate cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide-stabilized CNTs. The removal by PACl first increased up to a plateau and then decreased with the continued increase of coagulant dosage. However, the removal rates leveled off but did not decrease after achieving their highest level with the continued addition of alum. The coagulation and flocculation of the CNT suspensions by PACl could be regulated mainly by the mechanism of adsorption charge neutralization, whereas the coagulation by alum mainly involved electrical double-layer compression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available