4.7 Article

Preparation and adsorption performance of 5-azacytosine-functionalized hydrothermal carbon for selective solid-phase extraction of uranium

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 386, 期 -, 页码 291-299

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2012.07.070

关键词

Uranium; Hydrothermal carbon; 5-Azacytosine; Solid-phase extraction; Selective separation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20871086, 21171122]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KJCX2-YW-N50-3]
  3. China Academy of Engineering Physics [HG2010040]
  4. Institute of Chemical Engineering and Material

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new solid-phase extraction adsorbent was prepared by employing a two-step grafting from approach to anchor a multidentate N-donor ligand, 5-azacytosine onto hydrothermal carbon (HTC) microspheres for highly selective separation of U(VI) from multi-ion system. Fourier-transform infrared and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopies were used to analyze the chemical structure and properties of resultant HTC-based materials. The adsorption behavior of U(VI) onto the adsorbent was investigated as functions of pH, contact time, ionic strength, temperature, and initial U(VI) concentration using batch adsorption experiments. The U(VI) adsorption was of pH dependent. The adsorption achieved equilibrium within 30 min and followed a pseudo-second-order equation. The adsorption amount of U(VI) increased with raising the temperature from 283.15 to 333.15 K. Remarkably, high ionic strength up to 5.0 mol L-1 NaNO3 had only slight effect on the adsorption. The maximum U(VI) adsorption capacity reached 408.36 mg g(-1) at 333.15 K and pH 4.5. Results from batch experiments in a simulated nuclear industrial effluent, containing 13 co-existing cations including uranyl ion, showed a high adsorption capacity and selectivity of the adsorbent for uranium (0.63 mmol U g(-1), accounting for about 67% of the total adsorption amount). (C) 2012 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