4.7 Article

FeCo bimetallic metal organic framework nanosheets as peroxymonosulfate activator for selective oxidation of organic pollutants

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 443, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.136483

关键词

Bimetallic MOF; 2D nanosheet; PMS activation; Selective oxidation; Organic pollutants

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22006022]
  2. Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2022A1515012063]
  3. Open Project of State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment [HC202154]
  4. Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou, China [202102020348]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A FeCo-based bimetallic metal organic framework nanosheet was designed for selective oxidation of organics in water. The nanosheet exhibited high degradation efficiency and resistance to interference from co-existing dissolved species.
Singlet oxygen (O-1(2)) and superoxide radicals (O-2(center dot-)) are active species that can selectively oxidize organic pol-lutions. A two-dimensional FeCo-based bimetallic metal organic framework (MOF) nanosheet was rationally designed to activate peroxymonosulfate (PMS) for selective oxidation of organics in water. The FeCo MOF nanosheets (FeCo-BDC) achieved a 99.1% degradation efficiency of RhB in 5 min, showing a high kinetic con-stant of 0.884 min-1 that is 1.6 and 294.7 times higher than those of the monometallic MOFs, i.e., Co-BDC and Fe-BDC. Radical scavenging experiments and electron paramagnetic resonance measurements revealed that O-1(2) and O-2(center dot-) are predominant reactive oxygen species in the FeCo-BDC/PMS system. These nanosheets thus prefer-entially oxidize organics with electron donating groups (e.g., -NH2, -OH and-NR2), whereas having low reaction activities towards substances with electron withdrawing groups (e.g., -NO2). The oxidation process also proved to resist interference from co-existing dissolved species in water, such as Cl-, SO(4)(2-)and humic acids.

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