2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2020.105659
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preparation and evaluation of iron oxide/hydrotalcite intercalated with dodecylsulfate/β-cyclodextrin magnetic organocomposite for phenolic compounds removal

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For SBECD-LDH (Figure 2A), the first diffraction peak at 4.20 °which corresponds to the basal spacing of 2.14 nm, which is far bigger than that of LDH (2θ = 10.1 °, d = 0.88 nm) (Jin et al, 2010), suggesting the intercalation of SBECD into the interlayer of LDH. The d value of SBECD-LDH is similar to that of SBECD-LDH (2.15 nm) (Nakayama et al, 2008), and is bigger than those of CMCD-LDH (1.52 nm) (Jin et al, 2010), SCD-LDH (1.52 nm) (Xue et al, 2014), and β-CD-LDH (0.76 nm) (Balbino et al, 2020). The size of SBECD is bigger than that of CMCD, SCD, and β-CD, and SBECD may adopt a parallel monolayer in the interlayer space, while CMCD, SCD, and β-CD take a monolayer vertical arrangement (Jin et al, 2010;Xue et al, 2014;Balbino et al, 2020) (Newman and Jones, 1999).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…For SBECD-LDH (Figure 2A), the first diffraction peak at 4.20 °which corresponds to the basal spacing of 2.14 nm, which is far bigger than that of LDH (2θ = 10.1 °, d = 0.88 nm) (Jin et al, 2010), suggesting the intercalation of SBECD into the interlayer of LDH. The d value of SBECD-LDH is similar to that of SBECD-LDH (2.15 nm) (Nakayama et al, 2008), and is bigger than those of CMCD-LDH (1.52 nm) (Jin et al, 2010), SCD-LDH (1.52 nm) (Xue et al, 2014), and β-CD-LDH (0.76 nm) (Balbino et al, 2020). The size of SBECD is bigger than that of CMCD, SCD, and β-CD, and SBECD may adopt a parallel monolayer in the interlayer space, while CMCD, SCD, and β-CD take a monolayer vertical arrangement (Jin et al, 2010;Xue et al, 2014;Balbino et al, 2020) (Newman and Jones, 1999).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…The d value of SBECD-LDH is similar to that of SBECD-LDH (2.15 nm) (Nakayama et al, 2008), and is bigger than those of CMCD-LDH (1.52 nm) (Jin et al, 2010), SCD-LDH (1.52 nm) (Xue et al, 2014), and β-CD-LDH (0.76 nm) (Balbino et al, 2020). The size of SBECD is bigger than that of CMCD, SCD, and β-CD, and SBECD may adopt a parallel monolayer in the interlayer space, while CMCD, SCD, and β-CD take a monolayer vertical arrangement (Jin et al, 2010;Xue et al, 2014;Balbino et al, 2020) (Newman and Jones, 1999). The basal spacing of the composites prepared in NMP is bigger than those in ethanol, which is due to the stronger dissolving capacity of NMP for pesticides and the miscibility of NMP with water in the presence of pesticide.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Besides the redox activity and surface charge properties (Abdel Maksoud et al 2020 ), low-cost synthesis and non-toxicity (Leone et al 2018 ), high selectivity (Song et al 2018 ; Asadi et al 2020 ; Nisola et al 2020 ; Wang et al 2020c , 2021 ; He et al 2021 ; Luan et al 2021 ), binding specificity (Vishnu and Dhandapani 2021 ), and excellent reusability (D’Cruz et al 2020 ; Hu et al 2020 ; Li et al 2020 ; Ahmad et al 2020b ; Vu and Wu 2020 ; Wang et al 2020c ; Nkinahamira et al 2020 ; Tabatabaiee Bafrooee et al 2021 ), a key feature of magnetic nanoadsorbents is that they can be separated in situ from adsorption-remediated waters in the form of a magnetic nanoadsorbent(s)–adsorbate(s) sludge by applying a strong enough magnetic field (Ambashta and Sillanpää 2010 ; Zaidi et al 2014 ; Simeonidis et al 2015 ; Moharramzadeh and Baghdadi 2016 ; Wanna et al 2016 ; Tripathy et al 2017 ; Mirshahghassemi et al 2017 ; Yeap et al 2017 ; Augusto et al 2019 ; Kheshti et al 2019a ; Mashile et al 2020 ; Brião et al 2020 ; Balbino et al 2020 ).…”
Section: Magnetic Nanoadsorbentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An ideal nanoadsorbent would competitively solve a reasonable part of the core technical, economic and secondary pollution issues related to existing conventional water purification and wastewater treatment methods and conventional adsorbents. For example, a novel iron oxide–hydrotalcite modified with dodecylsulfate and β-cyclodextrin magnetic adsorbent gave maximum adsorption capacities significantly superior to those reported for certain activated carbon-type and activated char adsorbents in the removal of phenol (216.08 mg g −1 ) and p -cresol (272.48 mg g −1 ) present in pulp and paper industry wastewater (Balbino et al 2020 ). The latter maximum adsorption capacities are higher than the following ones: 144.93 mg g −1 for phenol by activated carbon (Zhang et al 2016a ), 129.24 mg g −1 for p -cresol by composite alginate beads-MnO 2 activated carbon (Shim et al 2019 ), and 32.77 mg g −1 for p -cresol by coconut shell-activated char (Zhu and Kolar 2014 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%