Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 27, pp 28294–28308 | Cite as

Study of the adsorption mechanism on the surface of a ceramic nanomaterial for gaseous Hg(II) removal

  • Yue Li
  • Yang ChenEmail author
  • Qingzhong Feng
  • Liyuan Liu
  • Junfeng Wang
  • Shihao Wei
  • Xiangdong Feng
  • Meixue Ran
  • Yuanyuan Jiang
Research Article
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Stable Hg(II)-containing flue gas has been successfully simulated by the plasma oxidation of Hg(0), and an effective solution for Hg(0) mercury fumes was obtained by combining the plasma with a ceramic nanomaterial. Characterization tests showed that the ceramic nanomaterial was mainly composed of silicon dioxide (SiO2) with other minor constituents, including potassium mica (KAl3Si3O11), iron magnesium silicate (Fe0.24Mg0.76SiO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2). The nanomaterial had many tube bank structures inside with diameters of approximately 8–10 nm. The maximum sorption capacity of Hg(II) was 5156 μg/g, and the nanomaterial can be regenerated at least five times. During the adsorption, chemical adsorption first occurred between Hg(II) and sulfydryl moieties, but these were quickly exhausted, and Hg(II) was then removed by surface complexation and wrapped into Fe moieties. The pseudo-first-order kinetic model and the Langmuir equation had the best fitting results for the kinetics and isotherms of adsorption. This work suggests that the ceramic nanomaterial can be used as an effective and recyclable adsorbent in the removal of gaseous Hg(II).

Keywords

Gaseous Hg(II) removal Ceramic nanomaterial Evaluation methodology Adsorptive property Adsorption mechanism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the Beijing Municipal Sciences & Technology Commission Huairou Science City Special Project (No. Z181100003818009), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11475211) and National Key Technologies R&D Program of China (No. 2016YFC0209200) is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are also thankful to Prof. Zhiwei Wang from the Beijing Institute of Nanoenergy and Nanosystems, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Prof. Lirong Zheng from Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, as they have made great contributions to the characterization of the samples.

References

  1. AlOmar MK, Alsaadi MA, Hayyan M, Akib S, Ibrahim M, Hashim MA (2017) Allyl triphenyl phosphonium bromide based DES-functionalized carbon nanotubes for the removal of mercury from water. Chemosphere 167:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bessbousse H, Rhlalou T, Verchère JF, Lebrun L (2008) Removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions by filtration with a novel complexing membrane containing poly(ethyleneimine) in a poly(vinyl alcohol) matrix. J Membr Sci 307:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang JCS, Zhao YX (2008) Pilot plant testing of elemental mercury reemission from a wet scrubber. Energy Fuel 22:338–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen J, Qu R, Zhang Y, Sun C, Wang C, Ji C, Yin P, Chen H, Niu Y (2012) Preparation of silica gel supported amidoxime adsorbents for selective adsorption of Hg(II) from aqueous solution. Chem Eng J 209:235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Córdoba P (2015) Status of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) systems from coal-fired power plants: overview of the physic-chemical control processes of wet limestone FGDs. Fuel 144:274–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deligöz H, Erdem E (2008) Comparative studies on the solvent extraction of transition metal cations by calixarene, phenol and ester derivatives. J Hazard Mater 154:29–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diagboya PN, Olu-Owolabi BI, Adebowale KO (2015) Synthesis of covalently bonded graphene oxide–iron magnetic nanoparticles and the kinetics of mercury removal. RSC Adv 5:2536–2542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feng X, Fryxell GE, Kim AY et al (1997) Functionalized monolayers on ordered mesoporous supports. Science 276:923–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flak D, Chen Q, Mun BS et al (2018) In situ, ambient pressure XPS observation of surface chemistry and electronic structure of α-Fe2O3, and γ-Fe2O3, nanoparticles. Appl Surf Sci 455:1019–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gong Y, Liu Y, Xiong Z, Kaback D, Zhao D (2012) Immobilization of mercury in field soil and sediment using carboxymethyl cellulose stabilized iron sulfide nanoparticles. Nanotechnology 23:294007–294019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hakami O, Zhang Y, Banks CJ (2012) Thiol-functionalised mesoporous silica-coated magnetite nanoparticles for high efficiency removal and recovery of Hg from water. Water Res 46:3913–3922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herranz T, Rojas S, Ojeda M, Pérez-Alonso FJ, Terreros P, Pirota K, Fierro JLG (2006) Synthesis, structural features, and reactivity of Fe-Mn mixed oxides prepared by microemulsion. Chem Mater 18:2364–2375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmes P, James KAF, Levy LS (2009) Is low-level environmental mercury exposure of concern to human health. Sci Total Environ 408:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang L, He M, Chen B, Hu B (2016) A mercapto functionalized magnetic Zr-MOF by solvent-assisted ligand exchange for Hg(2+) removal from water. J Mater Chem A 4:5159–5166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeevanaraj P, Hashim Z, Elias SM, Aris AZ (2016) Mercury accumulation in marinefish most favoured by Malaysian women, the predictors and the potential health risk. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:23714–23729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liao C, Chen C, Wang M, Chiang P, Pai C (2006) Sorption of chlorophenoxy propionic acids by organoclay complexes. Environ Toxicol 21:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu W, Vidic RD, Brown TD et al (2000) Impact of flue gas conditions on mercury uptake by sulfur-impregnated activated carbon. Environ Sci Technol 34:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu Y, Wang X, Wu H (2017) Reusable DNA-functionalized-graphene for ultrasensitive mercury (II) detection and removal. Biosens Bioelectron 87:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Long H, Wu P, Zhu N (2013) Evaluation of Cs+ removal from aqueous solution by adsorption on ethylamine-modified montmorillonite. Chem Eng J 225:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. López-Muñoz MJ, Arencibia A, Cerro L, Pascual R, Melgar Á (2016) Adsorption of Hg(II) from aqueous solutions using TiO2, and titanate nanotube adsorbents. Appl Surf Sci 367:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miretzky P, Cirelli AF (2009) Hg (II) removal from water by chitosan and chitosan derivatives: a review. J Hazard Mater 167:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ozcan AS, Ozcan A (2004) Adsorption of acid dyes from aqueous solutions onto acid-activated bentonite. J Colloid Interface Sci 276:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parham H, Zargar B, Shiralipour R (2012) Fast and efficient removal of mercury from water samples using magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles modified with 2-mercaptobenzothiazole. J Hazard Mater 205:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prestbo EM, Bloom NS (1995) Mercury speciation adsorption (MESA) method for combustion flue gas: methodology, artifacts, intercomparison, and atmospheric implications. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qin D, Niu X, Qiao M, Liu G, Li H, Meng Z (2015) Adsorption of ferrous ions onto montmorillonites. Appl Surf Sci 333:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rahaman SA, Roy B, Mandal S, Bandyopadhyay S (2016) A Kamikaze approach for capturing Hg(2+) ions through the formation of a one-dimensional metal-organometallic polymer. Inorg Chem 55:1069–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sadegh H, Ali GAM, Makhlouf ASH, Chong KF, Alharbi NS, Agarwal S, Gupta VK (2018) MWCNTs-Fe3O4 nanocomposite for Hg(II) high adsorption efficiency. J Mol Liq 258:345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Skodras G, Diamantopoulou I, Pantoleontos G, Sakellaropoulos GP (2008) Kinetic studies of elemental mercury adsorption in activated carbon fixed bed reactor. J Hazard Mater 158:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tang H, Duan Y, Zhu C, Cai T, Li C, Cai L (2017) Theoretical evaluation on selective adsorption characteristics of alkali metal-based sorbents for gaseous oxidized mercury. Chemosphere 184:711–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tofighy MA, Mohammadi T (2011) Adsorption of divalent heavy metal ions from water using carbon nanotube sheets. J Hazard Mater 185:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang Y, Liu Y, Mo J et al (2012) Effects of Mg2+ on the bivalent mercury reduction behaviors in simulated wet FGD absorbents. J Hazard Mater 256:237–238Google Scholar
  32. Xu D, Wu WD, Qi HJ et al (2017) Sulfur rich microporous polymer enables rapid and efficient removal of mercury(II) from water. Chemosphere 196:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yao T, Duan Y, Zhu C, Zhou Q, Xu J, Liu M, Wei H (2018) Investigation of mercury adsorption and cyclic mercury retention over MnOx/γ-Al2O3 sorbent. Chemosphere 202:358–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yu X, Wei C, Ke L, Hu Y, Xie X, Wu H (2010) Development of organovermiculite-based adsorbent for removing anionic dye from aqueous solution. J Hazard Mater 180:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang Z, Eom Y, Lee MJ, Lee TG (2016) Application of a sorbent trap system to gas-phase elemental and oxidized mercury analysis. Chemosphere 154:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang Q, Liu N, Cao Y et al (2017) A facile method to prepare dual-functional membrane for efficient oil removal and in situ reversible mercury ions adsorption from wastewater. Appl Surf Sci 434:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhou J, Wu P, Dang Z, Zhu N, Li P, Wu J, Wang X (2010) Polymeric Fe/Zr pillared montmorillonite for the removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions. Chem Eng J 162:1035–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou Q, Duan YF, Hong YG, Zhu C, She M, Zhang J, Wei HQ (2015) Experimental and kinetic studies of gas-phase mercury adsorption by raw and bromine modified activated carbon. Fuel Process Technol 134:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhu Y, Chen TH, Liu HB, Xu B, Xie JJ (2016) Kinetics and thermodynamics of Eu(III) and U(VI) adsorption onto palygorskite. J Mol Liq 219:272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yue Li
    • 1
  • Yang Chen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Qingzhong Feng
    • 1
  • Liyuan Liu
    • 1
  • Junfeng Wang
    • 1
  • Shihao Wei
    • 1
  • Xiangdong Feng
    • 1
  • Meixue Ran
    • 1
  • Yuanyuan Jiang
    • 1
  1. 1.Beijing Advanced Sciences and Innovation Center of CASBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations