Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 321, Issue 3, pp 1005–1017 | Cite as

Polyaniline/oxidation etching graphitic carbon nitride composites for U(VI) removal from aqueous solutions

  • Jinxiang Liu
  • Zigeng Chen
  • Kun Yu
  • Yingjiu Liu
  • Yujie Ge
  • Shuibo XieEmail author


Polyaniline/oxidation etching g-C3N4 composites (PANI/OCN) were synthesized through an oxidative polymerization method and applied to remove U(VI)from aqueous solution as an adsorbent. The PANI/OCN showed high maximum adsorption capacity (qm = 312.5 mg g−1, T = 293 K, pH = 5), which was higher than OCN and many other adsorbents,and extremely fast adsorption rate (in 10 min). The adsorption process was fitted well to the pseudo-second-order kinetic equation and Langmuir model. Adsorption–desorption experiment revealed the good reusability of PANI/OCN. This study provides a potential composite with excellent performance for U(VI) removal.


Polyaniline Graphitic carbon nitride U(VI) Adsorption 



The authors are grateful for the financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11475080) and Ph.D. Research Startup Fund Project of University of South China (2016XQD06).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.


  1. 1.
    Yin L, Wang P, Wen T et al (2017) Synthesis of layered titanate nanowires at low temperature and their application in efficient removal of U(VI). Environ Pollut 226:125–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arruda-Neto JD, Nieto L, Righi H et al (2012) Fragmentation of extracellular DNA by long-term exposure to radiation from uranium in aquatic environments. J Environ Monit 14(8):2108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang C, Zheng T, Luo R et al (2018) In situ growth of ZIF-8 on Pan fibrous filter for highly efficient U (VI) removal. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 10(28):24164–24171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tao X, Yao X, Lu S et al (2015) Efficient removal of radionuclide U(VI) from aqueous solutions by using graphene oxide nanosheets. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 303(1):245–253Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hadi P, Barford J, Mckay G (2013) Toxic heavy metal capture using a novel electronic waste-based material-mechanism, modeling and comparison. Environ Sci Technol 47(15):8248–8255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenberg E, Pinson G, Tsosie R et al (2016) Uranium remediation by ion exchange and sorption methods: a critical review. Johnson Matthey Technol Rev 60(1):59–77Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tavengwa NT, Cukrowska E, Chimuka L (2016) Modeling of adsorption isotherms and kinetics of uranium sorption by magnetic ion imprinted polymers. Toxicol Environ Chem Rev 98(1):1–20Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen L, Chen Y, Wang X et al (2017) A novel silica-based anion exchange resin used for removing uranium from drinking water. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 314(13–15):2569–2578Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang P, Yin L, Wang J et al (2017) Superior immobilization of U(VI) and 243 Am(III) on polyethyleneimine modified lamellar carbon nitride composite from water environment. Chem Eng J 326:863–874Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang Q, Chen Y, Yu H et al (2018) Magnetic graphene oxide/MgAl-layered double hydroxide nanocomposite: one-pot solvothermal synthesis, adsorption performance and mechanisms for Pb2 + , Cd2 + , and Cu2 +. Chem Eng J 341:1–9Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cai Y, Wu C, Liu Z et al (2017) Fabrication of a phosphorylated graphene oxide–chitosan composite for highly effective and selective capture of U(VI). Environ Sci Nano 4(9):1876–1886Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu F, Pu N, Ye G et al (2017) Performance and mechanism of uranium adsorption from seawater to poly(dopamine)-inspired sorbents. Environ Sci Technol 51(8):4606–4614PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu H, Li M, Chen T et al (2017) New synthesis of nZVI/C composites as an efficient adsorbent for the uptake of U(VI) from aqueous solutions. Environ Sci Technol 51(16):9227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang X, Fan Q, Yu S et al (2016) High sorption of U(VI) on graphene oxides studied by batch experimental and theoretical calculations. Chem Eng J 287:448–455Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ortaboy S, Acar ET, Atun G et al (2013) Performance of acrylic monomer based terpolymer/montmorillonite nanocomposite hydrogels for U(VI) removal from aqueous solutions. Chem Eng Res Des 91(4):670–680Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang X, Wang J, Li R et al (2013) Removal of uranium(VI) from aqueous solutions by surface modified magnetic Fe3O4 particles. New J Chem 37(12):3914–3919Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anirudhan TS, Bringle CD, Rijith S (2009) Removal of uranium(VI) from aqueous solutions and nuclear industry effluents using humic acid-immobilized zirconium-pillared clay. J Environ Radioact 12(1–3):16–27Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang YL, Song LJ, Zhu L et al (2014) Removal of uranium(VI) from aqueous solution using iminodiacetic acid derivative functionalized SBA-15 as adsorbents. Dalton Trans 43(9):3739–3749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shao D, Hou G, Li J et al (2014) PANI/GO as a super adsorbent for the selective adsorption of uranium(VI). Chem Eng J 255(7):604–612Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sun Y, Shao D, Chen C et al (2013) Highly efficient enrichment of radionuclides on graphene oxide-supported polyaniline. Environ Sci Technol 47(17):9904–9910PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Debnath N, Panwar V, Bag S et al (2015) Effect of carbon black and nanoclay on mechanical and thermal properties of ABS–PANI/ABS–PPy blends. J Appl Polym Sci 132(38):1–7Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu X, Cheng C, Xiao C et al (2017) Polyaniline (PANI) modified bentonite by plasma technique for U(op removal from aqueous solution. Appl Surf Sci 411:331–337Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yan L, Yang Y, Lei C et al (2016) Efficient removal of U(VI) from aqueous solutions by polyaniline/hydrogen-titanate nanobelt composites. RSC Adv 6(61):1–35Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ong WJ, Tan LL, Ng YH et al (2016) Graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4)-based photocatalysts for artificial photosynthesis and environmental remediation: Are we a step closer to achieving sustainability? Chem Rev 116(12):7159–7329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhao Z, Sun Y, Dong F (2015) Graphitic carbon nitride based nanocomposites: a review. Nanoscale 7(1):15–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wen J, Xie J, Chen X et al (2017) A review on g-C3N4-based photocatalysts. Appl Surf Sci 391:72–123Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu JX, Chen ZG, Xie SB et al (2019) Properties and mechanism of U(VI) adsorption in oxidized graphitic carbon nitride. Fine Chem 36(7):1–10Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li HJ, Sun BW, Sui L et al (2015) Preparation of water-dispersible porous g-C3N4 with improved photocatalytic activity by chemical oxidation. Phys Chem Chem Phys 17(5):3309–3315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arica MY, Bayramoglu G (2016) Polyaniline coated magnetic carboxymethylcellulose beads for selective removal of uranium ions from aqueous solution. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 310(2):1–14Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang H, Zhang X, Xie J et al (2015) Structural distortion in graphitic-C3N4 realizing an efficient photoreactivity. Nanoscale 7:5152–5156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liang Z, Wen Q, Wang X et al (2016) Chemically stable and reusable nano zero-valent Iron/graphite-like carbon nitride nanohybrid for efficient photocatalytic treatment of Cr(VI) and rhodamine B under visible light. Appl Surf Sci 386:451–459Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deng Y, Tang L, Zeng G et al (2017) Insight into highly efficient simultaneous photocatalytic removal of Cr(VI) and 2,4-diclorophenol under visible light irradiation by phosphorus doped porous ultrathin g-C3N4, nanosheets from aqueous media: performance and reaction mechanism. Appl Catal B 203:343–354Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen H, Xie S, Liu J et al (2014) Characteristics and mechanism of uranium (VI) adsorption by anaerobic granular sludge. Chin J Nonferrous Met 9:2418–2425Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huang H, Li W, Wang H et al (2014) Conducting hydrogels of tetraaniline-g-poly(vinyl alcohol) in situ reinforced by supramolecular nanofibers. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6(3):1595–1600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Su T, Wang GY, Wang SL et al (2010) Fluorinated siloxane-containing waterborne polyurethaneureas with excellent hemocompatibility, waterproof and mechanical properties. Eur Polym J 46(3):472–483Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fleaca CT, Dumitrache F, Morjan I et al (2016) Synthesis and characterization of polyaniline–Fe@C magnetic nanocomposite powder. Appl Surf Sci 374:213–221Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ke L, Li P, Wu X et al (2017) Graphene-like sulfur-doped g-C3N4, for photocatalytic reduction elimination of UO22+ under visible light. Appl Catal B 205:319–326Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang JW, Gong S, Mahmood N et al (2017) Oxygen-doped nanoporous carbon nitride via water-based homogeneous supramolecular assembly for photocatalytic hydrogen evolution. Appl Catal B 221:9–16Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xu M, Han L, Dong S (2013) Facile fabrication of highly efficient g-C3N4/Ag2O heterostructured photocatalysts with enhanced visible-light photocatalytic activity. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5(23):12533–12540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wijntje R, Bosch H, Haan ABD et al (2005) Adsorbent selection by functional group interaction screening for peptide recovery. Adsorpt J Int Adsorpt Soc 11(1):881–886Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zou YD, Wang XX, Wu F et al (2016) Controllable synthesis of Ca-Mg-Al layered double hydroxides and calcined layered double oxides for the efficient removal of U(VI) from wastewater solutions. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5(1):1173–1185Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yu SJ, Wang XX, Wang XK et al (2017) Macroscopic, spectroscopic, and theoretical investigation for the interaction of phenol and naphthol on reduced grapheme oxide. Environ Sci Technol 51:3278–3286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yao W, Wu Y, Pang H et al In-situ reduction synthesis of manganese dioxide@polypyrrole core/shell nanomaterial for highly efficient enrichment of U(a and Eu(n-situ reduction synthesis of manganese dioxide@polypyrroGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liu Y, Qin L, Cao X et al (2013) Removal of uranium(VI) from aqueous solutions by CMK-3 and its polymer composite. Appl Surf Sci 285(10):258–266Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zou Y, Wang P, Yao W et al (2017) Synergistic immobilization of UO22+ by novel graphitic carbon nitride @ layered double hydroxide nanocomposites from wastewater. Chem Eng J 330:573–584Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang Y, Gu Z, Yang J et al (2014) Amidoxime-grafted multiwalled carbon nanotubes by plasma techniques for efficient removal of uranium(VI). Appl Surf Sci 320:10–20Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhao G, Wen T, Yang X et al (2012) Preconcentration of U(iwalled carbon nanotubes by ene oxide nanosheets from aqueous solutions. Dalton Trans 41(20):6182–6188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sun Y, Yang S, Sheng G et al (2011) Comparison of U(VI) removal from contaminated groundwater by nanoporous alumina and non-nanoporous alumina. Sep Purif Technol 83:196–203Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wang X, Pang H, Huang S et al (2018) Efficient elimination of U(VI) by polyethyleneimine decorated fly ash. Inorg Chem Front 5(10):2399–2407Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Li J, Guo Z, Zhang S et al (2011) Enrich and seal radionuclides in magnetic agarose microspheres. Chem Eng J 172(23):892–897Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tripathi S, Roy A, Nair S et al (2018) Removal of U(VI) from aqueous solution by adsorption onto synthesized silica and zinc silicate nanotubes: equilibrium and kinetic aspects with application to real samples. Environ Nanotechnol Monit Manag 10:127–139Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pidchenko I, Kvashnina KO, Yokosawa T et al (2017) Uranium redox transformations after U(VI) coprecipitation with magnetite nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 51(4):2217–2225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Anirudhan S, Jalajamony S (2013) Ethyl thiosemicarbazide intercalated organophilic calcined hydrotalcite as a potential sorbent for the removal of uranium(VI) and thorium(IV) ions from aqueous solutions. J Environ Sci 25(4):717–725Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    We Q, Liu H Zhang et al (2017) Rapid and efficient uranium(VI) capture by phytic acid/polyaniline/FeOOH composites. J Colloid Interface Sci 511:1–11Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gu P, Song S, Zhang S et al (2018) Enrichment of U(VI) on polyaniline modified mxene composites studied by batch experiment and mechanism investigation. Acta Chim Sinica Chin Ed 76(9):701Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinxiang Liu
    • 1
  • Zigeng Chen
    • 1
  • Kun Yu
    • 1
  • Yingjiu Liu
    • 1
  • Yujie Ge
    • 1
  • Shuibo Xie
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resources TechnologyUniversity of South ChinaHengyangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Key Discipline Laboratory for National Defence for Biotechnology in Uranium Mining and HydrometallurgyUniversity of South ChinaHengyangPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations