| Literature DB >> 28202922 |
Maoling Wu1, Yinying Li1, Rui Yue1, Xiaodan Zhang1, Yuming Huang1.
Abstract
The removal of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) from water is highly needed because of their increasing use and potential risk to the environment due to their toxic effects. Catalysis over AgNPs has received significant attention because of their highly catalytic performance. However, their use in practical applications is limited due to high cost and limited resources. Here, we present for the first time that the mussel-inspired Fe3O4@polydopamine (Fe3O4@PDA) nanocomposite can be used for efficient removal and recovery of AgNPs. Adsorption of AgNPs over Fe3O4@PDA was confirmed by TEM, FT-IR, XRD, TGA and magnetic property. The adsorption efficiency of AgNPs by Fe3O4@PDA was investigated as a function of pH, contact time, ionic strength and concentration of AgNPs. The kinetic data were well fitted to a pseudo-second order kinetic model. The isotherm data were well described by Langmuir model with a maximum adsorption capacity of 169.5 mg/g, which was higher than those by other adsorbents. Notably, the obtained AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA exhibited highly catalytic activity for methylene blue reduction by NaBH4 with a rate constant of 1.44 × 10-3/s, which was much higher than those by other AgNPs catalysts. The AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA promised good recyclability for at least 8 cycles and acid resistant with good stability.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28202922 PMCID: PMC5311861 DOI: 10.1038/srep42773
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1TEM images of (a) Fe3O4 NPs, (b) Fe3O4@PDA core-shell NPs and (c) AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA.
Figure 2(a) FT-IR spectra of Fe3O4, Fe3O4@PDA, and AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA. (b) X-ray diffraction patterns of Fe3O4, Fe3O4@PDA, and AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA. (c) TGA data of Fe3O4, Fe3O4@PDA, and AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA. (d) Magnetic curves of Fe3O4, Fe3O4@PDA, and AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA, inset photographs: separation of Fe3O4@PDA (upper left) and AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA (lower right) from aqueous solution by using an external magnet.
Figure 3(a) Effect of pH. Reaction conditions: 5 mg adsorbent, 50 mL of 10.8 mg/L GA-AgNPs solution, adsorption time 26 h. (b) Adsorption kinetics. Reaction conditions: 5 mg adsorbent, 50 mL of 10.8 mg/L GA-AgNPs solution, pH 10.0. (c) Adsorption isotherm. Reaction conditions: 5 mg adsorbent, 50 mL of GA-AgNPs solution, pH 10.0, and adsorption time 26 h. (d) Effect of salt concentration. Reaction conditions: 5 mg adsorbent, 50 mL of 10.8 mg/L GA-AgNPs solution, pH 10.0, adsorption time 26 h. Error bars represent one standard deviation for three measurements.
Kinetic parameters of GA-AgNPs adsorption by Fe3O4@PDA.
| Pseudo-first-order model | Pseudo-second-order model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83.53 | 112.95 | 0.00198 | 0.6613 | 96.15 | 0.1231 | 0.9330 |
Isotherm constants for adsorption of GA-AgNPs onto Fe3O4@PDA.
| Langmuir model | Freundlich model | Dubinin-Radushkevich model | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 160.9 | 0.7300 | 169.5 | 0.9928 | 4.052 | 78.12 | 0.8294 | 180.33 | 0.0009 | 0.9752 |
Comparison of the maximum AgNPs adsorption capacity with different adsorbents.
| Adsorbent | Adsorption capacity (mg/g) | Refs |
|---|---|---|
| biomimetic metal oxides | 5.02–54.84 | |
| The surface modified electrospun PVA membrane | 23.83–55.8 | |
| cellulose-based nanofibers | 13.1 | |
| PVA/Gluten Nanofibres | 31.84 | |
| PEI functionalized carbon spheres | 135 | |
| Amine modified block copolymers | 99–117 | |
| Plasma treated nanofibre membranes prepared by PVA/natural GK | 38.62 | |
| nanofibre membranes prepared by PVA and deacetylated GK | 143.4–168.5 | |
| Fe3O4@PDA | 169.5 | This work |
Figure 4(a) Effect of contact time on MB removal by AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA/NaBH4; (b) MB removal by AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA/NaBH4 and Fe3O4@PDA/NaBH4 systems.
Comparison of kinetic constant (k) of different noble metal catalysts in the degradation of MB reported in previous literatures.
| Catalyst | Reaction conditions | MB removal (%) | Refs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgNPs/P(NIPAM-co-DMA)* microgels | 40 μL of 1.4 mg/L microgels; 40 μL of 0.37 mg/mL MB; 4 mL of 1 mg/mL NaBH4. | 100 | 8.33 × 10−4–9.67 × 10−4 | |
| Ag nanowire | Ag nanowire catalytic liquid marbles: 80 μL; 2 mM MB; 0.2 M NaBH4. | ~100 | 8.30 × 10−4 | |
| Sacha inchi (SI) oil templated AgNPs | 250 μL colloidal AgNPs; 5 mL of 10 mg/L MB with sunlight. | >65 | 0.46 × 10−4 | |
| graphene oxide (GO)/AgNPs | 0.5 mL GO/AgNPs; 1.5 mL of 1 μM MB; 1.00 mL of 0.01 M NaBH4. | ~90 | 6.33 × 10−4 | |
| Ag colloid | 0.1 mL of 1 mg/mL Ag colloid; 0.1 mL of 1 mM MB; 0.15 mL of 5 mM NaBH4. | ~83 | 4.33 × 10−4 | |
| Pd/polypyrrole-cellulose | Pd/polypyrrole-cellulose: 2 mg; 30 μL of 0.4 mg/mL MB. | ~69 | 2.50 × 10−4 | |
| biogenic AuNPs | Glass beads coated with Au NPs; 0.25 mL plant extract; 3 mL of 0.1 mM MB. | ~85 | 6.88 × 10−4 | |
| Sterculia acuminata fruit extract templated Au NPs | 30 μL (~29.54 μg) Au NPs; 10−4 M MB; 0.1 M NaBH4. | 100 | 7.19 × 10−4 | |
| Au-PBCGO55** | 30 μL of 0.1 mg/mL Au-PBCGO55; 2 mL of 5 mg/L MB; 1 mL of 0.1 M NaBH4. | ~70 | 8.33 × 10−4 | |
| Ag-PBCGO55 | 30 μL of 0.1 mg/mL Ag-PBCGO55; 2 mL of 5 mg/L MB; 1 mL of 0.1 M NaBH4. | ~83 | 1.50 × 10−3 | |
| dendrimer encapsulated AgNPs (AgDENs) | 0.15 mL of 0.25 μM AgDENs; 0.205 mL of 15 μM MB; 0.24 mL of 40 mM H2O2. | ~93 | 2.87 × 10−4 | |
| dendrimer encapsulated AuNPs (AuDENs) | 0.15 mL of 0.23 μM AuDENs; 0.205 mL of 15 μM MB; 0.24 mL of 40 mM H2O2. | ~93 | 3.15 × 10−4 | |
| Fe3O4@Tween20@Ag | 5 mg Fe3O4@Tween20@Ag; 100 μL of 10 mM MB; 1 mL of 10 mM NaBH4. | ~70 | 1.10 × 10−3 | |
| AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA | 5 mg AgNPs-Fe3O4@PDA; 20 mL of 7.5 mg/L MB; 0.5 mL of 0.1 M NaBH4. | ~100 | 1.44 × 10−3 | This work |
*P(NIPAM-co-DMA): poly (N-isopropylacrylamide-co-2-(dimethylamino)ethylmethacrylate). **50 wt% of pyrene- functionalized poly(methyl methacrylate)-b-poly(dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) ionic block copolymer-wrapped carbon nanotubes (PBCNTs) with graphene oxide (GO) decorated of AuNPs.