Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 May 23;14(24):16727-16735.
doi: 10.1039/d3ra08768a. eCollection 2024 May 22.

Construction of core-shell magnetic metal-organic framework composites Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) for degradation of RhB by efficiently activating PMS

Affiliations

Construction of core-shell magnetic metal-organic framework composites Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) for degradation of RhB by efficiently activating PMS

Huizhong Wu et al. RSC Adv. .

Abstract

Low catalytic efficiency and catalyst recovery are the key factors limiting the practical application of advanced oxidation processes. In this work, a core-shell magnetic nanostructure Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) was prepared via a simple solvothermal method. The core-shell structure and magnetic recovery performance were characterized by various technologies. The results of dye degradation experiments proved that within 10 minutes, the Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co)/PMS system can degrade more than 95% of 10 mg per L Rhodamine (RhB) at an initial pH of 7, which possesses higher catalytic activity than the Fe3O4/PMS system and the MIL-101(Fe, Co)/PMS system. The effects of initial solution pH and coexisting anions in water on the degradation of RhB were further discussed. The results showed that Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) displayed excellent degradation efficiency in a wide pH range of 3-11 and capability of resisting coexisting anions. It is worth mentioning that after five cycles, the RhB removal rate can still be maintained at over 90% after 10 minutes of reaction. Free radical quenching experiments were further studied, confirming that ˙OH and SO4-˙ were involved in the degradation of RhB, while the dominating active free radical was SO4-˙. The possible reaction mechanism of the RhB degradation process was also inferred.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts to declare.

Figures

Scheme 1
Scheme 1. Schematic illustration of synthetic procedure of Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) for PMS activation.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1. (a) XRD of Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co), MIL-101(Fe, Co) and Fe3O4; (b) FT-IR of Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co), MIL-101(Fe, Co) and Fe3O4.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. SEM images of Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) (a and b); the EDX spectrum of Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) (c) HRTEM image of Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) (d–f); changes of Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co) before and after magnetic field application (g).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. The degradation of RhB under different reaction conditions (a). Concentration: [RhB] = 10 mg L−1, [PMS] = 0.4 g L−1, [catalyst] = 0.2 g L−1, volume: 20 mL; temperature: 25 °C; initial solution pH: 7.0; pseudo-first order kinetics of different materials (b).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. The influence of catalyst (a) and PMS (b) dosage, initial pH (c) in RhB removal and the efficiencies of different oxidants in Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co)/PMS system (d). Concentration: [dyes] = 10 mg L−1 (for a–d), [PMS] = 0.4 g L−1 (for a, c, d), [catalyst] = 0.2 g L−1 (for b–d), volume: 20 mL; temperature: 25; initial solution pH: 7.0.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Effects of chloride (a) and bicarbonate (b) on RhB degradation in Fe3O4@MIL-101(Fe, Co)/PMS system. Concentration: [RhB] = 10 mg L−1, [PMS] = 0.4 g L−1, [catalyst] = 0.2 g L−1, volume: 20 mL; temperature: 25 °C; initial solution pH: 7.0.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Varghese A. G. Paul S. A. Latha M. S. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019;17:867–877.
    1. Sriram G. Bendre A. Mariappan E. Altalhi T. Kigga M. Ching Y. C. Jung H.-Y. Bhaduri B. Kurkuri M. Sustainable Mater. Technol. 2022;31:e00378.
    1. Jorfi S. Pourfadakari S. Kakavandi B. Chem. Eng. J. 2018;343:95–107.
    1. Ma X. Zhao S. Tian Z. Duan G. Pan H. Yue Y. Li S. Jian S. Yang W. Liu K. He S. Jiang S. Chem. Eng. J. 2022;446:136851.
    1. Lin Q. Zeng G. Yan G. Luo J. Cheng X. Zhao Z. Li H. Chem. Eng. J. 2022;427:131668.