Tackling Deficiencies in the Presentation and Interpretation of Adsorption Results for New Materials
Tackling Deficiencies in the Presentation and Interpretation of Adsorption Results for New Materials
复制标题
解决新材料吸附结果呈现和解释中的缺陷
DOI：
10.1021/acs.est.9b02449
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
11.4
通讯作者：
Giammar Daniel E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wang Zimeng;Giammar Daniel E.
了解吸附平衡和动力学是环境应用材料开发的核心。近几十年来，已有数千篇论文报告了天然和人造材料的新吸附数据。最近的大部分研究都集中在新材料的合成和评估上，以富集或隔离污染物。尽管我们的吸附剂库存不断扩大，但新的科学见解并没有跟上新数据的产生，一些吸附结果的呈现甚至可能会损害快速增长的文献的质量。吸附剂开发研究通常不会在相同的基础上将新吸附剂与现有替代材料进行比较。材料开发研究通常包括总结不同材料的最大吸附容量 (Qmax) 的表格。然而，只有在可比较的水化学条件下确定 Qmax 值时，这种比较才有意义； pH 值、竞争离子、螯合离子或桥连离子的存在以及对大气的开放程度都会对吸附平衡产生巨大影响。具有讽刺意味的是，这种比较导致容易被击败的材料被高度引用。这种担忧可以通过在与竞争材料相同的条件下对新型材料进行直接评估（即同类比较）来解决。我们甚至可能走向一组
An understanding of adsorption equilibria and kinetics is at the heart of materials development for environmental applications. There have been thousands of papers in recent decades that report new adsorption data for natural and artificial materials. Much of the recent research has focused on the synthesis and evaluation of novel materials to enrich or sequester contaminants. Despite the expansion of our sorbent inventory, new scientific insights have not kept pace with the generation of new data, and some presentations of adsorption results may even be hurting the quality of the fast-growing literature.Sorbent development studies often do not compare the new sorbent to existing alternative materials on the same basis. Material development studies often include a table summarizing maximum sorption capacities (Qmax) of different materials. However, such a comparison is only meaningful if the Qmax values were determined at comparable water chemistry conditions; pH, the presence of competing, chelating, or bridging ions, and the openness to the atmosphere can have enormous impacts on adsorption equilibrium. Ironically, such comparisons are causing easy-to-beat materials to be highly cited. This concern could be addressed by including a direct evaluation of a novel material at the same conditions as those used for a competing material (ie, an apples-to-apples comparison). We may even move toward a set of