236
G.-R. Xu
Fig. 7 Cross-sectional SEM for a MXene, and b 21% Ag@MXene, c photograph of 21%
Ag@MXene membrane, comparison of the filtration performance of MXene and 21 Ag@MXene
for RhB, MG, and BSA molecules d flux and e rejection. Figures are reproduced with permissions
from (Ref. 134)
with thickness of ~1.5 mm and outer shell wall of ~20 μm. Unique inside structures
including high porosities, large specific surface areas, and oxygenated functional
groups of MXenes enables MX-SA to effectively adsorb Hg
2+ . Especially, binding
group of [Ti–O]–H
+ had strong metal–ligand interaction with Hg
2+ . Additionally,
MX-SA spheres could further provide cage-like spherical structures that can entrap
Hg
2+ . Adsorption capacity of Hg
2+ was 932 mg/g with removal efficiency of 100%
and other five heavy metal ions removal were all >90%. The binding of Hg
2+ with
G.-R. Xu
Fig. 7 Cross-sectional SEM for a MXene, and b 21% Ag@MXene, c photograph of 21%
Ag@MXene membrane, comparison of the filtration performance of MXene and 21 Ag@MXene
for RhB, MG, and BSA molecules d flux and e rejection. Figures are reproduced with permissions
from (Ref. 134)
with thickness of ~1.5 mm and outer shell wall of ~20 μm. Unique inside structures
including high porosities, large specific surface areas, and oxygenated functional
groups of MXenes enables MX-SA to effectively adsorb Hg
2+ . Especially, binding
group of [Ti–O]–H
+ had strong metal–ligand interaction with Hg
2+ . Additionally,
MX-SA spheres could further provide cage-like spherical structures that can entrap
Hg
2+ . Adsorption capacity of Hg
2+ was 932 mg/g with removal efficiency of 100%
and other five heavy metal ions removal were all >90%. The binding of Hg
2+ with