1. Use of Nanostructured Layered Double Hydroxides as Nanofilters in the Removal of Fe2+ and Ca2+ Ions from Oil Wells.
- Author
-
Ephraim, Emmanuel K., Anyama, Chinyere A., Ayi, Ayi A., and Onwuka, Jude C.
- Subjects
IRON ions ,OIL wells ,LAYERED double hydroxides ,COPRECIPITATION (Chemistry) ,ATOMIC absorption spectroscopy - Abstract
Four new metal-aluminum layered double hydroxides (LDHs), Mg-Al(OH)
2 PO4 (1 ), Mg-Al(OH)2 PO4 PF6 (2 ), Ca-Al(OH)2 SO4 (3 ), and Ca-Al(OH)2 PO4 PF6 (4 ), were prepared by the coprecipitation method followed by mild hydrothermal processing at 60°C. Mg2+ and Ca2+ in solution with Al3+ were titrated with NaOH over 3–5 h to yield Mg-Al and Ca-Al layered double hydroxides, respectively, incorporating PO4 3− , PO4 3− PF6 − , and SO4 2− anions in the interlamellar spaces. The isolated compounds were characterized with the help of XRD, IR, and SEM/EDAX, and their ability to remove scale-forming ions from the aqueous system was studied with the help of atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). The SEM micrographs of Mg-O-Al-OH and Ca-O-Al-OH layers intercalated with PO4 3− and/or [PO4 PF6 ]4− anions are similar consisting of uniform nanospheres with an average size of 100 nm, while the M-O-Al-OH layer of compound3 , intercalated with SO4 2− anions, consists of hexagonal nanoplate crystals. In the infrared spectra, the characteristic absorption band for water molecules was observed in all the compounds. The XRD pattern showed thatd 012 andd 104 peaks of M-Al-PO4 LDHs corresponding to interplanar spacing of 3.4804 and 2.5504 Å, respectively, shifted to higher 2θ values for the M-Al-PO4 PF6 system, which indicates a decrease in the interlamellar spacing as PF6 − was incorporated along with PO4 3− anion. The XRD pattern for Ca-Al-SO4 LDHs was quite different, showing the presence of low-angle peaks at 2θ = 11.68 and 14.72°. The results of the column adsorption studies showed that there was a significant removal of Ca2+ by all the compounds under investigation with an efficiency of 84–99%. However, compounds1 and2 remove Fe2+ effectively with the efficiency of 98.73 and 99.77%, respectively; compounds3 and4 were shown to have little or no effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF