Synthesis, Characterization and Exchange Reactions of Layered Double Hydroxides of Copper and Aluminum, Intercalated with Sulfate

Abstract

Layered double hydroxides (LDHs) of Cu:Al in the molar ratio of 2:1, intercalated with sulfate, sulfate/(Li⁺, Na⁺, K⁺ or NH₄⁺), NO₃^- and CO₃^2-, were synthesized by co-precipitation with increasing pH. The materials were submitted to exchange reactions using B₂SO₄ (B = Li⁺, Na⁺, K⁺, NH₄⁺) solutions in an attempt to replace previously intercalated cations or incorporated cations without removing intercalated sulfate. X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra were consistent with the expected intercalated species and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images indicated submicrometric platelet-like particles, typical of LDHs. The chemical compositions of all phases were confirmed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP OES) and thermogravimetric analyses (TGA). In the exchange reactions, only in [Cu₆Al₃(OH)₁₈][Na(H₂O)₆(SO₄)₂]·6H₂O the sodium cations were almost totally replaced with lithium, potassium and ammonium, without removing the intercalated sulfate.

Keywords:
layered double hydroxide; sulfate; exchange reaction; copper; aluminum

Introduction

Layered double hydroxides (LDHs) are a class of materials belonging to the hydrotalcite-like compounds. These compounds have brucite-like structure (Mg(OH)₂), where each metallic cation occupies the center of an octahedron whose vertices contain hydroxide anions. The octahedra share edges to form two-dimensional layers, which are stacked along the basal axis. However, in the case of LDHs, part of the M²⁺ cations are replaced by M³⁺ cations, generating an excess of positive charges on the layer. This excess of positive charges is compensated by the insertion of anions in the space between layers.^1-4

LDHs are represented by the general composition $\left[M^{2+}{}_{1-x}M^{3+}{}_x{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2\right]{\left(A^{n-}\right)}_{x/n}·{\mathrm{yH}}_{2}O$, where M²⁺ and M³⁺ are divalent and trivalent metal cations and A^n- denotes intercalated anhydrous or hydrated anions with charge n-.^5-7 Several combinations between M²⁺ and M³⁺ with different intercalated anions have been studied, and new phases are being synthesized and evaluated regarding the formation of compounds, their properties and applications.^8-12

Due to the presence of positively charged layers, these compounds are well known for their anion exchange capacity. However, it has recently been reported¹³ that some LDHs have the ability to intercalate cations and anions and exchange both simultaneously or separately. Among the anions studied, sulfate has been gaining prominence, mainly because LDHs are similar to the minerals motukoreaite (Mg/Al), natroglaucocerinite (Zn/Al) and shigaite (Mn/Al),^14-16 in addition to other phases containing Co/Al and Ni/Al.¹⁷ These have been synthesized with sulfate, and intercalation of alkali metal cations such as lithium, sodium and potassium has been observed.^13,17

In recent years, layered compounds have received great attention due to their wide applications, such as protection against UV radiation in polymers,¹⁸ emulsion stabilization,¹⁹ catalysis,^20,21 adsorption,²² degradation of dyes and organic compounds,^23,24 drug release,^25-27 UV-radiation polymer protection²⁸ and flame retardance.²⁹ Since LDHs are materials obtained at relatively low cost, it is attractive to increase the study of these compounds, including synthesizing new phases that can have diversified properties for diverse applications. An element not often analyzed in structures of layered compounds and that can be further explored is copper. Most of the studies^30-37 that exist involve the characterization of minerals obtained in nature.

The general information in the literature^5,38,39 indicates that the proposed compositions investigated in the present article are unlikely to be obtained due especially to: (i) the precipitation of the isolated hydroxides like Cu(OH)₂ and Al(OH)₃ in the pH lower (ca. 5.0) than those used to precipitate the respective LDH (pH above 7); (ii) to the Jahn-Teller effect observed with Cu²⁺ when hexacoordinated with hydroxide anions, leading to poor long-range ordering of the octahedral and hindering the LDH structure formation; (iii) to the Jahn-Teller effect Cu²⁺ site distortion, weakening the electrostatic interactions between the positively charged layers and hydrated intercalated anions; (iv) that LDH containing Cu²⁺ will only be obtained when a third M²⁺ metal is used in higher concentration together with Cu²⁺ forming ternary LDH, which would overpass the Jahn-Teller effect, by diluting the Cu²⁺ in the brucite-like structure.

In spite of these discouraging effects we decided to investigate the Cu₂Al-SO₄ LDH system in an attempt to expand the knowledge of this class of compound. The main incentives were the scarce literature about the intercalation of sulfate in these phases and the information that Cu/Al LDHs are potential catalysts or catalysts precursors for application in different reactions (e.g., in photocatalysis, oxidation, hydrogenation, dehydration, isomerization, steam reforming, conversion of biomass, etc.).^40-42

Experimental

LDHs with Cu²⁺:Al³⁺ molar ratios of 2:1 were synthesized by coprecipitation with increasing pH using an automatic glass titration reactor operating at 50 °C, under N₂ flow. The chemicals were of analytical grade and used without any treatment (LiOH, Biotec (São Paulo, Brazil), 98%; NaOH, Reatec (São Paulo, Brazil), 99%; KOH, Reatec, 98%; CuSO₄, Reatec, 99%; Al₂(SO₄)₃.16H₂O, Reatec, 98-102%; Li₂SO₄, Reatec, 99%; Na₂SO₄, Neon (São Paulo, Brazil), 99.9%; K₂SO₄, Reatec, 98.5%; (NH₄)₂SO₄, Reatec, 99%; NaNO₃, F. Maia (Belo Horizonte, Brazil), 99%; Na₂CO₃, Biotec, 99%). The amounts used in the synthesis of the samples are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Solution concentrations and pH changes during synthesis

Compound	CuSO4 / mmol	Al2(SO4)3 / mmol	B2SO4a / mmol	Initial pH	Final pH
Cu2Al-SO4/Li	25.354	6.339	2.113	3.06	8.01
Cu2Al-SO4/Na	25.015	6.254	2.085	3.05	8.02
Cu2Al-SO4/K	24.684	6.171	2.057	3.08	8.04
Cu2Al-SO4/NH4	25.117	6.281	2.093	2.85	8.02
Compound	Cu(NO3)2 / mmol	Al(NO3)3 / mmol	NaNO3 or Na2CO3 / mmol	Initial pH	Final pH
Cu2Al-NO3	28.243	14.121	4.709	3.25	8.17
Cu2Al-CO3	28.404	14.200	2.365	4.02	8.07

• ^a
  B = Li⁺, Na⁺, K+, NH₄⁺.

Using the phase Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na as an example, CuSO₄·5H₂O, Al₂(SO₄)₃ and Na₂SO₄ were dissolved in 100 mL of Milli-Q water (Millipore-simplicity UV, Bedford, USA). The solution was heated to 50 °C and very slowly titrated with a solution of 1 mol L^-1 NaOH in a glass titration reactor, using a peristaltic pump coupled to a pHmeter, having the pH monitored all the time during the titration. After observing that solid materials were obtained, the slurries were removed from the reactor at desired pHs and aged at 90 °C for 120 h in a capped Erlenmeyer flask. All the samples were separated by centrifugation at 4000 rpm (centrifugal force of 2125 G) for 5 min. To minimize the mechanically trapped soluble species, a new portion of around 50 mL of N₂ decarbonated distilled water (by boiling and bubbling N₂ gas) was added to the slurry and the tube submitted to one ultrasound bath for some seconds. The centrifugation was performed, and the process repeated at least five times and finally dried at room temperature. As per our experience in the lab, filtration is not a good procedure to remove all soluble species trapped between the particles in the cake.

After defining the optimal pH for synthesis of more crystalline materials (using the procedure of observing the sharp peaks and the higher number of the basal peaks in the XRD patterns), the samples were also synthesized with sulfate salts of lithium, potassium and ammonium and precipitated with 1 mol L^-1 solutions of the respective hydroxides. Samples were also intercalated with nitrate and carbonate and precipitated with a 1 mol L^-1 NaOH solution. To observe the effect of the temperature in the sample crystallinity, the lithium sample was not hydrothermally treated at 90 °C, only aged at room temperature for 120 h.

Based on the sodium intercalated phase as an example of the exchange reactions, an aqueous dispersion of the solid was magnetically stirred slowly with excess Li₂SO₄, K₂SO₄ or (NH₄)₂SO₄ (three times the concentration of the intercalated cations) for 120 h. The attempt to substitute nitrate and carbonate with sulfate occurred with an excess of Na₂SO₄ (five times the concentration of the intercalated cations) for 240 h.

The reactions were performed at room temperature under N₂ flow to avoid contamination with carbonate. After the reactions, the materials were centrifuged at 4000 rpm, washed several times with decarbonated distilled water and dried at room temperature. For the exchange reactions in the other synthesized phases, combinations of different alkaline metal sulfates were used.

The compounds were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD) using a Shimadzu XRD-6000 diffractometer with Cu Kα = 1.5418 Å radiation, tension of 40 kV, current of 30 mA and dwell time of 2° min^-1 (the step was of 0.02° in 2θ). For the analysis, the samples were dispersed in water after the last washing and were deposited in the glass sample holders and allowed to dry at room temperature.

Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectra were obtained in the transmission mode using a Bomen MB100 spectrophotometer using KBr pellets containing around 1% (m/m) of the sample. The spectra were collected from 400-4000 cm^-1, with 32 scans, using resolution of 2 cm^-1.

The morphology was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The images were acquired with a Tescan Vega3LMU microscope with AZ Tech software. The samples were deposited on carbon tapes and sputtered with a thin gold layer.

The quantitative determinations of the metals and sulfur (relative to sulfate) were quantified with a Thermo Scientific inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer (ICP OES, model iCAP 6500) with the Thermo Scientific iTeVa software, version 1.2.0.30. The samples were dissolved in a solution containing 1.0% v/v of HNO₃ in Milli-Q water and the data were collected in duplicate. Average values were used to obtain the LDH formulas.

Thermogravimetric analyses (TGA) were performed with a PerkinElmer TGA 4000 equipment, under synthetic air atmosphere with a flow rate of 50 mL min^-1 and heating rate of 10 °C min^-1.

Results and Discussion

In spite of the antecedents in the literature^29,43 indicating the difficulty or impossibility to obtain crystalline Cu rich Al LDH phases, it was a surprise when the XRD patterns of most of samples (Figure 1A) presented the typical pattern of this class of compounds, with a series of strong basal diffraction peaks due to the natural orientation of the layered crystals in the sample holder plane. The basal distances of compounds, indicated in the figure, were determined by Bragg’s law using the peak of highest order (around 25° in 2θ).

Figure 1
(A) XRD patterns and (B) FTIR spectra of the Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na synthesized at different pH values: (a) 7.03; (b) 7.57; (c) 8.04; (d) 8.51; (e) 9.07; (f) 9.55 and (g) 10.03.

For all samples of Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na obtained in the investigated pH range, the basal distance was close to 11 Å, with slight reduction when the pH of synthesis increased. In all cases, the basal distance was typical of systems containing sulfate and alkali metals, obtained by direct synthesis or exchange reactions.^13,44 At pH = 8.51, contamination was found with basal spacing of 8.7 Å, which is consistent with the intercalation of dehydrated sulfate.¹ After pH = 8.51, the samples lost crystallinity, tending to amorphous materials at pH higher than 10. In all samples, the (100) diffraction peaks were observed, indicating that the sample had a superstructure of the a’ = a√3 × a√3 type (a’ = 5.33 Å, a = 3.08 Å, average distance between the metals in the brucite-like layers), as expected for LDHs with 2M²⁺:M³⁺, due to the metal cations’ ordering in the two-dimensional layers.^16,44-46 The “a” parameter is very close to that of Cu/Al-CO₃ LDH⁴⁷ (a = 3.08 Å) and of the mineral woodwardite (Cu₄Al₂(OH)₁₂(SO₄)(H₂O)_2-4) (a = 3.10 Å)⁴⁸ and hydrowoodwardite (Cu_1-xAl_x(OH)₂(SO₄)_x/2·nH₂O) (a = 3.07 Å).⁴⁹ For comparison purposes, the basal distances of hydrowoodwardite, shigaite, motukoreaite and natroglaucocerinite are of 10.93, 11.02, 11.17 and 11.18 Å, respectively.^14-16,49 Woodwardite is the dehydrated analogous of hydrowoodwardite, consequently the basal distance is of 8.92 Å.⁴⁸ This value is close to the impurity observed in the phase Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na obtained at pH = 8.51 (Figure 1A, curve d) and also in the low crystalline phase Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li (Figure 2A, curve a).

Figure 2
(A) XRD patterns and (B) FTIR spectra of (a) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li; (b) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na; (c) Cu₂Al-SO₄/K; (d) Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄; (e) Cu₂Al-NO₃ and (f) Cu₂Al-CO₃. The pHs of the syntheses are described in Table 1.

Very similar FTIR spectra were obtained for all the samples (Figure 1B), with the characteristic bands of the O-H bond stretching (3400 cm^-1 region), referring to the structure of hydroxyls and adsorbed water molecules, besides the band at 1640 cm^-1, corresponding to water molecule bending.^4,50-53 The band in the region of 1120 cm^-1 was attributed to the ν₃ asymmetrical bending, while the bands at 960 and 620 cm^-1 were attributed to ν₁ and ν₄ S-O vibrations. The broadening of the bands suggests that sulfate anions are in a highly distorted environment. All compounds also presented typical bands in the region of 425-450, 533 and 735 cm^-1, which can be attributed to the O-M-O deformation mode and M-O stretching vibrations.^11,52-56 FTIR spectra are consistent with other copper-containing LDHs and minerals containing sulfate and alkali metals.^34,35,37,57

In the LDH of Al with other metals like Mn²⁺, Mg²⁺ and Zn²⁺, the bands were sharper, indicating a defined sulfate environment,¹³ but were also broad in the LDHs of Al with Ni²⁺ and Co²⁺.¹⁷ As observed for XRD patterns, after pH 8.51, some FTIR bands became very weak and even disappeared in the range below 1000 cm^-1, but sulfate was still detected in all of them.

Several attempts were made to synthesize the phase of Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄, but after changing the pH and temperature of synthesis, the reproducibility was very difficult. Phases with basal distances of 8.20-8.5 and 10.7 Å were obtained even under the same synthesis conditions. These phases were consistent with the structure of woodwardite (Cu₄Al₂(OH)₁₂(SO₄)(H₂O)_2-4)⁴⁹ and a synthetic analog with the composition Cu_0.67Al_0.33(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.15(CO₃)_0.015·0.5H₂O,^58,59 respectively with basal distances of 8.92 and 8.58 Å, close to the reported values⁶⁰ for LDH without copper, which are highly dependent on the degree of hydration.

The phase of 10.7 Å can be related to the presence of ammonium and excess sulfate as in shigaite-like structures,^14-16 or materials containing sulfate with high degree of hydration, as observed in hydrowoodwardite or synthetic hydrated Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.1665·nH₂O.⁴⁶ Due to this difficulty, the phases with the composition Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄ and basal distance of 10.75 Å, more frequently observed in the synthesis, will be described.

In the XRD patterns, the phases synthesized with sodium (c = 10.72 Å) and ammonium (c = 10.75 Å) showed intense and defined peaks (Figure 2A, curves b and d), indicating greater crystallinity than the other sulfate phases. Cu₂Al-SO₄/K (Figure 2A, curve c) (c = 10.53 Å) presented intermediary crystallinity while Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li (Figure 2A, curve a) (c ca. 8.9 Å) presented the lowest crystallinity due to the absence of the ripening process. Other LDHs intercalated with sulfate or sulfate/alkali metals have been reported^{13,15,17,61-64} with similar basal spacing, but the sulfate quickly dehydrated after exposure to dry air, which did not happen to our samples.

This indicates that our samples did not contain only sulfate, since samples containing sulfate/alkali metals are stable in air, preserving basal distances close to 11 Å. For the Cu₂Al-NO₃ and Cu₂Al-CO₃ (Figure 2A, curves e and f), the basal distances of 8.76 and 7.54 Å, respectively, are characteristic of nitrate and carbonate intercalation.^8,47,65,66 The Cu₂Al-NO₃ compound showed a diffraction peak with basal distance close to 7.3 Å, which can be attributed to carbonate contamination, although the reactions were performed under N₂ flow.

In compounds synthesized with sulfate (Figure 2B, curves a-d), the bands were very similar to those observed in Figure 1B. Cu₂Al-NO₃ and Cu₂Al-CO₃ (Figure 2B, curves e and f) showed the characteristic bands of the respective anions intercalated with the stretching vibration of the C-O and N-O bonds, located at 1360 and 1380 cm^-1, respectively.^3,27,67-69 The Cu/Al-NO₃ sample showed broadening of the N-O band (1380 cm^-1) towards the 1360 cm^-1 region, attributed to carbonate contamination, as shown in the XRD pattern. Table 2 reports the chemical composition of the synthesized samples obtained in the ICP OES analysis. For the samples containing lithium and sodium, the results were close to the values used in the synthesis and the chemical composition was consistent with the ideal anhydrous formula [Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂][B_0.111(SO₄)_0.222] (B = Li⁺, Na⁺).

Table 2
Compositions of the synthesized phases obtained by ICP OES analysis

Compound	Cu2+	Al3+	SO42-	CO32-/NO3-	B+ a
Cu2Al-SO4/Li	0.648	0.352	0.210		0.115
Cu2Al-SO4/Na	0.663	0.337	0.217		0.108
Cu2Al-SO4/K	0.643	0.357	0.151b		0.017
Cu2Al-SO4/NH4	0.662	0.338	0.179b		n.e.
Cu2Al-CO3	0.670	0.330		n.e.	n.d.
Cu2Al-NO3	0.659	0.341		n.e.	n.d.

• Ideal composition of anhydrous sample [Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂][B_0.111(SO₄)_0.222].
• ^a
  B+ = (Li, Na, K);
• ^b
  close to the formula Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.1665. n.e.: not evaluated; n.d.: not detected.

Since XRD patterns indicated basal spacing typical of a compound with SO₄^2-/NH₄⁺ and the FTIR spectra indicated absence of N-H bonds, the formula is close to Cu_0.662Al_0.338(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.169 but the content of sulfate is slightly higher than predicted. In the case of Cu₂Al-SO₄/K, the contents of sulfate and potassium are reduced, indicating the possible composition Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.1665, although the basal distance also suggests the presence of SO₄^2-/alkali metal (10.53 Å) and ICP OES indicates the presence of some amount of potassium, but much lower than expected (Table 2). The SEM images of all the samples (Figure 3) indicated a compact agglomeration and crystals with submicrometric size and platelet-like morphology, typical of LDHs. The orientation of the layered crystals in the sample holder explains the exposure of the basal planes to diffraction, as observed in the XRD patterns of all samples (Figures 1A and 2A).

Figure 3
SEM images of (a) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li; (b) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na; (c) Cu₂Al-SO₄/K; (d) Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄; (e) Cu₂Al-NO₃ and (f) Cu₂Al-CO₃.

The TGA and corresponding derivative thermogravimetry (DTG) curves (Figure 4) showed the same profile. In general, the release of intercalated and sorbed water occurs up to 220 °C.⁷⁰ The second event up to 450 °C is attributed to the LDH dehydroxylation process, indicated by the DTG peak, which varied according to the intercalated alkali metal, as expected due to the different hydration energy of the intercalated cations. The third event indicated by the DTG peak in the region of 680-720 °C is attributed to the partial decomposition of sulfates.⁷¹ In spite of the deviation between the expected and experimental values of up to 4% due to the partial decomposition of sulfates at 1000 °C (see mass loss under way close to 1000 °C), there were relative good agreements between the experimental residual mass from the theoretical one (Table 3).

Figure 4
TGA/DTG curves of (a) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li; (b) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na; (c) Cu₂Al-SO₄/K and (d) Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄.

Table 3
Proposed chemical formulas of the evaluated compounds

Compound	Massa / %	Massb / %	Δ / %	H2O content (y) (temperature / ºC)
Cu0.648Al0.352(OH)2(SO4)0.210(CO3)0.024Li0.115·yH2O	66.488	69.009	3.79	0.30 (130)
Cu0.663Al0.337(OH)2(SO4)0.217(CO3)0.007Na0.108·yH2O	67.225	69.927	4.02	0.46 (205)
Cu0.643Al0.357(OH)2(SO4)0.151(CO3)0.036K0.017·yH2O	68.883	70.010	1.64	0.51 (238)
Cu0.662Al0.338(OH)2(SO4)0.179(NH4)0.02·yH2O	68.016	66.500	2.23	0.55 (250)

• ^a
  Theoretical residual mass (considering: CuAl₂O₄, CuO and B₂O (B = Li⁺, Na⁺ or K⁺)) based on the formula obtained with inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP OES), with inclusion of carbonate to balance the charges, and are in anhydrous form;
• ^b
  experimental residual mass. ∆: deviation between the expected and experimental values.

Although the literature⁴⁴ describes the transformation of chloride and nitrate intercalated LDH into SO₄^2-/B⁺ (B⁺ = alkali metal), our attempts to substitute interlayer nitrate and carbonate with sulfate produced materials with very low crystallinity indicating the unsuccessful reaction (data not shown).

The XRD patterns (Figure 5A) and FTIR spectra (Figure 5B) after the alkali metal cation exchange reactions showed basal distances close to 10 Å, typical of the presence of SO₄^2-/alkali metal or hydrated sulfate.

Figure 5
(A) XRD patterns and (B) FTIR spectra of (a) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li and after exchange with (b) Na and (c) K; of (d) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na and after exchange with (e) Li and (f) K; and of (g) Cu₂Al-SO₄/K and after exchange with (h) Li and (i) Na.

The XRD patterns of compound Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li (8.87 Å) (Figure 5A, curve a) showed displacement to higher basal distance after the exchange reactions Li-Na (10.27 Å) and Li-K (10.35 Å) (Figure 5A, curves b and c). The basal distances of the samples Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na after exchange with Li⁺ and K⁺ changed from 10.72 to 10.70 Å (Na-Li) and 10.75 Å (Na-K). In the case of Cu₂Al-SO₄/K, the basal distances changed from 10.53 to 10.50 Å (K-Li) and 10.61 Å (K-Na). This behavior has been observed previously^13,17 in similar compounds synthesized with different M²⁺ and intercalated with sulfate and alkali metals.

The FTIR spectrum of the samples after exchanges (Figure 5B) shows the same bands as the precursors, indicating the maintenance of the basic LDH structure and functional groups. Traces of carbonate were observed in some samples (band at 1380 cm^-1), but the concentration was very low. Table 4 presents the ICP OES data of the samples before and after the exchange reactions.

Table 4
Compositions of the samples obtained by ICP OES analysis

Compound	Cu2+	Al3+	SO42-	Cation (B)	Ex.a / %
Cu2Al-SO4/Li	0.648	0.352	0.210	Li = 0.115	-
Cu2Al-SO4/Li-Na	0.644	0.356	0.146b	Li = 0.032; Na = 0.050; Li + Na = 0.082	60.98
Cu2Al-SO4/Li-K	0.631	0.369	0.158b	Li = 0.038; K = 0.011; Li + K = 0.049	22.45
Cu2Al-SO4/Na	0.663	0.337	0.217	Na = 0.108	-
Cu2Al-SO4/Na-Li	0.667	0.333	0.213	Na = 0.015; Li = 0.086; Na + Li = 0.101	85.15
Cu2Al-SO4/Na-K	0.663	0.337	0.214	Na = 0.013; K = 0.088; Na + K = 0.101	87.13
Cu2Al-SO4/Na-NH4	0.661	0.339	0.208	Na = 0.066; NH4 = n.e.	-
Cu2Al-SO4/K	0.643	0.357	0.151b	K = 0.017	-
Cu2Al-SO4/K-Li	0.646	0.354	0.139b	K = 0.001; Li = 0.008; K + Li = 0.009	88.89
Cu2Al-SO4/K-Na	0.648	0.352	0.136b	K = 0.004; Na = 0.051; K + Na = 0.055	92.73
Cu2Al-SO4/NH4	0.662	0.338	0.179b	-	-
Cu2Al-SO4/NH4-Na	0.660	0.344	0.172b	Na = 0.058; NH4 = n.e.	-

• Indices based on the ideal formula [Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂][B_0.111(SO₄)_0.222] (B = Li⁺, Na⁺, K⁺ or NH₄₊).
• ^a
  Percentage of exchange;
• ^b
  probably contaminated with carbonate or the formula is close to [Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂](SO₄)_0.1665. n.e.: not evaluated.

It can be seen that the samples Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li, Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na and Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄, before the exchange reactions present the chemical composition close to the expected ideal formula equivalent to the shigaite-like minerals ([Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂][B_0.111(SO₄)_0.222]; B = Li⁺, NH₄⁺),^14-17 while the sample Cu₂Al-SO₄/K had a composition equivalent to the mineral hydrowoodwardite or synthetic analogous (Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.1665).^49,60

After the exchange reactions of Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li, the content of sulfate and alkali metal was reduced, and the samples tended to be transformed into hydrowoodwardite. The Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na sample was the only one that preserved the structure of shigaite-like minerals, with the presence of alkali metal and sulfate. Cu₂Al-SO₄/K after the exchange reactions, although with a small concentration of alkali metal cations, especially after the exchange of K⁺ with Na⁺, suggests the preservation of the hydrowoodwardite structure. The same was also observed for the sample Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄, after the exchange reactions.

Figure 6A shows the XRD patterns of the sodium and ammonium samples after the exchange reactions.

Figure 6
(A) XRD patterns and (B) FTIR spectra of (a) Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na and (b) after exchange with NH₄, of (c) Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄ and (d) after exchange with Na.

The compounds Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na and Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄ showed basal distances of 10.72 and 10.75 Å, respectively. After the exchange reactions, Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na-NH₄ had basal distance of 10.94 Å, while Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄-Na had basal distance of 10.73 Å. By XRD analysis, it was not possible to tell whether the cation exchange occurred, nor was this possible from the FTIR spectra (Figure 6B), which showed only broadening of some bands due to disturbance of the sulfate/Na⁺ or NH₄⁺ environment. The samples with the composition [Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂][B_0.111(SO₄)_0.222] (B = Li⁺, Na⁺, K⁺ and NH₄⁺) and Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.1665 have very similar basal distances and only precise chemical analyses would give the information about the real compositions of the evaluated materials.

The SEM images (Figure 7) of all the Cu/Al like phases after the exchange reactions showed agglomerated particles, but less compacted than in the precursors, possibly due to the magnetic stirring during the reactions.

Figure 7
SEM images of Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li after exchange with (a) Na and (b) K; of Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na after exchange with (c) Li, (d) K and (e) NH₄; of Cu₂Al-SO₄/K after exchange with (f) Li and (g) Na; and of Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄ after exchange with (h) Na.

The ideal compositions of the synthesized LDHs can be described by equations 1 to 14 (to avoid the indication of soluble product, at the right of the arrows only the solids were included).

Synthesis

Precipitation of Cu and Al sulfates in the presence of sodium and lithium sulfates (B = Li⁺ or Na⁺):

(1) $0.667{\mathrm{CuSO}}_4+0.1665{\mathrm{Al}}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_3+B_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4+\mathrm{BOH}\to {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{B}_{0.111}$

Precipitation of Cu and Al sulfates in the presence of potassium and ammonium sulfates (B = K⁺ or NH₄⁺):

(2) $0.667{\mathrm{CuSO}}_4+0.1665{\mathrm{Al}}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_3+B_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4+\mathrm{BOH}\to {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.1665}$

Precipitation of Cu and Al nitrates in the presence of sodium nitrate:

(3) $0.667\mathrm{Cu}{\left({\mathrm{NO}}_3\right)}_2+0.333\mathrm{Al}{\left({\mathrm{NO}}_3\right)}_3+\mathrm{NaOH}\to {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{NO}}_3\right)}_{0.333}$

Precipitation of Cu and Al nitrates in the presence of sodium carbonate:

(4) $0.667\mathrm{Cu}{\left({\mathrm{NO}}_3\right)}_2+0.333\mathrm{Al}{\left({\mathrm{NO}}_3\right)}_3+{\mathrm{Na}}_2{\mathrm{CO}}_3+\mathrm{NaOH}\to {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{CO}}_3\right)}_{0.1665}$

Exchange reactions

Using Li₂SO₄, K₂SO₄, Na₂SO₄, (NH₄)₂SO₄ (B = Li⁺, Na⁺, K⁺, NH₄⁺):

(5) ${\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}\mathrm{AL}0.333{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{CO}}_3\right)}_{0.1665}+B_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \mathrm{no}\mathrm{apparent}\mathrm{reaction}$

(6) ${\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{NO}}_3\right)}_{0.333}+B_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \mathrm{no}\mathrm{apparent}\mathrm{reaction}$

(7) ${\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{CO}}_3\right)}_{0.1665}+B_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \mathrm{no}\mathrm{apparent}\mathrm{reaction}$

Using Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li phase and different alkali metals or ammonium sulfate salts:

(8) $\begin{array}{c}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Li}}_{0.111}+{\mathrm{Na}}_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211-y}{\left({\mathrm{CO}}_3\right)}_y{\mathrm{Li}}_{0.111-x}{\mathrm{Na}}_x\hfill \end{array}$

(9) $\begin{array}{c}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Li}}_{0.111}+K_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211-y}{\left({\mathrm{CO}}_3\right)}_y{\mathrm{Li}}_{0.111-x}{K}_x\hfill \end{array}$

(10) $\begin{array}{c}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Li}}_{0.111}+{\left({\mathrm{NH}}_4\right)}_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211-y}{\left({\mathrm{CO}}_3\right)}_y{\mathrm{Li}}_{0.111-x}{\left({\mathrm{NH}}_4\right)}_x\hfill \end{array}$

After extending the reaction time:

(11) $\begin{array}{c}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Li}}_{0.111}+B_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.1665}\left(B={\mathrm{Na}}^{+},K^{+},\mathrm{NH}_4{}^{+}\right)\hfill \end{array}$

Using Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na phase and different alkali metals or ammonium sulfate salts:

(12) $\begin{array}{c}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Na}}_{0.111}+{\mathrm{Li}}_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Na}}_{0.111-x}{\mathrm{Li}}_x\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Li}}_{0.111}\hfill \end{array}$

(13) $\begin{array}{c}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Na}}_{0.111}+K_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Na}}_{0.111-x}{K}_x\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{K}_{0.111}\hfill \end{array}$

(14) $\begin{array}{c}{\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Na}}_{0.111}+{\left({\mathrm{NH}}_4\right)}_2{\mathrm{SO}}_4\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\mathrm{Na}}_{0.111-x}{\left({\mathrm{NH}}_4\right)}_x\to \hfill \\ {\mathrm{Cu}}_{0.667}{\mathrm{Al}}_{0.333}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}_2{\left({\mathrm{SO}}_4\right)}_{0.211}{\left({\mathrm{NH}}_4\right)}_{0.111}\hfill \end{array}$

Only in the case of the system Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na, real cation exchange reactions occurred. In the schematic representations of both possible structures adopted for Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.211Na_0.111 or shigaite-like structure, and hydrated Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.1665·nH₂O (Figure 8), it is difficult to detect the differences by the traditional instrumental techniques used in materials science, especially due to the very close basal distances, low concentration of alkali metals, and slight increase of sulfate amount in the first in comparison to the second.

Figure 8
Schematic representation of both possible structures adopted for Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.211Na_0.111 and hydrated Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.1665.

It is common to detect alkali metal cations in the analysis when the sample is not properly washed, especially when the precipitate is submitted to filtration or centrifugation without dispersing the solid after each centrifugation step. The best technique to differentiate the two structures is quantitative analysis, especially via ICP OES.

Conclusions

Layered double hydroxides of Cu:Al in the molar ratio of 2:1 intercalated with sulfate, nitrate and carbonate were successfully synthesized by co-precipitation at 50 °C, followed by ripening at 90 °C. To investigate the quality of the structures of the precipitated materials, an optimization step was included where solid were removed during the titration process. After identifying the optimized pHs, new synthesis were performed for all compositions. The compounds synthesized with sulfate in the presence of Na⁺ and K⁺ had the greatest basal distances (around 11 Å), consistent with the intercalation of sulfate anions and hydrated cations. The same did not occur with the compound synthesized with lithium, which had a basal distance around of 8.9 Å, possibly due to the absence of coordinated molecules in the interlayer space and absence of the Ostwald ripening process.

In the case of the samples synthesized with NH₄⁺, the basal distances varied from 8.2 to 10.7 Å, consistent with the dehydrated and hydrated sulfate, while the samples synthesized with carbonate and nitrate presented basal distances consistent with the intercalation of the respective anions.

SEM images indicated typical LDH morphology and the presence of micrometric or submicrometric particles, while FTIR spectra were similar to those of other LDHs and showed bands consistent with intercalated anions.

ICP OES and thermogravimetric analysis indicated that the phases Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li and Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na had the expected composition [Cu₆Al₃(OH)₁₈][B(H₂O)₆(SO₄)₂]·6H₂O (B = Li⁺, Na⁺), while the phases Cu₂Al-SO₄/K, in spite of having a small amount of alkali metals and the basal distance expected for the phases containing sulfate/alkali metals or ammonium, had composition close to Cu_0.667Al_0.333(OH)₂(SO₄)_0.1665, where sulfate was hydrated as in hydrowoodwardite. In the case of Cu₂Al-SO₄/NH₄, sulfate was dehydrated as in woodwardite.

All the samples were submitted to exchange reactions using B₂SO₄ (B = Li⁺, Na⁺, K⁺, NH₄⁺) solutions in an attempt to replace previously intercalated cations or incorporated cations, without removing intercalated sulfate. The XRD patterns and FTIR spectra were consistent with the expected intercalated species and SEM images indicated submicrometric platelet-like particles, typical of LDHs.

According to ICP OES analysis, Cu₂Al-SO₄/Li had lower amounts of sulfate and lithium after the exchange reactions, while in Cu₂Al-SO₄/Na the sodium cations were almost totally replaced with lithium, potassium and ammonium, without removing the intercalated sulfate. Phases containing nitrate or carbonate could not be analyzed since the exchanged with sulfate/alkali metals or ammonium lead to the drastic reduction of crystallinity.

In spite of this contribution, structural aspects and properties of Cu/Al-SO₄ LDH still need to be further investigated.

Acknowledgments

This study was financed in part by the Office to Coordinate Improvement of University Personnel (CAPES, finance code 001), National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, projects 400117/2016-9 and 300988/2019-2) and the Financier of Studies and Projects (FINEP). A. R. S. thanks CAPES for the PhD scholarship. We also acknowledge Center for Electron Microscopy of Federal University of Paraná (CME-UFPR) for the SEM and Prof Marcos Rogério Mafra (DEQ-UFPR) for the TGA analyses.

References

• ¹
  Constantino, V. R. L.; Pinnavaia, T. J.; Inorg. Chem. 1995, 34, 883.
• ²
  Wang, Q.; O’Hare, D.; Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 4124.
• ³
  Chubar, N.; Gilmour, R.; Gerda, V.; Mičušík, M.; Omastova, M.; Heister, K.; Man, P.; Fraissard, J.; Zaitsev, V.; Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 245, 62.
• ⁴
  Chen, Y.; Jing, C.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, D.; Liu, X.; Dong, B.; Feng, L.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2019, 548, 100.
• ⁵
  Cavani, F.; Trifiro, F.; Vaccari, A.; Catal. Today 1991, 11, 173.
• ⁶
  Crepaldi, E. L.; Valim, J. B.; Quim. Nova 1998, 21, 300.
• ⁷
  Chitrakar, R.; Sonoda, A.; Makita, Y.; Hirotsu, T.; Sep. Purif. Technol. 2011, 80, 652.
• ⁸
  Miyata, S.; Clays Clay Miner. 1983, 31, 305.
• ⁹
  Meyn, M.; Beneke, K.; Lagaly, G.; Inorg. Chem. 1990, 29, 5201.
• ¹⁰
  Bravo-Suárez, J. J.; Páez-Mozo, E. A.; Oyama, S. T.; Quim. Nova 2004, 27, 601.
• ¹¹
  Chang, Z.; Evans, D. G.; Duan, X.; Vial, C.; Ghanbaja, J.; Prevot, V.; de Roy, M.; Forano, C.; J. Solid State Chem. 2005, 178, 2766.
• ¹²
  Basu, D.; Das, A.; Stöckelhuber, K. W.; Wagenknecht, U.; Heinrich, G.; Prog. Polym. Sci. 2014, 39, 594.
• ¹³
  Sotiles, A. R.; Baika, L. M.; Grassi, M. T.; Wypych, F.; J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 531.
• ¹⁴
  Rodgers, K. A.; Chisholm, J. E.; Davis, R. J.; Nelson, C. S.; Mineral. Mag. 1977, 41, 389.
• ¹⁵
  Cooper, M. A.; Hawthorne, F. C.; Can. Mineral. 1996, 34, 91.
• ¹⁶
  Mills, S. J.; Christy, A. G.; Génin, J. M. R.; Kameda, T.; Colombo, F.; Mineral. Mag. 2012, 76, 1289.
• ¹⁷
  Sotiles, A. R.; Gomez, N. A. G.; dos Santos, M. P.; Grassi, M. T.; Wypych, F.; Appl. Clay Sci. 2019, 181, 105217.
• ¹⁸
  Gomez, N. A. G.; Wypych, F.; J. Polym. Res. 2019, 26, 203.
• ¹⁹
  Zhang, N.; Zhang, L.; Sun, D.; Langmuir 2015, 31, 4619.
• ²⁰
  Nakagaki, S.; Castro, K. A. D. F.; Ucoski, G. M.; Halma, M.; Prévot, V.; Forano, C.; Wypych, F.; J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2014, 25, 2329.
• ²¹
  Castro, K. A. D. F.; Halma, M.; Machado, G. S.; Ricci, G. P.; Ucoski, G. M.; Ciuffi, K. J.; Nakagaki, S.; J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2010, 21, 1329.
• ²²
  Zhou, H.; Jiang, Z.; Wei, S.; Appl. Clay Sci. 2018, 153, 29.
• ²³
  Wang, X.; Wu, P.; Lu, Y.; Huang, Z.; Zhu, N.; Lin, C.; Dang, Z.; Sep. Purif. Technol. 2014, 132, 195.
• ²⁴
  Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Jing, M.; Tang, S.; Wu, Y.; Liu, W.; Appl. Clay Sci. 2020, 186, 105433.
• ²⁵
  Bini, M.; Monteforte, F.; Quinzeni, I.; Friuli, V.; Maggi, L.; Bruni, G.; J. Solid State Chem. 2019, 272, 131.
• ²⁶
  Yasaei, M.; Khakbiz, M.; Zamanian, A.; Ghasemi, E.; Mater. Sci. Eng., C 2019, 103, 109816.
• ²⁷
  Yasaei, M.; Khakbiz, M.; Ghasemi, E.; Zamania, A.; Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 467-468, 782.
• ²⁸
  Gómez, N. A. G.; Silva, G. M.; Wilhelm, H. M.; Wypych, F.; J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2020, 31, 971.
• ²⁹
  Jaerger, S.; Wypych, F.; J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2019, 48737.
• ³⁰
  Suzuki, J.; Ito, M.; Sugiura, T.; J. Jpn. Assoc. Mineral., Petrol. Econ. Geol. 1976, 71, 183.
• ³¹
  Sarp, H.; Perroud, P.; N. Jb. Miner. Mh., Jg. 1991, 11, 481.
• ³²
  Cuchet, S.; Schweiz. Mineral. Petrogr. Mitt. 1995, 75, 283.
• ³³
  Frost, R. L.; Keeffe, E. C.; Spectrochim. Acta, Part A 2011, 81, 111.
• ³⁴
  Mills, S. J.; Christy, A. G.; Schnyder, C.; Favreau, G.; Price, J. R.; Mineral. Mag. 2014, 78, 1527.
• ³⁵
  Mills, S. J.; Christy, A. G.; Colombo, F.; Price, J. R.; Mineral. Mag. 2015, 79, 321.
• ³⁶
  Mills, S. J.; Christy, A. G.; Favreaud, G.; Galea-Cloluse, V.; Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B 2017, 73, 950.
• ³⁷
  Ventruti, G.; Mugnaioli, E.; Capitani, G.; Scordari, F.; Pinto, D.; Lausi, A.; Phys. Chem. Miner. 2015, 42, 651.
• ³⁸
  Boclair, J. W.; Braterman, P. S.; Chem. Mater. 1998, 10, 2050.
• ³⁹
  Layrac, G.; Harrisson, S.; Destarac, M.; Gérardin, C.; Tichit, D.; Appl. Clay Sci. 2020, 193, 105673.
• ⁴⁰
  Fan, G.; Li, F.; Evans, D. G.; Duan, X.; Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 7040.
• ⁴¹
  Yan, K.; Liu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Chai, J.; Sun, L.; Catal. Sci. Technol. 2017, 7, 1622.
• ⁴²
  Li, J.; Zhang, S.; Chen, Y.; Liu, T.; Liu, C.; Zhang, X.; Yi, M.; Chu, Z.; Han, X.; RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 29051.
• ⁴³
  Britto, S.; Radha, A.; Ravishankar, N.; Kamath, P. V.; Solid State Sci. 2007, 9, 279.
• ⁴⁴
  Sotiles, A. R.; Wypych, F.; Chem. Commun. 2019, 55, 7824.
• ⁴⁵
  Krivovichev, S. V.; Yakovenchuk, V. N.; Zolotarev, A. A.; Ivanyuk, G. N.; Pakhomovski, Y. A.; Chimia 2010, 64, 730.
• ⁴⁶
  Merlino, S.; Orlandi, P.; Am. Mineral. 2001, 86, 1293.
• ⁴⁷
  Zhu, Y.; Rong, J.; Zhang, T.; Xu, J.; Dai, Y.; Qiu, F.; ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2018, 1, 284.
• ⁴⁸
  Nickel, E.; Mineral. Mag. 1976, 43, 644.
• ⁴⁹
  Witzke, T.; Neues Jahrb. Mineral., Monatsh. 1999, 2, 75.
• ⁵⁰
  Khaldi, M.; de Roy, A.; Chaouch, M.; Besse J. P.; J. Solid State Chem. 1997, 130, 66.
• ⁵¹
  Frost, R. L.; Kloprogge, J. T.; Spectrochim. Acta, Part A 1999, 55, 2195.
• ⁵²
  Frost, R. L.; Weier, M. L.; Clissold, M. E.; Williams, P. A.; Spectrochim. Acta, Part A 2003, 59, 3313.
• ⁵³
  Badreddine, M.; Khaldi, M.; Legrouri, A.; Barroug, A.; Chaouch, M.; de Roy, A.; Besse, J. P.; Mater. Chem. Phys. 1998, 52, 235.
• ⁵⁴
  Badreddine, M.; Legrouri, A.; Barroug, A.; de Roy, A.; Besse, J. P.; Mater. Lett. 1999, 38, 391.
• ⁵⁵
  Mahjoubi, F. Z.; Khalid, A.; Abdennouri, M.; Barka, N.; J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2017, 11, 90.
• ⁵⁶
  Faramawy, S.; Zaki, T.; Sakr, A. A. E.; Saber, O.; Aboul-Gheit, A. K.; Hassan, S. A.; J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2018, 54, 72.
• ⁵⁷
  Hager, S. L.; Leverett, P.; Williams, P. A.; Can. Mineral. 2009, 47, 635.
• ⁵⁸
  Park, Y.; Kuroda, K.; Kato, C.; Solid State Ionics 1990, 42, 197.
• ⁵⁹
  Jayanthi, K.; Kamath, P. V.; Periyasamy, G.; Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 3675.
• ⁶⁰
  Radha, S.; Antonyraj, C. A.; Kamath, P. V.; Kannan, S.; Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 2010, 636, 2658.
• ⁶¹
  Sotiles, A. R.; Gomez, N. A. G.; da Silva, S. C.; Wypych, F.; J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2019, 30, 1807.
• ⁶²
  Huminicki, D. M. C.; Hawthorne, F. C.; Grice, J. D.; Roberts, A. C.; Jambor, J. L.; Mineral. Rec. 2003, 34, 155.
• ⁶³
  Wachowiak, J.; Pieczka, A.; Mineral. Mag. 2016, 80, 277.
• ⁶⁴
  Zamarreño, I.; Plana, F.; Vazquez, A.; Clague, D. A.; Am. Mineral. 1989, 74, 1054.
• ⁶⁵
  Kang, H.; Leoni, M.; He, H.; Huang, G.; Yang, X.; Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2012, 3859.
• ⁶⁶
  Berner, S.; Araya, O.; Govan, J.; Palza, H.; J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2018, 59, 134.
• ⁶⁷
  Kloprogge, J. T.; Wharton, D.; Hickey, L.; Frost, R. L.; Am. Mineral. 2002, 87, 623.
• ⁶⁸
  Kloprogge, J. T.; Hickey, L.; Frost, R. L.; Mater. Chem. Phys. 2005, 89, 99.
• ⁶⁹
  Liu, J.; Song, J.; Xiao, H.; Zhang, L.; Qin, Y.; Liu, D.; Hou, W.; Du, N.; Powder Technol. 2014, 253, 41.
• ⁷⁰
  Karami, Z.; Jouyandeh, M.; Hamad, S. M.; Ganjali, M. R.; Aghazadeh, M.; Torre, L.; Puglia, D.; Saeb, M. R.; Prog. Org. Coat. 2019, 136, 105278.
• ⁷¹
  Kameda, T.; Fubasami, Y.; Yoshioka, T.; J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2012, 110, 641.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  20 Jan 2021
• Date of issue
  Jan 2021

History

• Received
  4 Apr 2020
• Accepted
  14 Aug 2020