4.7 Article

Comparison of the characteristics and mechanisms of Hg(II) sorption by biochars and activated carbon

Journal

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
Volume 463, Issue -, Pages 55-60

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2015.10.003

Keywords

Mercury; Biochar; Functional groups; Sorption; Reduction

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21377081, 21428702]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau (Huhuanke)
  3. Shanghai Education Commission [14ZZ026]
  4. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two biochars were produced from bagasse and hickory chips (referred to as BB and HCB, respectively) and evaluated for their sorption ability of Hg(II) in aqueous solution. A commercial activated carbon (AC) which is commonly used for Hg(II) removal was included for comparison. Both biochars showed higher sorption capacities than AC, following the trend of BB > HCB > AC. The sorption of Hg(II) by BB and AC was mainly attributed to the formation of (-COO)(2)Hg-II and (-O)(2)Hg-II. As a result, the adsorption capacity of Hg(II) by BB decreased 17.6% and 37.6% after -COOH and -OH were blocked, respectively and that of Hg(II) by AC decreased 6.63% and 62.2% for -COOH and -OH hindered, respectively. However, blocking the function groups had little effect on the Hg removal by HCB since sorption of Hg(II) by HCB was mainly resulted from the pi electrons of C=C and C=O induced Hg-pi binding. Further X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis indicated the possibility of reduction of the Hg(II) to Hg(I) by phenol groups or pi electrons during the removal of Hg(II) by both biochars. In conclusion, biochar is more effective than activated carbon in removing Hg(II) and there exists a high potential that biochar can be a substitute of activated carbon for removal of Hg(II) from wastewater. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available