4.7 Article

Removal of hexavalent chromium using durian in the form of rind, cellulose, and activated carbon: Comparison on adsorption performance and economic evaluation

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 380, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135010

Keywords

Adsorption; Chromium; Durian rind; Life-cycle cost analysis; Upcycling approach

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, durian rind was used to produce cellulose and activated carbon, which showed high adsorption capacity for Cr6+ with a faster rate by the activated carbon. Economic analysis revealed higher energy costs for durian rind to activated carbon conversion.
Durian rind (DR) is one of the lignocellulose-containing agro-industrial wastes abundant in many South Asian counties. Contributing toward a sustainable and zero waste future, DR was utilized as raw material for cellulose and activated carbon production. A chemical delignification method was adopted to valorize DR into cellulose, while carbonization and subsequent KOH activation steps were used to convert the DR into activated carbon. The resulting materials exhibited high adsorption capacity toward Cr6+ (154.2 and 223.3 mg/g for cellulose and activated carbon, respectively). The activated carbon derived from DR exhibited a faster adsorption rate of Cr6+ compared to cellulose and raw DR. The adsorption of Cr6+ by DR-derived adsorbents exhibited a monolayer tendency, with isotherm and kinetics data following the Khan and pseudo-second-order models. The total pro-duction cost of converting DR into cellulose and activated carbon was evaluated using life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Compared to the cellulose production, DR to activated carbon conversion requires up to 6-fold higher cost for energy. Based on the economic analysis, similar to US$ 2.9 and US$ 4.2 were needed to convert 1 kg DR into cellulose and activated carbon, respectively.

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