4.7 Article

Recovering urea from human urine by bio-sorption onto Microwave Activated Carbonized Coconut Shells: Equilibrium, kinetics, optimization and field studies

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2013.11.027

Keywords

Coconut shell; Human urine; Activated carbon; Response surface; Methodology; Urea

Funding

  1. VIT University, Vellore, India under the VIT-SMBS [2040/VP-A-31082012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Microwave Activated Carbonized Coconut Shell (MACCS) was used to recover urea from human urine. Batch adsorption studies were conducted to evaluate the effect of initial adsorbate concentration (25%100%), contact time, carbon loading (1-3 g) and shaking speed (150-200 rpm) on the removal of urea at 30 degrees C. Microwave activation was performed at 180W (microwave output power) for 10 min. The sorption data were fitted to Langmuir, Freundlich, Tempkin, Flory-Huggins and Dubinin-Radushkevich isotherm models. Results showed that the maximum monolayer adsorption capacity of the MACCS powder was 256.41 mg g(1). The Flory-Huggins model was found to best describe the urea uptake process since it demonstrated the minimumdeviations from the experimental data. The kinetic data was fitted to pseudo-first-order, pseudo-second-order and intra-particle diffusion models, and was found to follow closely the pseudo-first order kinetic model. Based on the Central Composite Rotary Design, a five factor interaction model and a quadratic model were respectively developed to correlate the adsorption variables to the adsorption capacity. Field studies were conducted to determine the percentage biomass increase and relative agronomic effectiveness for soil treated with the urea adsorbed MACCS powder. Microwave activated carbonized coconut shell was shown to be a promising adsorbent for recovery and removal of urea from human urine solutions. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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