4.8 Article

The regeneration of field-spent granular-activated carbons

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 35, Issue 11, Pages 2740-2748

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00549-2

Keywords

activated carbon; regeneration; catalysis; metals; calcium; porosity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The thermal regeneration of field-spent granular-activated carbons (GAC) is being increasingly adopted as a cost-effective alternative to disposal. The success of this practice requires the adjustment of process conditions to maximise the recovery of the original carbon characteristics while minimising carbon loss. This paper describes an investigation into the regeneration of several field-spent GAC representative of those typically generated by the drinking water treatment industry. The carbons were initially investigated for their ash contents and inorganic compositions in order to determine the accumulation of metallic species that affect the regeneration process. Regeneration was conducted in steam at 800 degreesC over reaction limes between 0 and 60 min in order to achieve different degrees of carbon gasification. Weight losses were determined for each condition and the resulting carbons characterised for their apparent density. porosity. surface area and aqueous adsorption characteristics. Results showed that spent carbons recovered most of their adsorption characteristics when heated to 800 degreesC under inert conditions. Steam gasification in the range of 5 -10 wt% burn-off had some positive effects on the characteristics of the spent carbons which were in most cases counteracted by a reduction in the carbon yield. Steam gasification in excess of 15 wt% burn-off caused a rapid increase in the carbon mesoporosity but a significant deterioration in the carbon microporosity, BET surface area and adsorption capacity for organic species of small molecular size. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available