4.7 Article

Comparative study on characterization of activated carbons prepared by microwave and conventional heating methods and application in removal of oxytetracycline (OTC)

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
Volume 171, Issue 3, Pages 1446-1453

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2011.05.041

Keywords

Microwave; Activated carbons; Oxytetracycline; Adsorption isotherms

Funding

  1. Shandong province Postdoctoral fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper presents advantages and limitations of microwave heating in preparation of lotus stalk-based activated carbon by comparing the characteristic and adsorption properties of carbons with microwave (Mic-LSAC) and conventional (LSAC) heating methods employing H3PO4 as chemical agent. Mic-LSAC was produced with radiation power of 700W and radiation time of 15 min. LSAC was allowed by single step to get carbonized at 450 degrees C in a muffle furnace for 1 h. Both produced carbons showed typical Type IV nitrogen adsorption isotherms. Mic-LSAC had large surface area of 1434 m(2)/g and micropore volume of 1.337 cm(3)/g, while LSAC had surface area of 1220 m(2)/g and micropore volume of 1.191 cm(3)/g. Moreover, Mic-LSAC had higher portion of mesopores than LSAC. Boehm's titration results and Fourier transform infrared spectra indicated that Mic-LSAC possessed smaller acidic oxygen functionalities. Mic-LSAC had higher pH(pzc), more ordered stacking of layer compared to LSAC. For both adsorbents, the adsorption kinetics followed the pseudo-second-order model and the adsorption equilibrium data were very well represented by the Langmuir isotherm. The maximum adsorption capacities obtained at pH 2.80 were 564.97 mg/g and 537.63 mg/g for Mic-LSAC and LSAC, respectively. The differences of textual and chemical characteristics caused by heating method were related to adsorption capacity. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. 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