4.7 Article

Comparison among Chemical, Thermal, and Electrochemical Regeneration of Phenol-Saturated Activated Carbon

Journal

ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 3366-3372

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef901510c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN)
  2. FEDER
  3. Plan E [CTQ2009-10813, MAT2007-60621, PLE2009-0021]
  4. GV [ACOMP 2009/174, PROMETEO/2009/047]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The regeneration of phenol-saturated activated carbon (AC) by chemical, thermal, and electrochemical techniques has been studied and compared in this work. The influence of the solute (NaOH) concentration and the temperature on the conventional chemical and thermal regenerations, respectively, has been analyzed and compared to the optimal results achieved for the electrochemical method. Comparisons are based on the analysis of the remaining products alter regeneration, the regeneration efficiency (RE), and the recovery of the textural properties of a commercial phenol-saturated granular AC. Results show that very low-porosity recoveries are achieved by chemical regeneration, independent of the NaOH concentration, and the optimal REs are 20% lower than those obtained by the thermal and electrochemical ones. REs obtained by thermal treatment in an inert atmosphere increase with the temperature up to 750 degrees C, reaching the highest REs (80-86%) and porosity recoveries at T > 600 degrees C. The cathodic regeneration in the NaOH medium in an undivided cell, where phenolate desorption is favored and surface blockage is minimized, yields similar RE values (80-85%) and slightly higher porosity than those obtained by thermal treatment. Temperature-programmed desorption (TPD) experiments show Mat, whereas phenol is almost completely removed electrochemically after 3 h, a temperature fat least 450-600 degrees C is required to achieve similar results by thermal regeneration.

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