4.7 Article

Chemical characterization of raw and treated agave bagasse and its potential as adsorbent of metal cations from water

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 200-206

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.06.049

关键词

Agave bagasse; Chemical characterization; Bioadsorption; Heavy metals; Mechanism

资金

  1. CONACYT [209008]
  2. [FMSLP-2008-CO2 99664]
  3. [SEP-CB-2008-01-105920]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lignocellulosic materials have a very complex configuration that contains a variety of active sites capable, in some cases, of adsorbing contaminants from water. Agave bagasse is a sub-product from the alcohol industry that has been very little studied, but that could have the potential to remove a variety of contaminants from aqueous solutions. Raw and modified Agave salmiana bagasse were characterized, before and after they were tested to remove metal cations, by acid-base titrations, elemental analysis and ATR-FTIR. HCl, HNO3, NaOH. tartaric, citric and oxalic acids were used to modify bagasse to determine if its concentration of active groups could be improved. These materials were then tested for the removal of Cd(II), Pb(II) and Zn(II) ions from water at pH 5, and desorption studies were performed at pH 2 and 4 at 25 degrees C. The characterization techniques mainly identified carboxyl, hydroxyl, sulfur and nitrogen containing groups in bagasse. It was clear that mainly the carboxylic groups were responsible for metal uptake. Raw bagasse has an adsorption capacity of about 8, 14 and 36 mg g(-1) for zinc, cadmium and lead, respectively, and this was improved about 27-62% upon modification with HNO3 and NaOH. Treatments with citric, oxalic and tartaric acid did not have a significant effect in adsorption capacity. Raw agave bagasse has a very acceptable adsorption capacity of metal cations and it can approximately be regenerated in a 45%, since the biosorption mechanism involves ion exchange and complexation. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据