4.7 Article

Adsorption of cadmium from aqueous solutions on sulfurized activated carbon prepared from nut shells

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 165, 期 1-3, 页码 1159-1164

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.131

关键词

Adsorption; Activated carbon; Cadmium removal; Modification; Sulfur; Langmuir & Frendlich isotherms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-cost activated carbon, derived from nut shells, and its modified sample have been used as replacements for the current expensive methods of removing cadmium from aqueous solutions and waste waters. Adsorption of cadmium onto four kinds of activated carbons has been studied; prepared activated carbon (PAC), commercial activated carbon (CAC), and the sulfurized ones (SPAC & SCAC). The activated carbon has been derived, characterized, treated with sulfur and then utilized for the removal of Cd2+. Sulfurizing agent (SO2 gas) was successfully used in adsorbents' modification process at the ambient temperature. Samples were then characterized and tested as adsorbents of cadmium. Effect of some parameters such as contact time, initial concentration and pH were examined. With increasing pH, the adsorption of cadmium ions was increased and maximum removal, 92.4% for SPAC, was observed in pH > 8.0 (C-0 = 100 mg/L). The H-type adsorption isotherms, obtained for the adsorbents, indicated a favorable process. Adsorption data on both prepared and commercial activated carbon, before and after sulfurization, followed both the Frendlich and Langmuir models. They were better fitted by Frendlich isotherm as compared to Langmuir. The maximum adsorption capacities were 90.09, 104.17, 126.58 and 142.86 mg/g for CAC, PAC, SCAC and SPAC, respectively. Accordingly, surface modification of activated carbons using SO2 greatly enhanced cadmium removal. The reversibility of the process has been studied in a qualitative manner and it shows that the spent SPAC can be effectively regenerated for further use easily. (c) 2008 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