4.7 Article

Research on the treatment of liquid waste containing cesium by an adsorption-microfiltration process with potassium zinc hexacyanoferrate

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 167, 期 1-3, 页码 1057-1062

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.01.104

关键词

Adsorption-microfiltration; Adsorption isotherm; Cesium; Potassium zinc hexacyanoferrate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The removal of cesium from an aqueous solution by an adsorption-microfiltration (AMF) process was investigated in jar tests and lab-scale tests. The adsorbent was K2Zn3 [Fe(CN)(6)](2). The obtained cesium data in the jar test fit a Freundlich-type isotherm well. In the lab-scale test, the mean cesium concentration of the raw water and the effluent were 106.87 mu g/L and 0.59 mu g/L, respectively, the mean removal of cesium was 99.44%, and the mean decontamination factors (DF) and concentration factors (CF) were 208 and 539, respectively. The removal of cesium in the lab-scale test was better than that in the jar test because the old adsorbents remaining in the reactor still had adsorption capacity with the premise of no significant desorption being observed, and the continuous renewal of the adsorbent surface improved the adsorption capacity of the adsorbent. Some of the suspended solids were deposited on the bottom of the reactor, which would affect the mixing of adsorbents with the raw water and the renewing of the adsorbent surface. Membrane fouling was the main physical fouling mechanism, and the cake layer was the main filtration resistance. Specific flux (SF) decreased step by step during the whole period of operation due to membrane fouling and concentration polarization. The quality of the effluent was good and the turbidity remained lower than 0.1 NTU, and the toxic anion, CN-, could not be detected because of its low concentration, this indicated that the effluent was safe. The AMF process was feasible for practical application in the treatment of liquid waste containing cesium. (C) 2009 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