4.7 Article

Preparation and characteristics of medicinal activated carbon powders by CO2 activation of peanut shells

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 247, 期 -, 页码 188-196

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2013.07.013

关键词

Medicinal activated carbon; Surface areas; Pore size distribution; Adsorption; Peanut shell

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [21276129]
  2. Key Technologies R & D Program of Shandong province [2008GG10006010, 2009GG10007001]
  3. National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Shandong province [JQ200904]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peanut shells were used as a precursor to prepare activated carbon for medical use via CO2 activation in a high-temperature fluidised bed reactor. The influence of the activation time and activation temperature on the yield and adsorption capacity of the activated carbon, which were estimated using methylene blue (MB) and phenazone adsorption, was studied. The activated carbon microstructure was assessed based on N-2 adsorption, scanning electron microscopy, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy while the adsorption kinetics was evaluated using MB dye. In this study, the optimised conditions, activation temperature of 900 degrees C and activation time of 5 h, produced 225.8 mg g(-1) MB, 421.5 mg g(-1) phenazone uptake and 26.15% yield. At the optimised conditions, a 1060 m(2) g(-1) Brunauer-Emmett-Teller specific surface area and 0.8021 cm(3) g(-1) total pore volume were obtained for the activated carbon samples, and the presence of carboxyl, hydroxyl and alkyl functional groups was detected. The investigation of MB adsorption on the prepared activated carbon indicated that the adsorption kinetics process closely follows a pseudo-second-order chemisorption model. Compared with the quality index of British Pharmacopoeia and the United States Pharmacopoeia standards for activated carbon, this peanut shell-based activated carbon preparation was suitable for medicinal use. (C) 2013 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