4.5 Article

Lead removal from aqueous solutions using biochars derived from corn stover, orange peel, and pistachio shell

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13762-018-02191-5

关键词

Biochar; Lead; Adsorption isotherm; Pyrolysis; Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

资金

  1. University of Texas Rio Grand Valley

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biochar has been viewed as a cost-effective adsorptive material for heavy metals in water. In the present study, a total of nine different biochars synthesized from three different biomass types were studied: corn stover, organic peel, and pistachio shell at three pyrolysis temperatures (300, 450, and 600 degrees C). The efficiency of lead ion (Pb2+) removal by the biochars was investigated through batch adsorption experiments in parallel with physicochemical characterization of the biochars. Single-point Pb2+ adsorption at 10 mg L-1 showed that high-temperature corn stover biochar at 600 degrees C and low-temperature orange peel biochar at 300 degrees C performed the best in the Pb2+ removal (> 94%). Pistachio shell biochars were relatively poor at removing aqueous Pb2+ (20-35%). The efficiency of the Pb2+ removal increased with increasing pH (2-6) until a maximum adsorption of Pb2+ was observed at pH 6. Adsorption isotherms for Pb2+ were conducted using the best-performing biochars per biomass based on the single-point adsorption results. All isotherms were best described by the Langmuir model, and the Pb2+ sorption capacities were 25,000 mg kg(-1) for corn stover biochar at 600 degrees C, 11,111 mg kg(-1) for orange peel biochar at 300 degrees C, and 2500 mg kg(-1) for pistachio shell at 600 degrees C. The physicochemical properties of biochars indicated that oxygen-containing functional groups and specific surface area were major parameters affecting aqueous Pb2+ removal. This study highlights that biomass type and pyrolysis temperature as well as solution pH are important in affecting the adsorption efficiency of Pb2+ from aqueous solution.

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

4.5
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