4.7 Article

Phosphorus adsorption in Fe-loaded activated carbon: Two-site monolayer equilibrium model and phenomenological kinetic description

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 361, 期 -, 页码 751-763

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.12.073

关键词

Magnetic oxides; Adsorbent impregnation; Phosphorus; Two-site equilibrium model; Internal diffusion resistance

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) - Brazil [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the impregnation of iron oxide in a granular activated carbon (GAC-Fe), to employ for the adsorption of phosphorous from aqueous solution. Physical and chemical characterization of GAC-Fe was performed including Scanning Electron Microscopy-Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), N-2 physisorption, and zero point charge (pH(ZPC)) analyses. Adsorption isotherms were developed considering the presence of two active sites on the adsorbent surface. The two-site monolayer model was shown as the best isotherm model to describe the system equilibrium. The results indicated the high relation of the adsorption with the pH solution, showing the best adsorption capacity in pH 3.0 (q(m) = 2.874 mg g(-1)). An analysis of the surface charge of the adsorbent indicated a positive value at pH lower than 3.5, explaining the higher affinity to phosphate. The process was spontaneous and favorable at the temperatures studied (25, 35 and 45 degrees C). The thermodynamic results suggest two types of adsorption mechanisms on the surface, related to chemisorption processes. The best kinetic model of adsorption considers the internal mass transfer as the rate-limiting step. The temperature and initial concentration do not show any influence on the effective diffusion coefficient. Hence, the study brings an alternative material for phosphorus adsorption and contributes for a better knowledge of the mechanism involved in the process and equilibrium of the system.

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