4.7 Article

SOHIO process legacy waste treatment: Uranium recovery using ion exchange

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiec.2019.09.001

关键词

Ion exchange; Uranium; Effluent treatment; Waste catalyst; SOHIO process

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [NRF-2017M2A8A5015147]
  2. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/G037140/1]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M2A8A5015147] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The feasibility of employing ion-exchange resins for the selective removal of uranium from a complex waste effluent has been investigated. The source of the effluent is a treatment process to reduce the volume of a spent uranium containing catalyst prior to its immobilisation and disposal in South Korea. Commercial anion exchange and chelation resins have been screened, along with an in-house synthesized polyamine functionalized resin. The Langmuir isotherm model produced the best fit for UO22+ binding to all resins, with Purolite MTS957, a mixed sulfonic/phosphonic acid functionalised resin, showing the highest equilibrium adsorption capacity for UO22+, 96.15 mg g(-1). The Modified Dose-Response Model was found to adequately represent breakthrough across all flow rates used and for all resins tested under dynamic testing conditions. The maximum uranium loading capacities under dynamic conditions for simulant and real wastes were established as 131.52 mg g(-1) and 68.62 mg g(-1), respectively. Purolite MTS957 effectively decontaminated the real effluent to uranium levels below the Korean release limit of 1 mg L-1. Over 99.9% uranium was successfully eluted from the resin bed in under 20 BV with a mixed sodium carbonate/sulfate eluent. (C) 2019 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by 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