4.7 Article

Porous activated carbons derived from waste sugarcane bagasse for CO2 adsorption

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 381, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.122736

关键词

Sugarcane bagasse; Porous activated carbon; Activating agent; CO2 adsorption

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51806108, 51806109]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China [18KJB470018]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M611858]
  4. Opening Fund of State Key Laboratory of Fire Science [HZ2018-KF10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Business cost concern of solid CO2 adsorbents has motivated the production of porous activated carbons from waste biomass materials. In this work, porous activated carbons were prepared from sugarcane bagasse using different activating agents (air, CO2, H3PO4 and NaOH). Chemically activated porous carbons exhibited better physicochemical properties as compared to the physically activated carbons. Particularly, NaOH-activated carbon (CAC-S) featured a high specific surface area (1149m(2)/g) and a large pore volume (1.73 cm(3)/g). X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis confirmed that the CAC-S adsorbent exhibited enhanced total basicity. The desired CAC-S adsorbent showed superior isothermal CO2 uptakes of 5.50 and 4.28 mmol CO2/g at 0 degrees C and 25 degrees C and 1 bar. The isosteric heat of adsorption was predicted as 43.96 kJ/mol from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation and Toth model, which indicated intensified interaction between CO2 molecules and the basic carbon surface. The excellent CO2 adsorption performance should be associated with the improved textural properties and enriched surface basicity benefited from NaOH activation. Overall, CAC-S is considered as a promising adsorbent for CO2 adsorption. The recycling of sugarcane bagasse as solid CO2 adsorbents presents environmental implications with respect to waste management and pollutants mitigation.

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