4.7 Article

Phosphate adsorption using modified iron oxide-based sorbents in lake water: Kinetics, equilibrium, and column tests

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 284, 期 -, 页码 1386-1396

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.114

关键词

Adsorption; Nutrients; Nutrient removal/recovery; Phosphate; Water treatment

资金

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adsorption behavior of Bayoxide (R) E33 (E33) and three E33-modified sorbents for the removal of phosphate from lake water was investigated in this study. E33-modified sorbents were synthesized by coating with manganese (E33/Mn) and silver (E33/AgI and E33/AgII).nanoparticles. Adsorbent characterization was done by X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), surface area analyzer (BET), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and high resolution TEM (HR-TEM) analysis. Batch, equilibrium, and column experiments were conducted to determine various adsorption parameters. Equilibrium data were fitted to different adsorption isotherms and the Langmuir isotherm provided the best fit. Based on the Langmuir model, it was found that E33/AgII had a slightly higher maximum monolayer adsorption capacity (38.8 mg g(-1)) when compared to unmodified E33 (37.7 mg g(-1)). Data for adsorption kinetics were found to best fit with the pseudosecond-order model, suggesting chemisorption is the mechanism of sorption. Intra-particle diffusion studies indicated that the rate-limiting step for phosphate sorption onto E33 and modified E33 was intra-particle diffusion. Although limited improvements were seen, the results of this study suggest that the surface of E33 can be modified with nanoparticles to enhance the adsorption of phosphate from aqueous solutions and may give other advantages such as limiting biofouling over an extended lifetime of numerous recovery/regeneration steps. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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