4.5 Article

A comparative study on rice husk and rice straw as bioresources for production of carbonaceous adsorbent and silica

期刊

BIOMASS CONVERSION AND BIOREFINERY
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 5729-5738

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13399-020-01145-7

关键词

Rice husk; Rice straw; Chemical activation; Activated carbon; Silica

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the production of activated carbon and nanosilica from rice husk and rice straw, and found no significant difference in their functional groups and chemical characteristics. However, rice husk showed a higher silica production yield compared to rice straw.
The conversion of rice crop residues into activated carbon (AC) and nanosilica was performed via an integrated procedure including successive carbonization, K2CO3 activation, and extraction steps. For the first time, rice husk and rice straw were utilized comparatively as the raw materials for parallel AC and silica production, and the main characteristics of the corresponding products were compared. However, AC produced from rice straw at 1000 degrees C and impregnation ratio of 1.5 showed a larger surface area and total pore volume (2229 m(2)/g and 1.6 cm(3)/g) than AC produced from rice husk (1941 m(2)/g and 1.5 cm(3)/g); no definite and general conclusion can be made about the superiority of rice straw as the raw material. This is attributed to the close characteristics of the products, the large variety of rice crop residues, and the strong influence of the operating conditions on the properties of products. The rice husk- and rice straw-based activated carbons had no significant difference in their functional groups and chemical characteristics. The amorphous silica nanosize particles (< 50 nm) were obtained from both raw materials; however, the presence of little crystalline phase impurities (potassium chloride) and silica (tridymite and coesite) was also observed. The most important superiority of rice husk to rice straw was its larger silica production yield from the initial biochar (40% compared to 25%).

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