4.5 Article

Converting biomass of agrowastes and invasive plant into alternative materials for water remediation

期刊

BIOMASS CONVERSION AND BIOREFINERY
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 5391-5406

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13399-021-01526-6

关键词

Dye; Biomass; Biochar; Slow pyrolysis; Water treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, three types of biomass were converted into biochars and investigated for their ability to remove dyes in water. The results showed that the biochars were effective in removing methylene blue, but different biochars had different optimal adsorption conditions.
Three types of biomass of invasive plants and agrowastes, namely, the wattle bark of Acacia auriculiformis (BA), mimosa (BM), and coffee husks (BC), were converted into biochars through slow pyrolysis and investigated for their ability to remove dyes in water. The properties of the materials were characterized using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) analysis. The BET surface area (total pore volume) of BC was 2.62 m(2)/g (0.007 cm(3)/g), far below those of BA and BM with 393.15 cm(2)/g (0.195 m(3)/g) and 285.53 cm(2)/g (0.153 m(3)/g), respectively. The optimal adsorption doses for the removal of methylene blue (MB) were found to be 2, 5, and 5 g/L for BC, BA, and BM, respectively. The suitable pH ranges for MB removal were 6-12 for BA, 7-12 for BC, and 2-10 for BM. The majority of MB (over 83%) was removed in the initial 30 min, followed by a more quasisteady state condition after the removal rate exceeded 90%. The experimental data were fitted with the kinetic models (PFO, PSO, Bangham, IDP), indicating that physicochemical adsorption, pore diffusion process, and multiple stages are the dominant mechanisms for the MB adsorption onto biochars. Finally, BA and BM showed similar adsorption efficiencies, while BC may not be favorable for use as an adsorbent due to its low surface area and low pore volume.

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