3.8 Article

Evaluation of NH4+ Adsorption Capacity in Water of Coffee Husk-Derived Biochar at Different Pyrolysis Temperatures

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY
卷 2021, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2021/1463814

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the NH4+ removal capacity of biochar derived from coffee husk at different temperatures. It was found that biochar prepared at lower pyrolysis temperature has a higher adsorption capacity for NH4+. Langmuir and Freundlich models, as well as the pseudo-second-order kinetic model, were suitable for explaining NH4+ adsorption equilibrium and kinetics on the biochar forms derived from coffee husk.
Ammonium (NH4+) is a pollutant that can be harmful to the water environment. The purpose of this study is to access NH4+ removal capacity from water by coffee husk-derived biochar. The properties of biochar prepared at different temperatures (300, 450, and 600 degrees C) were determined including TOC, and pH, pH(pzc), functional groups of H+/OH-, cation-exchange capacity (CEC), and the characteristics of groups of organic matter (FT-IR spectrum) were identified and evaluated. The trend of NH4+ adsorption equilibrium and kinetics of biochar have been studied. The experimental design of adsorption equilibrium was carried out by exposing biochar to a NH4+ solution at different concentrations, ranging from 0 to 50 mg NH4+/L for 12 hours. Kinetic surveys were carried out when biochar was exposed to a solution containing 8.3 mg NH4+/L for a varying length of time. The results showed that Langmuir and Freundlich models and the pseudo-second-order kinetic model are suitable to explain the NH4+ adsorption equilibrium and kinetics on the biochar forms derived from coffee husk. Biochar derived from coffee husk prepared at lower pyrolysis temperature has a higher adsorption capacity. The results suggest that the biochar could be used as an adsorbent ammonium from water.

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

3.8
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