4.6 Article

The impact of ammonia concentration and reducing agents on the ammonia oxidation performance of embedded nano-FeCu

期刊

MATERIALS CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 274, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.125189

关键词

FeCu; Ammonia oxidation; Na2CO3; Immobilization; Economic analysis

资金

  1. SEGi University [SEGiIRF/2019-1/FoEBE-22/84]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that embedded nano-FeCu (eFeCu) can effectively convert ammonia to nitrogen gas, showing good treatment performance. High dosage of FeCu can enhance the removal rate of ammonia, but with higher costs. Na2CO3 can serve as an alternative to NaBH4, as a green and cost-effective regeneration agent for eFeCu.
Study on ammonia oxidation using nano-FeCu is very limited. NaBH4 is commonly used reducing agent for nanoparticle synthesis and regeneration, but it is toxic and costly. Thus, the objectives of this study are to investigate the performance of embedded nano-FeCu (eFeCu) in treating varied concentration of ammonia polluted water and identify the optimum dosage of FeCu for ammonia oxidation. The use of Na2CO3 as the replacement for NaBH4 is also investigated. Result showed that eFeCu converted ammonia to nitrogen gas when it was exposed to ammonia solution. Conversion from nitrate and nitrite to ammonia was observed in the first hour of reaction when eFeCu was exposed to <50 ppm ammonia solution. High dosage of FeCu improved the ammonia removal rate, but it is not cost-effective. At the optimum condition, eFeCu oxidised similar to 45% and similar to 37% of ammonia when it was reduced by NaBH4 and Na2CO3 respectively. However, the regeneration cost of NaBH4 was similar to 2.45 times higher than Na2CO3. Stability study showed that eFeCu was stable, where the leaching of both Fe2+ and Cu2+ complied with Standard A. In conclusion, FeCu could be an alternative to treat ammonia polluted water and Na2CO3 is a green and cost-effective reducing agent for eFeCu regeneration.

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

4.6
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