4.7 Article

Recycling and modeling of chromium from sludge produced from magnetic flocculation treatment of chromium-containing wastewater

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.10.052

关键词

Chromium-containing sludge; Chromium recovery; Tanning wastewater; Magnetic particles; Artificial neural network; Back-propagation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An effective and sustainable treatment method for recycling chromium from sludge produced by magnetic flocculation was established in this study. Chromium was extracted from sludge with hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite, with the recovery percentage of chromium higher with sodium hypochlorite. The recovered sodium chromate crystals had a purity of 96.28%. The backpropagation algorithm was used to model chromium recovery with high correlation coefficient and low average absolute error.
In this paper, an effective and sustainable treatment method for recycling chromium from sludge produced by magnetic flocculation was established. Chromium was extracted from sludge with hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite, and then, superparamagnetic ferroferric oxide nanoparticles (MPs) were recovered by magnetic separation. The recovery percentage of chromium with sodium hypochlorite was higher than that with hydrogen peroxide, and the maximum was 99.12%. With increasing MPs use times, the adsorption percentage of chromium decreased, but there was no significant change in the recovery percentage of chromium in sludge. The purity of the recovered sodium chromate crystals was 96.28%. The backpropagation algorithm was used to model chromium recovery. The correlation coefficient between the model prediction data and experimental data was 0.9990, and the average absolute error was 0.51. The maximum recovery percentage of chromium obtained from model prediction was 99.27%, and the corresponding optimal conditions were consistent with those of experiments. (C) 2021 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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