4.6 Article

Adsorption of Phosphate Ions on Chicken Feather Hydrochar and Hydrochar-Soil Mixtures

期刊

WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION
卷 232, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s11270-021-05336-4

关键词

Chicken feather; Hydrochar; Phosphorus; Adsorption; Soil

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of Bangladesh, under NST fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that chicken feather hydrochar has good adsorption capacity for phosphate ions, and temperature significantly enhances its adsorption performance. The Langmuir isotherm model is more suitable for describing the adsorption data, indicating that chicken feather hydrochar has the potential as a cost-effective material for phosphate adsorption.
The potential for hydrochar to adsorb phosphate ions (P) is important for understanding the influence of this material when added to soils, as it can amend and prevent nutrient leaching. In this study, the adsorption mechanism of P onto chicken feather hydrochar (CFH) and hydrochar mix alkaline soils was investigated. Batch experiments were conducted to discover the actual P adsorption process parameters of chicken feather hydrochar, incorporating initial P concentration, contact time, pH, and temperature of P solution. All experimental P adsorption data of hydrochar and hydrochar mix soils were better explained when using the Langmuir isotherm model compared to the Freundlich isotherm. The P adsorption capacities of CFH-soil 1, CFH-soil 2, CFH-soil 3, and CFH-soil 4 mixer were 21.93, 20.2, 19.2, and 20.7 mg/g, respectively. Temperature greatly improved P adsorption capacity of the chicken feather hydrochar and its adsorption capacities were 27.10, 29.7, and 33.4 m/g at 30, 40, and 50 degrees C, respectively. The adsorption kinetic data are best described using the pseudo-second order model. These results strongly suggest that the CFH has a lot of potential as a cost-effective material for adsorbing P and helping remediate environmental pollutants.

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