4.6 Article

Adsorption of acetic acid onto activated carbons produced from hazelnut shell, orange peel, and melon seeds

期刊

APPLIED WATER SCIENCE
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13201-022-01797-y

关键词

Agricultural waste; Activated carbon; Adsorption; Chemical activation

资金

  1. Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa [22691]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, activated carbon was prepared using hazelnut shells, orange peel, and melon seeds as raw materials. The adsorption efficiencies of the produced activated carbons were evaluated and compared with a commercial activated carbon. The results showed that the activated carbons derived from hazelnut shells and orange peel exhibited higher adsorption efficiencies.
In this study, hazelnut shells, orange peel, and melon seeds were selected as raw materials in the preparation of activated carbon. Various activators at different concentrations under two activation temperatures of 300 degrees C and 500 degrees C were utilized. All produced adsorbents and a commercial activated carbon as a reference were used for the adsorption of acetic acid from its aqueous solutions in the various initial concentrations. The effect of the amounts of adsorbents was also studied. Removal efficiencies (R-e%) and adsorption capacities (Q(e)) were experimentally determined. Langmuir, Freundlich, and Temkin isotherms were modelled, and their parameters were calculated. The surface area, pore volumes, and average pore width of the activated carbons were characterized by N-2 adsorption at 77.35 K using the BET, t-plot, and BJH methods, respectively. The highest BET surface area of the activated carbon from hazelnut shells was obtained as 717.738 m(2)/g at 500 degrees C activation temperature and 60% H3PO4 concentration. SEM images and FTIR analyses were investigated. It was found that activated carbons of hazelnut shells and orange peel showed higher efficiencies than commercial activated carbon.

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