4.7 Article

Neodymium Recovery from the Aqueous Phase Using a Residual Material from Saccharified Banana-Rachis/Polyethylene-Glycol

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym15071666

关键词

rare earth recovery; sorption; lignocellulosic waste; PEG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a sustainable adsorbent material, BR-PEG, derived from banana rachis residue, for efficient recovery of neodymium from the aqueous phase. BR-PEG exhibited excellent adsorption performance with optimal conditions achieved at a pH of 4.5 and a particle size of 209.19 μm. It showed a maximum adsorption capacity of 44.11 mg/g and could be efficiently reused for five adsorption-desorption cycles.
Neodymium (Nd) is a key rare earth element (REE) needed for the future of incoming technologies including road transport and power generation. Hereby, a sustainable adsorbent material for recovering Nd from the aqueous phase using a residue from the saccharification process is presented. Banana rachis (BR) was treated with cellulases and polyethylene glycol (PEG) to produce fermentable sugars prior to applying the final residue (BR-PEG) as an adsorbent material. BR-PEG was characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), compositional analysis, pH of zero charge (pH(pzc)), Fourier transform infrared analysis (FTIR) and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). A surface response experimental design was used for obtaining the optimized adsorption conditions in terms of the pH of the aqueous phase and the particle size. With the optimal conditions, equilibrium isotherms, kinetics and adsorption-desorption cycles were performed. The optimal pH and particle size were 4.5 and 209.19 mu m, respectively. BR-PEG presented equilibrium kinetics after 20 min and maximum adsorption capacities of 44.11 mg/g. In terms of reusage, BR-PEG can be efficiently reused for five adsorption-desorption cycles. BR-PEG was demonstrated to be a low-cost bioresourced alternative for recovering Nd by adsorption.

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