4.6 Article

Extraction and Characterization of Silica from Empty Palm Fruit Bunch (EPFB) Ash

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr11061684

关键词

biomass waste; pyrolyzed ash; silica; calcination; amorphous phase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is growing interest in the use of biomass waste for bio-based products, and Nigeria, with its abundant palm biomass, presents a potential source for such products. This study focused on extracting and characterizing silica from the ash of empty palm fruit bunches. The results indicate that the ash contains a significant amount of biogenic silica in its amorphous form. The extracted silica shows potential as a catalyst support, for the development of zeolite-based catalysts, and as an adsorbent.
Recently, there has been so much interest in using biomass waste for bio-based products. Nigeria is one of the countries with an extensive availability of palm biomass. During palm oil production, an empty palm fruit bunch (biomass) is formed, and a lot of ash is generated. This study aimed to extract and characterize silica from empty palm fruit bunch (EPFB) ash using the thermochemical method. The results show that EPFB ash contains a large amount of biogenic silica in its amorphous form. It could be extracted for further use via calcination at different temperatures and compared effectively to other biomass materials, such as rice husk ash, sugarcane bagasse, and cassava periderm. The extracted silica was characterized using XRF, XRD, TGA, SEM, and FTIR, revealing the highest silica concentration of 49.94% obtained at a temperature of 800 & DEG;C. The XRF analysis showed 99.44 wt.% pure silica, while the XRD spectrum showed that the silica in EPFB is inherently amorphous. As is evident from the study, silica obtained from EPFB ash is a potential source of silica and it is comparable to the commercial silica. Thus, it is potentially usable as a support for catalysts, in the development of zeolite-based catalysts and as an adsorbent.

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