4.6 Article

Enthalpic Determination of the Interaction of Modified Activated Carbons with Benzene and Hexane as Pure Solvents and Binary Mixtures

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr11041144

关键词

activated carbon; enthalpy of immersion; benzene; hexane; immersion calorimetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activated carbons with different physicochemical characteristics were studied to determine their interactions with hydrocarbons. The enthalpy of immersion was determined to evaluate the influence of adsorbents and adsorbates, as well as the addition of another adsorbate. The results showed that the interaction increased with thermal treatment and decreased with chemical modification, both in pure solvents and mixtures. The CO2 adsorption of activated carbons ranged from 3.43 to 3.79 mmol g(-1).
Three activated carbons with different physicochemical characteristics are prepared and their N-2 isotherms at 77 K and CO2 isotherms at 273 K are determined. The energetic interaction between three activated carbons with different physicochemical properties, and two hydrocarbons as pure liquids and as binary mixtures at different concentrations, was characterized by determining the enthalpy of immersion, in order to evaluate the effect of adsorbents and adsorbates, as well as that of the addition of another adsorbate to the system. For the pure solvents, the enthalpy of immersion (Delta H-i) is higher for the aromatic compound (-94.98 to -128.80 J g(-1)) than for the aliphatic compound (-16.36 to -53.35 J g(-1)); for the mixtures, the values are between -36.39 and -98.37 J g(-1), where the interaction increases with the solid that was subjected to thermal treatment and presented the lowest content of surface oxygenated groups, while the energetic parameter decreases with the solid that presents chemical modification with nitric acid, behavior that is evident in the pure solvents and in the mixtures. Activated carbons have a CO2 adsorption between 3.43 and 3.79 mmol g(-1).

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