4.6 Article

A Feasible Route for Preparation of Calcium Sulfate Whiskers from FGD Gypsum via Filtrate Recycle under Hydro-Thermal Conditions

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr11061809

关键词

FGD gypsum; calcium sulfate whisker; hydrothermal method; filtrate recycle; cleaner production

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calcium sulfate whiskers were synthesized using purified flue-gas desulfurization gypsum through a hydrothermal method. The impact of pH and Cu2+ concentration in the reaction solution, with or without reagent compensation, was investigated. The study found that the crystal morphology and quality of the whiskers deteriorated as the cycle number increased without reagent compensation. However, adding a specific amount of H2SO4 and CuCl2 to the slurry with filtrate recycle maintained the long fibrous shape of the products while increasing their productivity.
Calcium sulfate whiskers (CSWs) were synthesized using purified flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum as raw materials using a hydrothermal method, where the filtrate was recycled back to the reaction slurry. The study investigated the impact of pH and Cu2+ concentration in the reaction solution with or without reagent compensation. The effects of cycle number on the crystal morphology, phase structure, and productivity of the hydrothermal products were also examined. The findings indicate that the crystal morphology and quality of the CSWs deteriorated as the cycle number increased due to a rise in pH and a decrease in Cu2+ concentrations in the reaction solution without reagent compensation. However, adding a specific amount of H2SO4 and CuCl2 to the slurry with filtrate recycle maintained the long fibrous shape of the hydrothermal products for up to seven cycles while also increasing their productivity from 73.7% to 86%. Regardless of reagent compensation, the cycle number of filtrate significantly affected the crystal morphology of the hydrothermal products, but it had no impact on their phases.

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