4.6 Article

A comparison of the influence of flocculent and granular structure of sludge on activated carbon: preparation, characterization and application

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 6, 期 90, 页码 87353-87361

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6ra18881h

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21377046, 21607055]
  2. Special project of independent innovation and achievements transformation of Shandong Province [2014ZZCX05101]
  3. Science and technology development plan project of Shandong province [2014GGH217006]
  4. Shanghai Tongji Gao Tingyao Environmental Science & Technology Development Foundation (STGEF)
  5. Special Foundation for Taishan Scholar Professorship of Shandong Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the influence of the flocculent and granular structure of sludge on sludge-based activated carbon (AC) preparation, characterization and application. Four kinds of sludge, aerobic activated flocculent sludge (AS), anaerobic activated flocculent sludge (AnS), aerobic granular sludge (AGS) and anaerobic granular sludge (AnGS), were selected as precursors for carbon production by using phosphoric acid activation. The physicochemical properties of prepared ACs were determined by Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) and zeta potential analysis. The results implied that sorption equilibrium data of malachite green (MG) adsorbed onto four kinds of AC fitted well with the Langmuir model. Granular sludge ACs expressed higher adsorption capacities than those of flocculent sludge ACs. Electrostatic attraction and surface complexation were two possible mechanisms for MG sorption onto the carbons. The obtained results could provide useful information on the development of ACs from excess sludge as attractive biosorbents for dye removal by considering the type of sludge structure.

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