4.7 Article

Adding value to gasification and co-pyrolysis chars as removal agents of Cr3+

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 321, 期 -, 页码 173-182

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.09.006

关键词

Chars; Co-pyrolysis; Cr3+ removal; Gasification; Rice wastes

资金

  1. FEDER through the Operational Program for Competitive Factors of COMPETE
  2. FCT/MTCES
  3. QREN
  4. COMPETE
  5. FEDER
  6. FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) [SFRH/BPD/93407/2013, SFRH/BD/101751/2014, UID/QUI/50006/2013, PTDC/AAG-REC/3477/2012-RICEVALOR, FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-027827]
  7. ERDF [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007265]
  8. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/101751/2014] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present work aims to assess the efficiency of chars, obtained from the gasification and co-pyrolysis of rice wastes, as adsorbents of Cr3+ from aqueous solution. GC and PC chars, produced in the gasification and co-pyrolysis, respectively, of rice husk and polyethylene were studied. Cr3+ removal assays were optimised for the initial pH value, adsorbent mass, contact time and Cr3+ initial concentration. GC showed a better performance than PC with about 100% Cr3+ removal, due to the pH increase that caused Cr precipitation. Under pH conditions in which the adsorption prevailed (pH <5.5), GC presented the highest uptake capacity (21.1 mg Cr3+ g(-1) char) for the following initial conditions: 50 mg Cr3+ L-1; pH 5; contact time: 24 h; L/S ratio: 1000 mL g(-1). The pseudo-second order kinetic model showed the best adjustment to GC experimental data. Both the first and second order kinetic models fitted well to PC experimental data. The ion exchange was the dominant phenomenon on the Cr3+ adsorption by GC sample. Also, this char significantly reduced the ecotoxicity of Cr3+ solutions for the bacterium Vibrio fischeri. GC char proved to be an efficient material to remove Cr3+ from aqueous solution, without the need for further activation. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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