4.4 Article

Removal of nitrobenzene from aqueous solution by adsorption onto carbonized sugarcane bagasse

期刊

ADSORPTION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 36, 期 5-6, 页码 1366-1385

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0263617418771823

关键词

Nitrobenzene; adsorption; carbonization; sugarcane bagasse; kinetic model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sorbent was prepared by charring sugarcane bagasse (SCB) and used to remove nitrobenzene from aqueous solution. The surface area, morphology, and functional groups of the adsorbent were characterized by Brunauer-Emmett-Teller method, scanning electron microscopy, and Fourier transforms infrared spectroscopy. Analysis indicated that oxygen-containing functional groups, such as C=O, -OH, -COOH, and C-O-C, may be involved in the adsorption process. The adsorption of nitrobenzene was investigated under different operating conditions, including adsorbent dosage, initial nitrobenzene concentration, pH, and contact duration. Four kinetic models were applied to describe the adsorption process. Results revealed that the optimal sorbent mass was 0.3 g/50mL at pH 5.8 and 25 degrees C. The kinetic data obeyed the pseudo-second-order kinetic model (R-2 > 0.9965). In addition, Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm models were employed to describe the adsorption equilibrium. The Freundlich model presented better fitting for the adsorption equilibrium, suggesting that the carbonized SCB surface had a heterogeneous nature. The maximum adsorption capacities calculated by the Langmuir model were 38.27, 41.72, and 44.70 mg/g at 25 degrees C, 35 degrees C, and 45 degrees C, respectively. The calculated values of Delta G(0) and Delta H-0 indicated the spontaneous and exothermic nature of the adsorption process at the considered temperature range. The adsorption mechanism of nitrobenzene onto carbonized SCB cannot be described either as physical adsorption or chemisorption. This study demonstrated that SCB biochar is a potential sorbent for removing nitrobenzene from aqueous solutions.

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

4.4
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