4.7 Article

An experimental and theoretical study of the adsorption removal of toluene and chlorobenzene on coconut shell derived carbon

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 206, 期 -, 页码 285-292

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.04.126

关键词

Adsorption isotherm; Theory calculation; Coconut shell derived carbon; Aromatic VOCs; D-A model

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016TFC0209200]
  2. American Energy Foundation [6326012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adsorption performance of toluene and chlorobenzene on prepared coconut shell derived carbon (CDC) is investigated and compared with commercial activated carbon (CAC) by experiment and theory calculation. Textural properties of prepared adsorbents are characterized by N-2 adsorption, infrared spectra (FT-IR), Raman spectra and X-ray photoelectron spectra (XPS). Adsorption isotherms of toluene and chlorobenzene are obtained and fitted using structure optimizations, Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulation and thermodynamic models. The results indicate that CDC shows better volatile organic compounds (VOCs) removal performance than CAC, and chlorobenzene is easily adsorbed than toluene. On the aspect of textural characteristics, CDC possesses more micropores ratio and narrower pore size distribution than CAC. Furthermore, amounts of electron-withdrawing carbonyl groups on the CAC surface reduce the electron density of adsorbents, thus weakening the interaction between VOCs and adsorbents. On the aspect of model fitting, the Yoon and Nelson (Y-N) and Dubinin-Astakhov (D-A) models can well describe the dynamic adsorption and the adsorption equilibrium of toluene and chlorobenzene on CDC respectively. It is believed that substituent groups of adsorbates, making the charge distribution deviate, lead to adsorption potentials of chlorobenzene larger than toluene. In general, both the pore structure and the surface property of adsorbents affect the VOCs adsorption behaviors on CDC. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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