4.7 Article

Modeling of adsorption isotherms of phenol and chlorophenols onto granular activated carbon - Part I. Two-parameter models and equations allowing determination of thermodynamic parameters

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 147, 期 1-2, 页码 381-394

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.01.021

关键词

modeling; adsorption; isotherms; phenol; chlorophenols; GAC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adsorption equilibrium isotherms of five phenolic compounds from aqueous solutions onto granular activated carbon (GAC) were studied and modeled. Phenol (Ph), 2-chlorophenol (2-CP), 4-chlorophenol (4-CP), 2,4-dichlorophenol (DCP), and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (TCP) were chosen for the adsorption tests. To predict the adsorption isotherms and to determine the characteristic parameters for process design, seven isotherm models: Langmuir (five linear forms), Freundlich, Elovich, Temkin, Fowler-Guggenheim, Kiselev, and Hill-de Boer models were applied to experimental data. The results reveal that the adsorption isotherm models fitted the data in the order: Fowler-Guggenheim > Hill-de Boer > Temkin > Freundlich > Kiselev > Langmuir isotherms. Adsorption isotherms modeling shows that the interaction of phenolic compounds with activated carbon surface is localized monolayer adsorption, that is adsorbed molecules are adsorbed at definite, localized sites. Each site can accommodate only one molecule. The interaction among adsorbed molecules is repulsive and there is no association between them, adsorption is carried out on energetically different sites and is an exothermic process. Uptake of phenols increases in the order Ph < 2-CP < 4-CP < DCP < TCP, which correlates well with respective increase in molecular weight, cross-sectional area, and hydrophobicity and decrease in solubility and pK(a). Additionally, for the four tested chlorophenols, it seems that the magnitude of adsorption is directly proportional to their degree of chlorination. (C) 2007 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