4.7 Article

Pore characteristics of activated carbons from the phosphoric acid chemical activation of cotton stalks

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 142-149

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.12.019

关键词

Cotton stalks; Agriculture waste; Activated carbon; Pyrolysis; Phosphoric acid

资金

  1. Syrian Ministry of Higher Education and Al Baath University, Homs, Syria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activated carbons were prepared by phosphoric acid activation of cotton stalks in a nitrogen atmosphere at various temperatures in the 500-800 degrees C range and at different H3PO4 acid to cotton stalk impregnation ratios (0.3-3). In addition pyrolysis was undertaken in a thermogravimetric analyser in the presence of different ratios of phosphoric acid in order to establish the nature of the biomass to carbon transformations involved. It was established that the total activation process of H3PO4-impregnated cotton stalks occurred in four stages with the main degradation at 740 degrees C, compared with 330 degrees C for raw cotton stalks. The effects of impregnation ratio and activation temperature on the yield and adsorption capacities of activated carbon were evaluated. The chemical composition of the carbons was investigated by elemental analysis and infrared spectroscopy. The impregnation ratio and activation temperature show a strong influence on the yields and the porous texture of the resultant activated carbons. It was demonstrated that increasing impregnation ratio favours the development of mesopores especially at high activation temperature. The activated carbons showed BET surface areas ranging from 330 to 1720 m(2) g(-1), total pore volumes of 0.15-1.23 cm(3) g(-1) with mesopore volumes between 0 and 0.61 cm(3) g(-1). Results suggest the practical feasibility of phosphoric acid activation of cotton stalks, which produces high quality activated carbons with high fractions of micropores and mesopores. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. 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