4.7 Article

Preparation, characterization and evaluation of adsorptive properties of leather waste based activated carbon via physical and chemical activation

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 62-71

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.02.021

关键词

Leather waste; Preparation; Activated carbon; Steam; Pyrophosphoric acid

资金

  1. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20100131110005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, utilization of leather waste (LW) as precursor for activated carbon preparation by physical (steam) and chemical (pyrophosphoric acid, H4P2O7) activation in different conditions (carbonization temperature, carbonization time and impregnation ratio) is discussed. Thermal gravimetric analysis of LW-H4P2O7 indicated that H4P2O7 as the activator promotes the formation of carbonaceous material. The activated carbons obtained under the best conditions were characterized using N-2 adsorption/desorption isotherms, X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR). The preparation principle of activated carbon with different methods was also studied. Batch adsorption studies were performed to evaluate the adsorption properties toward methylene blue (MB). Activated carbon produced by H4P2O7 activation showed higher yield, lower S-BET, more functional groups and higher adsorption capacities for MB than the carbons prepared by steam activation. Adsorption experiment indicated that the adsorption data fitted the Langmuir equation better than Freundlich, Temkin and Dubinin-Radushkevich (D-R) isotherms, and the capacity of adsorption for AC-H4P2O7 was superior to AC-steam, indicating the mechanisms of pi-pi electron-donor-acceptor (EDA) interaction, cation exchange and hydrogen bond were involved due to the more functional groups. The adsorption has been confirmed to be a spontaneous and endothermic process. (C) 2013 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