4.7 Article

Effect of bentonite-mineral co-pyrolysis with macroalgae on physicochemical property and dye uptake capacity of bentonite/biochar composite

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtice.2019.08.017

关键词

z Bentonite; Biochar; Co-pyrolysis; Dye; Macroalgae

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2016R1D1A1B03935962, NRF-2018R1A6A1A03024962]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of bentonite-mineral co-pyrolysis in amounts of 5%, 10%, and 20% with macroalgae (Saccharina japonica; kelp) on the physicochemical property changes and dye adsorption of the bentonite/biochar composite was investigated. Mathematical relations to assess the contribution of mineral and biochar components of the bentonite/biochar composite on cationic, crystal violet (CV) and anionic, Congo red (CR) dye uptake were first developed via comparison with bentonite/biochar blends from stand-alone pyrolysis of kelp and bentonite. Results demonstrated that bentonite was successfully loaded into the biochar matrix, increased mesoporosity (2.67-12.7 nm), and simultaneously enhanced bio-oil (by 7.4%-35%) and biochar yields (by 6.0%-13.6%). The carbon sequestration potential increased by 27% on co-pyrolysis with 5% bentonite with an adsorption capacity value amongst the highest for CV (1275 mg/g); dominated by chemisorption. Mathematical derivations and calculations showed that co-pyrolysis enhanced adsorption capacity contribution of bentonite (f(q,PyB,co) > 0) on both dyes. Synergy comparison (r(q.co/sp)) between bentonite/biochar composites from the co-pyrolysis and stand-alone pyrolysis were comparable on CR and CV with 20% bentonite but superior for co-pyrolysis (r(q.co/sp)=1.79), on CR adsorption with 10% bentonite. Bentonite/biochar composite thus harbor potential as an effective wastewater treatment and carbon sequestration tool. (C) 2019 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by 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