4.2 Article

Comparison study of phosphorus adsorption on different waste solids: Fly ash, red mud and ferric-alum water treatment residues

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 79-86

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2016.04.025

关键词

Phosphorus; Adsorption; Solid wastes; DOM

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51578070, 21177013]
  2. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China [2013DFR90290]
  3. Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems and Hightower Chair
  4. Georgia Research Alliance at Georgia Institute of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adsorption of phosphorus (P) onto three industrial solid wastes (fly ash, red mud and ferric-alum water treatment residual (FAR)) and their modified materials was studied systematically via batch experiments. Compared with two natural adsorbents (zeolite and diatomite), three solid wastes possessed a higher adsorption capacity for P because of the higher Fe, Al and Ca contents. After modification (i.e., the fly ash and red mud modified by FeCl3 and FARs modified by HCl), the adsorption capacity increased, especially for the modified red mud, where more Fe bonded P was observed. The P adsorption kinetics can be satisfactorily fitted using the pseudo-second-order model. The Langmuir model can describe well the P adsorption on all of the samples in our study. pH and dissolved organic matter (DOM) are two important factors for P adsorption. Under neutral conditions, the maximum adsorption amount on the modified materials was observed. With the deviation from pH 7, the adsorption amount decreased, which resulted from the change of P species in water and surface charges of the adsorbents. The DOM in water can promote P adsorption, which may be due to the promotion effects of humic-Fe(Al) complexes and the pH buffer function exceeds the depression of competitive adsorption. (C) 2016 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.2
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