4.7 Article

Phosphate removal from solution by composite of MCM-41 silica with rice husk: Kinetic and equilibrium studies

期刊

MICROPOROUS AND MESOPOROUS MATERIALS
卷 224, 期 -, 页码 51-57

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.11.011

关键词

Phosphate uptake; Rice husk composite; MCM-41; Adsorption kinetics; Adsorption isotherms

资金

  1. Beni-Suef University, Egypt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Composite of MCM-41 silica with rice husk was synthesized under hydrothermal conditions using cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) as an organic template, aqueous ammonia solution (NH4OH) and rice husk. Rice husk served as not only a silica source but also as a substrate for the deposition of MCM-41. The synthetic hybrid composites were characterized by powder X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscope (SEM) and transmission electron microscope (TEM) and tested as sorbents for phosphate from aqueous solution. Kinetic data and equilibrium uptake isotherms were measured. The effects of different experimental parameters such as contact time, initial phosphate concentration, solution pH, adsorbent mass, and the presence of competitive ions on phosphate uptake were investigated. The phosphate uptake kinetics were found to be fast and equilibrium was achieved after 30 min. The phosphate uptake was found to be highly pH dependent. Studies on the effects of competing ions, without keeping the initial pH constant, indicated that phosphate uptake and K-d values decreased in the presence of CO32- and NO32-, but SO42- ions showed little or no effect. With keeping the initial pH constant at 6, the presence of these competing ions had no clear effect on the uptake of phosphate. The phosphate uptake by composite of rice husk with MCM-41 could be described well by the Langmuir isotherm equation. Adsorption kinetic data correlated well with pseudo-second-order model, which suggested that the uptake process might be chemical sorption. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. 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