4.7 Review

Metal sorption by algal biomass: From batch to continuous system

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.algal.2016.05.026

关键词

Algae; Metal biosorption; Batch system; Continuous system; Isotherm modeling; Kinetic modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Algal biomass possesses tremendous metal binding ability and therefore has great potential for gleaning these pollutants from wastewaters. The algal cell wall and exopolymers contain diverse functional groups which confer negative charge to cell surface. Since metal ions in water are generally in cationic form, they are adsorbed onto the cell surface. Biosorption of metal ions from aqueous solution is influenced by various factors, such as, pH, charge density of metal ion, concentration of metal ion, concentration of interfering metal ions, nutrient availability, nature of biomass, culture age, temperature and contact time. Batch studies are very important for collecting information for subsequent application on a large scale. Continuous flow studies, like those conducted in packed bed column, seem more efficient and economically feasible than the batch operation for metal sorption. Various kinds of sorption isotherms have been used for the assessment of maximum sorption capacity. The data of metal sorption obtained from continuous system are generally expressed in the form of breakthrough curves. The shape and size of breakthrough curve is influenced by several factors, such as, metal concentration, flow rate, bed height, size of biosorbent particle, solution composition, and packing of column/density biosorbent in the column. Adam-Bohart, Thomas, mass transfer model, advection-dispersion-reaction equation and bed-depth-service-time model have been developed for elucidating breakthrough curve. However, new approaches, such as artificial neural networking and response surface methodology need adequate attention for modeling of break through curves and metal sorption in multi-metal systems. (C) 2016 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