Journals / Turkish Journal of Chemistry / 2019 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 2

Modification of biomass-derived activated carbon with magnetic α-Fe2O3 nanoparticles for CO2 and CH4 adsorption

Pages
687–704
Publication Date
2022-11-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that the porosity of AC was not blocked by αFe 2 O3 particles.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Magnetic and nonmagnetic activated carbons (ACs) were successfully prepared by using AC obtained fromspent coffee grounds (SCGs) for use in CO2 and CH4 capture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:SCGs were activated by chemical activation to produce ACs and a magnetic α-Fe 2 O3 /AC composite was prepared by coprecipitation method from the ACs produced.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that the porosity of AC was not blocked by αFe 2 O3 particles.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Magnetic and nonmagnetic activated carbons (ACs) were successfully prepared by using AC obtained fromspent coffee grounds (SCGs) for use in CO2 and CH4 capture. SCGs were activated by chemical activation to produce ACs and a magnetic α-Fe 2 O3 /AC composite was prepared by coprecipitation method from the ACs produced. Magnetic and nonmagnetic samples were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX) techniques. The textural properties of samples were determined by nitrogen adsorption-desorption using the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) and Barrett–Joyner–Halenda (BJH) methods. The results showed that the porosity of AC was not blocked by αFe 2 O3 particles. According to adsorption-desorption experiments, the best results were obtained with the magnetic α-Fe 2 O3 /AC sample (1.68 mmol g −1 for CO2 and 0.65 mmol g −1for CH4) at 0 °C and 120 kPa. Adsorption performances were evaluated using four isotherm models. The isosteric heats of adsorption calculated for both adsorbents were smaller than 80 kJ/mol and it revealed that CO2 and CH4 adsorption is dominated by the physical adsorption. The α-Fe 2 O3 /AC multicycle CO2 adsorption tests showed that it can be successfully regenerated with high sorption capacity. The α-Fe 2 O3 /AC composite is a promising adsorbent for potential application.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIRBIYIK, Ç. (2022). Modification of biomass-derived activated carbon with magnetic α-Fe2O3 nanoparticles for CO2 and CH4 adsorption. Turkish Journal of Chemistry, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 2, 687–704. https://ajindex.com/articles/601672

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Saha, D.; Bao, Z. B.; Jia, F.; Deng, S. G. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 1820-1826
  2. Heidari, A.; Younesi, H.; Rashidi, A.; Ghoreyshi A. A. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 254, 503-513
  3. Mei, L.; Liu, X.; Wu J. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2018, 53, 1628-1637
  4. Yuan, B.; Wu, X. F.; Chen, Y. X.; Huang, J. H.; Luo, H. M.; Deng, S. G. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 5474-5480
  5. Liu, X.; Zhou, L.; Fu, X.; Sun, Y.; Su, W.; Zhou, Y. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007, 62, 1101-1110
  6. Brunetti, A.; Scura, F.; Barbieri, G.; Drioli, E. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 359, 115-125
  7. Maqsood, K.; Mullick, A.; Ali, A.; Kargupta, K.; Ganguly S. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2014, 30, 453-477
  8. Kato, M.; Yoshikawa, S.; Nakagawa, K. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 2002, 21, 485-487
  9. Duan, S.; Gu, M.; Du, X. D.; Xian, X. F. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 2248-2256
  10. Peng, X.; Wang, W.; Xue, R.; Shen, Z. AIChE Journal 2006, 52, 994-1003
  11. Hamon, L.; Jolimaître, E.; Pirngruber, G. D. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 7497-7503
  12. An, J.; Rosi, N. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 5578-5579
  13. Dunne, J. A.; Rao, M.; Sircar, S.; Gorte, R. J.; Myers, A. L. Langmuir 1996, 12, 5896-5904
  14. Zhang, L.; Wu, G.; Jiang, J. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 8788-8794
  15. Cavenati, S.; Grande, C. A.; Rodrigues A. E. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2004, 49, 1095-1101
  16. Kim, S. M.; Kierzkowska, A. M.; Broda, M.; Müller, C. R. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 220-229
  17. Broda, M.; Müller, C. R. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 3059-3064
  18. Dreisbach, F.; Staudt, R.; Keller, J. U. Adsorption 1999, 5, 215-227
  19. Ribeiro, R. P.; Sauer, T. P.; Lopes, F. V.; Moreira, R. F.; Grande, C. A.; Rodrigues, A. E. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2008, 53, 2311-2317
  20. Zhang, G.; Qu, J.; Liu, H.; Cooper, A. T.; Wu, R. Chemosphere 2007, 68, 1058-1066
  21. Ranjithkumar, V.; Sangeetha, S.; Vairam S. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 273, 127-135
  22. Cazetta, A. L.; Pezoti, O.; Bedin, K. C.; Silva, T. L.; Paesano, A.; Asefa, T.; Almeida, V. C. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 1058-1068
  23. Mahmoud, M. E.; Khalifa, M. A.; El Wakeel, Y. M.; Header, M. S.; Abdel-Fattah, T. M. J. Nucl. Mater. 2017, 487, 13-22
  24. Ranjithkumar, V.; Sangeetha, S.; Vairam, S. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 273, 127-135
  25. Liu, Y.; Zhu, X.; Qian, F.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 63620-63626
  26. Li, M.; Huang, K.; Schott, J.A.; Wu, Z.; Dai, S. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2017, 249, 34-41
  27. Bayazit, Ş. S.; Kerkez, Ö. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2014, 92, 2725-2733
  28. Wang, C.; Feng, C.; Gao, Y.; Ma, X.; Wu, Q.; Wang, Z