MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2344122715 · doi:10.1149/ma2015-01/16/1201

Water Treatment By Adsorption with Electrochemical Regeneration

2015· article· en· W2344122715 sur OpenAlexaff
Edward P.L. Roberts, N.W. Brown, Syed Nadir Hussain, Hussain Mohammad, A. Martin

Notice bibliographique

RevueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueMembrane-based Ion Separation Techniques
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAdsorptionElectrochemistryAnodeChemistryPhenolActivated carbonEffluentChemical engineeringElectrodeOrganic chemistryWaste management

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

There have been several studies of electrochemical regeneration of activated carbon adsorbents used for removal of organic contaminants [1], including both cathodic and anodic treatment. The process offers advantages over thermal regeneration including in-situ (on-site) regeneration and minimal adsorbent losses [2]. However, long regeneration times, high energy costs and in some cases poor regeneration efficiencies have constrained implementation [2]. An alternative approach has been developed using graphite intercalation compound (GIC) adsorbents [3], that have low adsorption capacities but are amenable to rapid electrochemical regeneration. The electrochemical regeneration using GIC adsorbents is achieved through the anodic oxidation of the adsorbed species whereby a packed bed of the loaded GIC adsorbent is used as the anode within an electrochemical cell. The regenerated adsorbent, including any water trapped in the bed of adsorbent, is transferred without additional treatment to the next adsorption cycle. This means that no secondary waste is generated in the process. However, partially oxidized organics could be released into the treated water causing contamination with potentially more toxic compounds. In addition, some studies have suggested that phenol can polymerise during electrochemical oxidation, especially on the surface of graphite electrodes. The nature and concentrations of the breakdown products generated during electrochemical oxidation determines the toxicity of the treated effluent. In this context, the breakdown products released in the liquid phase has been studied [4, 5]. Phenol was chosen as a model pollutant in these studies. A variety of oxidation intermediates including aromatics, aliphatic acids and chlorinated species have been observed during electrochemical regeneration of the GIC adsorbent in treating the aqueous solution of phenol. However, the concentrations of the breakdown products were fairly low compared to the initial concentration of phenol to be treated. The main mechanism responsible for the formation of breakdown products was found to be associated with indirect oxidation of phenol in solution i.e phenolic oxidation from solution as opposed to the oxidation of sorbed phenolics and therefore, the phenol adsorbed onto the surface of GIC adsorbent was not observed to contribute to the formation of these products [4]. The present study is concerned with the formation of gaseous breakdown products generated during electrochemical regeneration of GIC adsorbents. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide were detected as the main gaseous breakdown products formed in the during the regeneration process under a range of conditions. When electrochemical regeneration was carried out galvanostatically, both the volume and CO 2 concentration of the gas evolved during regeneration of phenol loaded adsorbent were higher than the volume and CO 2 concentration of the gas obtained when no phenol was present. In order to show that the CO 2 formed is from the phenol, experiments using a 13 C labelled phenol were carried out. These experiments confirm that a significant proportion of the adsorbed phenol was oxidized to CO 2 . The results suggest that about 50 to 60% of the adsorbed phenol is accounted for by the measured carbon dioxide in the evolved gas. This does not account for any carbon dioxide dissolved in the water during regeneration, and dynamic analysis suggests that this could be a significant fraction of CO 2 in the evolved gases. Work is on-going to investigate the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the treated water. This study confirms that electrochemical mineralization of adsorbed organics on GIC adsorbents is achievable. This is an important finding for the development of practical water treatment processes. [1] R.M. Narbaitz, J. Cen, Electrochemical regeneration of granular activated carbon. Wat. Res , 28(1994),1771. [2] R.M. Narbaitz, A. Karimi‐Jashni, Electrochemical regeneration of granular activated carbons loaded with phenol and natural organic matter. Environ. Technol, 30 (2009), 27. [3] K.T. Eccleston, A.J. Eccleston, N.W. Brown, E.P.L. Roberts, Apparatus for the electrochemical regeneration of adsorbents. US Patent 7790024 B2, 2010. [4] S.N. Hussain, E.P.L. Roberts, H.M.A. Asghar, A.K. Campen, N.W. Brown, Oxidation of phenol and adsorption of breakdown products using a graphite adsorbent with electrochemical regeneration, Electrochim. Acta. 92 (2013) 20 [5] S.N. Hussain, H.M.A. Asghar, A.K. Campen, N.W. Brown, E.P.L. RobertS, Breakdown products formed due to oxidation of adsorbed phenol by electrochemical regeneration of a graphite adsorbent,Electrochim. Acta. 110 (2013) 550

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,440

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,229
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueECS Meeting AbstractsMême sujetMembrane-based Ion Separation TechniquesTravaux en français237 207