Alumina nanofibers were prepared by a technique that combined the sol–gel and electrospinning methods. The solution to be electrospun was prepared by mixing aluminum isopropoxide (AIP) in ethanol, which was then refluxed in the presence of an acid catalyst and polyvinylpyrolidone (PVP) in ethanol. The characterization results showed that alumina nanofibers with diameters in the range of 102 to 378 nm were successfully prepared. On the basis of the results of the XRD and FT-IR, the alumina nanofibers calcined at 1,100°C were identified as comprising the α-alumina phase, and a series of phase transitions such as boehmite → γ-alumina → α-alumina were observed from 500°C to 1,200°C. The pore size of the obtained γ-alumina nanofibers is approximately 8 nm, and it means that they are mesoporous materials. The kinetic study demonstrated that MO adsorption on alumina nanofibers can be seen that the pseudo-second-order kinetic model fits better than the pseudo-first-order kinetic model.

No abstract

The dimension of the separation zone in the dissolved air flotation (DAF) process is practically determined by the rise velocity of the bubble-floc agglomerates: flocs attached to several bubbles. To improve the flotation velocity and particle removal efficiency in the DAF process, many researchers have tried to attach as many bubbles as possible to flocs. In this study, the rise velocity of bubble-floc agglomerates, considered to be the most important factor in designing the separation zone of the flotation tank in the DAF process, was investigated on the basis of comparison between theoretical and observed results. The observed rise velocity measured by a particle image analyser (PIA) and the predicted value, however, did not show similarity, in contrast to what we had expected. Furthermore, the simulated results using population balance to predict the maximum number of attached bubbles on a floc were too impractical to accept under the practical condition of the surface of the floc if there was no change of bubble size. These findings led us to suggest that there were three possible causes which could conceivably explain the observations. It was suggested that the differences between predicted and observed values could be attributed to one or more of the possible causes.

No abstract

No abstract