2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2004.03.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adsorption of Pb2+ in aqueous solution by SO2-treated activated carbon

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
11
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
4
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 2 also contains the estimated surface coverage, representing only 3.8% of the total N 2 -or BET-surface area. Similar values have been reported by others for both Pb(II) adsorption capacity and percent surface coverage [30][31][32].…”
Section: Adsorption Capacity Of Activated Carbons For Aqueous Phase Ssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Table 2 also contains the estimated surface coverage, representing only 3.8% of the total N 2 -or BET-surface area. Similar values have been reported by others for both Pb(II) adsorption capacity and percent surface coverage [30][31][32].…”
Section: Adsorption Capacity Of Activated Carbons For Aqueous Phase Ssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…On the contrary, Linares-Solano et al [24] and Vamvuka et al [25] indicate that high ash contents may have a negative influence, reducing the rate of the reactions involved in this kind of processes. If the activated carbons obtained are aimed to the removal of ions from aqueous solutions -as is the case in the present study -our previous experience indicates that low ash contents are more effective and thus preferred [27][28][29].…”
Section: Preparation Of the Samplesmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Many works were devoted to their elimination, the objective being to develop an effective and economic process. Heavy metals removal methods cited in the literature generally involve adsorption processes on activated carbon [1,2], ions exchange mechanism [3,4] or complexation by natural and synthetic reagents [5][6][7]. The cost of these processes led to numerous studies on alternative removal methods by use of less expensive natural materials and waste by-products such as chitosan, zeolites, clays, peat moss, fly ash, rice husk and sawdust [8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%