2014
DOI: 10.1007/s10967-014-3796-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uranium removal from aqueous solutions using a raw and HDTMA-modified phillipsite-bearing tuff

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At pH > 8, the continuing deprotonation of adsorbents might increases the negative charge and thus suppressed the adsorption of negative species of uranium­(VI) on HTnF-SO 3 H and HTnF-COOH. Also, negatively charged uranium­(VI) species are mainly larger and might have difficulty entering into this framework, as a result, the adsorption efficiencies of two adsorbents decreased. , At low concentration, it was observed that the adsorption decreased with increasing pH but had no effect on high concentrations . However, in this study, the effect of initial concentration at pH after equilibrium (pH eq ) was as follows: at pH 8 for low concentrations, the addition of these adsorbents decreased pH to 7.5 as shown in Figure b, where most of the uranium­(VI) species were available, hence the adsorption was increased.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…At pH > 8, the continuing deprotonation of adsorbents might increases the negative charge and thus suppressed the adsorption of negative species of uranium­(VI) on HTnF-SO 3 H and HTnF-COOH. Also, negatively charged uranium­(VI) species are mainly larger and might have difficulty entering into this framework, as a result, the adsorption efficiencies of two adsorbents decreased. , At low concentration, it was observed that the adsorption decreased with increasing pH but had no effect on high concentrations . However, in this study, the effect of initial concentration at pH after equilibrium (pH eq ) was as follows: at pH 8 for low concentrations, the addition of these adsorbents decreased pH to 7.5 as shown in Figure b, where most of the uranium­(VI) species were available, hence the adsorption was increased.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…whereas with increasing pH neutral species (e.g. UO 2 (OH) 2 ) or precipitates (UO 3 Á2H 2 O) can be formed [32]. In the case of barium and europium precipitates were also observed at pH …”
Section: Effect Of Phmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…For each batch experiment 50 mg of the prepared MoO 3 were contacted with 10 mL of each solution in polycarbonate tubes and the mixture was agitated on a mechanical shaker for 24 h. The mixture was then centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min to separate the sorbent from the supernatant and the equilibrium pH was measured. The residual concentration of the metal in the supernatant was finally determined by c-ray spectroscopy using a HPGe detector (CANBERRA, REGe detector, efficiency 20 %, energy resolution 2.1 keV for the 1332 keV 60 Co c-radiation) connected with a standard computerbased gamma-spectroscopy set-up (in the case of the Ba, Cs and Eu), atomic absorption spectrometry-AAS with a Perkin Elmer Spectrophotometer (model 300A) (in the case of Pb) and Arsenazo-III method with a Shimadzu UV160A Spectrophotometer (in the case of U) [30][31][32].…”
Section: Sorption Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Possible phillipsite applications are presented below; these are due to the ion exchange capacity and the adsorption of various metals and compounds. Bampaiti et al (2015) have performed the process of removing uranium from aqueous solutions using phillipsite modified by HDTMA (hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide). Zeolite used for the process came from the region of Naples, Italy.…”
Section: Phillipsitementioning
confidence: 99%