Organic pollution removal from coke plant wastewater using coking coal

Gao, Lihui; Li, Shulei; Wang, Yongtian; Sun, Hao

doi:10.2166/wst.2015.197

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The water contains a complex mixture of pollutants, including organics (phenolic compounds and polycyclic aromatics hydrocarbons) and inorganics (ammonia, suldes and heavy metals). [4][5][6] Most of these compounds are toxic, highly concentrated and carcinogenic. The production of CW therefore has long-term environmental and ecological impacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Heterogeneous biochars from agriculture residues and coal fly ash for the removal of heavy metals from coking wastewater

Gao

Goldfarb

2019

RSC Adv.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The biggest barrier to the implementation of adsorption systems relying on commercial adsorbents is the high price and cost of regeneration of such sorbents. 6 Biomass-based adsorbents can remove toxic metals from wastewater. 21 Biochar is a pyrogenic carbon-rich material, derived from the pyrolysis of biomass in an inert atmosphere.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneous biochars from agriculture residues and coal fly ash for the removal of heavy metals from coking wastewater

Gao

Goldfarb

2019

RSC Adv.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the different adsorbents available, coking coal is one of the most effective adsorbents . However, the adsorption capacity of raw coking coal is low; it has been previewed by researchers that the adsorption capacity of raw coking coal can be enhanced by surface modification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 Among the different adsorbents available, coking coal is one of the most effective adsorbents. 12 However, the adsorption capacity of raw coking coal is low; it has been previewed by researchers that the adsorption capacity of raw coking coal can be enhanced by surface modification. In this paper, the raw coking coal was processed with HCl, HNO 3 , H 2 SO 4 , and HF acids to modify the surface properties, and batch adsorption experiments were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of quinoline removal under varying conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Acid-Modified Coking Coals on Quinoline Adsorption

Wang

Ning

et al. 2019

ACS Omega

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adsorption of quinoline from wastewater by coking coal (AC-1), HCl-modified coking coal (AC-2), HNO3-modified coking coal (AC-3), HF-modified coking coal (AC-4), and H2SO4-modified coking coals (AC-5) was investigated in this paper. The effects of acid-modified concentration, modification time, and adsorption time versus quinoline removal rate were studied by batch experiments. The quinoline concentration was measured by UV spectrophotometry, the average pore size and specific surface area of coking coal before and after modification were characterized through static nitrogen adsorption, the mineral composition of coking coal was tested by X-ray diffraction, the surface functional groups were tested by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and the surface topography was tested using a scanning electron microscope. The experimental results showed that the adsorption capacity of coking coals was the best when both the modification time was 120 min and the acid-modified concentration was 0.1 mol·L–1 and the quinoline removal rate reaches the highest when the adsorption time was 120 min. The specific surface area of AC-2 increased from 2.898 to 3.637 m2·g–1, and the removal rate of quinoline increased from 77.64 to 90.61%. Acids reacted with inorganic mineral impurities within coking coal such as hydrogen vanadium phosphate hydrate, which caused an increase in the specific surface area. A new peak appeared in the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy pattern at the wavenumber 2300 cm–1. The surface of coking coal modified by acids was rougher than that of AC-1. The adsorption capacity of coking coal was improved after modification, and modified coking coals have the highest potential as low-cost adsorbents for quinoline removal.

show abstract

“…Effluents from the coke-oven plant for production of metallurgical coke by carbonizing coking coal at higher temperature is another great source of phenols. Coke-oven wastewater is an inflexible chemical wastewater containing many toxic pollutants (Gao et al 2015). In the present study, both synthetic wastewater and real wastewater collected from secondary clarifier of coke-oven effluent treatment plant had been used to remove phenol.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioremediation of phenol from synthetic and real wastewater using Leptolyngbya sp.: a comparison and assessment of lipid production

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioremediation of wastewater is gaining popularity over chemical treatment due to the greener aspect. The volume of literature containing algal biodegradation is small. Especially, removal of toxic materials like phenol from coke-oven wastewater using fast-growing cyanobacteria was not tried. The current study, therefore, targeted at bioremediation of phenol from wastewater using sp., a cyanobacterial strain, as a finishing step. Furthermore, the growth of the strain was studied under different conditions, varying phenol concentration 50-150 mg/L, pH 5-11, inoculum size 2-10% to assess its ability to produce lipid. The strain was initially grown in BG-11 as a reference medium and later in phenolic solution. The strain was found to sustain 150 mg/L concentration of phenol. SEM study had shown the clear difference in the structure of cyanobacterial strain when grown in pure BG-11 medium and phenolic solution. Maximum removal of phenol (98.5 ± 0.14%) was achieved with an initial concentration 100 mg/L, 5% inoculum size at pH 11, while the maximum amount of dry biomass (0.38 ± 0.02 g/L) was obtained at pH 7, initial phenol concentration of 50 mg/L, and 5% inoculum size. Highest lipid yield was achieved at pH 11, initial phenol concentration of 100 mg/L, and 5% inoculum size. Coke-oven wastewater collected from secondary clarifier of effluent treatment plant was also treated with the said strain and the removal of different pollutants was observed. The study suggests the utilization of such potential cyanobacterial strain in treating industrial effluent containing phenol.

show abstract

Organic pollution removal from coke plant wastewater using coking coal

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

Heterogeneous biochars from agriculture residues and coal fly ash for the removal of heavy metals from coking wastewater

Heterogeneous biochars from agriculture residues and coal fly ash for the removal of heavy metals from coking wastewater

Effect of Different Acid-Modified Coking Coals on Quinoline Adsorption

Bioremediation of phenol from synthetic and real wastewater using Leptolyngbya sp.: a comparison and assessment of lipid production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About