2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132227
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preparation and application of porous materials from coal gasification slag for wastewater treatment: A review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 102 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bseides, there are some spherical particles are broken on the surface of CGFS and embedded with tiny particles. Both CGCS and CGFS have pore structure (Yuan et al 2022), and the pore structure of CGFS is more obvious than that of CGCS.…”
Section: Raw Materials and Sample Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bseides, there are some spherical particles are broken on the surface of CGFS and embedded with tiny particles. Both CGCS and CGFS have pore structure (Yuan et al 2022), and the pore structure of CGFS is more obvious than that of CGCS.…”
Section: Raw Materials and Sample Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While our results on the GEG (SIGRATHERM® GFG 1200) are lower than this value, these differences highlight the challenges of comparing different carbon materials in adsorption and catalytic studies because of their surface physicochemical properties can be significantly different due to varying sourced materials, chemical modifications, and pretreatments. In this work, the minimum parameters to compare carbon adsorbent materials were surface areas and pollutant adsorption capacities; however, more in-depth material surface characterizations would be needed to understand the pollutant-surface interactions and fundamental effects on catalytic conversion which are beyond the scope of the current work [8,[51][52][53].…”
Section: Adsorption Tests For the Carbonaceous Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[9][10][11][12][13] At present, the most feasible approach for utilizing CGS waste is the manufacturing of low-value-added construction and paving materials. [14][15][16][17] Alternatively, many studies have also explored the recovery of unburned carbon [18][19][20] as well as a series of Si and Al-based porous materials [21][22][23][24][25][26] from CGS via remediation methods, like physical flotation and chemical precipitation/ extraction, which require post-treatment of CGS, the use of reagent-grade chemicals, and extensive electricity input, which are usually accompanied by high energy costs and large CO 2 emission. In the meantime, the production of high-quality carbon and silica products from CGS requires an additional acid leaching step to remove the naturally endogenous metal impurities, 27,28 which not only further increases the cost of mass production but also enhances the possibility of metal wastes entering natural water systems, resulting in serious diseases in humans.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%