2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2009.06.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recovery of palladium using chemically modified cedar wood powder

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[47][48][49] was longer than that found in this work. The equilibrium time between platinum or palladium and moss biomass was comparable [21] but this time was much longer for other biomaterials (in the range 24-96 h) [17,20,22]. In practice, a sorbent with a faster uptake is better for the removal of metals.…”
Section: Effect Of Contact Time and Biomass Dosagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…[47][48][49] was longer than that found in this work. The equilibrium time between platinum or palladium and moss biomass was comparable [21] but this time was much longer for other biomaterials (in the range 24-96 h) [17,20,22]. In practice, a sorbent with a faster uptake is better for the removal of metals.…”
Section: Effect Of Contact Time and Biomass Dosagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A large number of biomaterials such as algae, fungi, bacteria, yeast, biopolymers, and bio‐waste have been used for Pd(II) sorption and recovery . Some of the reported potential biosorbents for sorption of Pd(II) used in the past decade include sulfate‐reducing bacteria, Chlorella vulgaris , Saccharomyces cerevisiae , L‐lysine modified chitosan resin, Racomitrium lanuginosum , chemically modified cedar wood powder, polyallylamine hydrochloride‐modified Escherichia coli , polyethylenimine modified Corynebacterium glutamicum , anaerobic bacterial community, and acid treated Escherichia coli . The use of microbial biomass suffers from drawbacks such as difficulties in solid–liquid separation owing to small particle size, low density, poor mechanical strength, and low reusability, whereas some chemically modified biomass makes use of expensive chemicals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%