2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.05.058
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Synthesis and surfactant modification of clinoptilolite and montmorillonite for the removal of nitrate and preparation of slow release nitrogen fertilizer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
42
0
18

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(55 reference statements)
2
42
0
18
Order By: Relevance
“…4) with NZ. This finding is confirmed by the results obtained by XRF analysis of the zeolite samples summarized in Table 1 and indicates the structural integrity of material before and after surfactant treatment [48]. Thus, the structure of zeolite was not changed by chemical treatment.…”
Section: Structural Analysis Of Zeolitesupporting
confidence: 81%
“…4) with NZ. This finding is confirmed by the results obtained by XRF analysis of the zeolite samples summarized in Table 1 and indicates the structural integrity of material before and after surfactant treatment [48]. Thus, the structure of zeolite was not changed by chemical treatment.…”
Section: Structural Analysis Of Zeolitesupporting
confidence: 81%
“…As apertures between solid particles on the coating layer were filled with liquid coating materials, the more closely solid particles arranged, the less amount of liquid material it was used. With the advanced solid-liquid reaction technology, the amount of liquid materials used was reduced in this study and the coating film quality was improved compared to the previous reports (Ni et al, 2011;Bhardwaj et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…It was probably that the observed adsorption was only physical adsorption. [24] The phenomenon indicated that the adsorption capacity of modified clinoptilolite was significantly improved comparing to natural clinoptilolite. Therefore, from the perspective of saving time, 2.0 h was considered as proper contact time.…”
Section: The Effect Of Contact Time On Removal Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 98%