Chemical-Ijcpt-Removal of Mercuy and Furfural Using Adsorption and Biosorption in Fixed Bed Reactor 22

editor@tjprc.org www.tjprc.
org
International Journal of Chemical
& Petrochemical Technology (IJCPT)
ISSN(P): 2277-4807; ISSN(E): 2319-4464
Vol. 4, Issue 3, Jun 2014, 1-16
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

REMOVAL OF MERCURY AND FURFURAL USING ADSORPTION AND
BIOSORPTION IN FIXED BED REACTOR
ABBAS H. SULAYMON
1
& HAYFAA L. SWADI
2

1
Department of Power Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Iraq
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Basrah, Iraq

ABSTRACT
The adsorption / biosorption of mercury and furfural onto granule activated carbon and granule dead anaerobic
sludge in a single system was studied. Four mathematical models were tested for best fitting experimental results obtained
from granule activated carbon and granule dead anaerobic sludge column. A general multi-component rate
model(GMRM),homogenous surface diffusion model (HSDM),second order reversible reaction model (SRRM) and quasi
chemical kinetic model (QKM). The results of the study show that, GMRM can fit the experimental results well. GMRM
includes axial dispersion, mass transfer resistance and pore diffusion coefficient provides a good description of the
adsorption/biosorption process for single system in fixed bed adsorber. MATLABE software was used to solve the
equations of GMRM model numerically. The time for reaching breakpoint for faurfural and mercury biosorption was
longer than that for adsorption process at constant conditions (flow rate, bed height and initial concentration). This was due
to higher affinity for granule dead anaerobic sludge than granule activated carbon for furfural and mercury biosorption.
Furfural was the strongly adsorbed component and mercury was the weakly adsorbed component and the biosorption of
process was reveres.
KEYWORDS: Activated Carbon, Dead Anaerobic Sludge, General Multi-Component Rate Model, Fixed Bed,
Biosorption
INTRODUCTION
Adsorption has been shown to be the most promising option for all these non-biodegradable organic and inorganic
for the removal from aqueous streams. A number of physico-chemical methods have been developed over the years to
remove toxic metal ions from aqueous solution which includes chelating extraction, chemical coagulation, evaporation,
extraction, chemical precipitation, ion exchange, electrochemical processes, and flotation, flocculation and membrane
processes [1]. Conventional adsorption processes typically use activated carbon as the main adsorption medium, but it is
expensive. Thus, attention to new natural low-cost materials as biosorbents with high metal-binding capacity, as
alternatives to activated carbon, has been considered in a number of investigations. These include: chitin and chitosan,
activated waste sludge, fungi, macroalgae and yeast [2]. The sequestering of metal ions by solid materials of biological
origin is known under the general term biosorption. It is a process that utilizes inexpensive dead biomass like algae,
bacteria, fungi and yeast which can easily isolate toxic heavy metals and is particularly useful for the removal of
contaminants from industrial effluents [3]. Furthermore, many researchers suggested that biomass from biological
pollution control processes; especially anaerobic sludge systems could be effective in removing heavy metals from
polluted water [4]. The cell walls of the bacteria mainly consist of various organic compounds including chitin, acidic
2 Abbas H. Sulaymon & Hayfaa L. Swadi

Impact Factor (JCC): 2.9866 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0
polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids and other cellular compounds that can absorb both heavy metal ions and various
organics [5]. Anaerobic sludge plays an important role in investigations in the field of biosorption. Anaerobic sludge is an
inexpensive, easily available source of biomass. Anaerobic sludge cells are known to bind various metal ions from solution
under a wide range of external conditions [6, 7].
Continuous packed bed column systems are the most suitable and economic method to remove inorganic and
organic offering an alternative treatment for the removal and recovery of inorganic and organic in aqueous systems.
To design and operate a fixed bed adsorption/ biosorption process successfully the column dynamic must be understood,
thus, the breakthrough curves under specific operating condition must be predictable [8]. Basic equations for designing
fixed bed adsorption column consists a set of partial differential equations describing a bulk phase material balance of the
adsorbate in the bed and the intra-particle mass transfer rate [9].
The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of granule activated carbon and granule dead anaerobic
sludge in xed bed column for the removal of Hg
2+
and furfural in single system from simulated waste water.
EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
Procedure
1000 mg/l of stock solution of Hg
2+
ion and furfural (Fu) prepared by dissolving, Hg(NO3)
2
1/2H
2
O and furfural
respectively in distilled water. A solution of ions concentration of 50 mg/l was prepared by dilution of stock solution.
An optimum adsorption/biosorption pH of Fu and Hg
2+
onto granular activated carbon (GAC)/ granular dead anaerobic
sludge (GDAS) was investigated. The solution pH was maintained at (pH=4) by adding 0.1N HNO
3
and 0.1N NaOH [10].
The fixed bed adsorber studies were carried out in two acrylic columns of (5 cm) inner diameter and (0.4 m)
height. The granular activated carbon (GAC)/ granular dead anaerobic sludge (GDAS) bed is confined in the column by
fine stainless steel screen at the bottom. The experimental conditions for continuous experiments were listed in
Table (1). Using Atomic absorption spectrophotometer (model VGP-210 Buck scientific) and UV spectrophotometer
(model UV PD-303) to measure concentration of mercury ion and furfural respectively. Equation (1) calculates the
adsorbed amount [11]:
q
e
= (V
i
C
0
-V
f
C
e
)/W (1)
Table 1: Experimental Conditions for Continuous Experiments
*Adsorbent/Biosorbent GAC, GDAS
*Actual density, kg/m
3
1542, 1740.7
*Apparent density, kg/m
3
640, 608.9
*Adsorbate/Sorbate furfural, mercury
(Fu, Hg
2+
)
Bed height, m 0.03
Flow rate, (10
-6
m
3
/s) 5.555
Temperature, K 303
*Particle size, mm 0.501
*Bed porosity

0.42,0.45
*Particle porosity 0.584,0.65
*pH 4
*Initial concentration, mg/l 50
*The Physical Properties of GAC and GDAS were Listed in Other Study [10]

Removal of Mercury and Furfural Using Adsorption and Biosorption in Fixed Bed Reactor 3

tor@tjprc.org edi www.tjprc.org
MATHEMATICAL MODELS
General Multi-Component Rate Model (GMRM)
The following equations can be derived from the equation of continuity [12]:
Continuity equation in the bulk fluid phase:
( )
[ ] 0
1 3
,
2
2
=
=
p
R R pi bi
p b
b fi
bi bi
i
bi
zi
C C
R
k
t
C
Z
C
V
Z
C
D
(2)

Continuity equation inside the particle phase [12]:
( ) 0
1
1
2
2
*
=
(
(
|
|
\
|
p
pi
p
p p
pi p
pi
p
pi
p
R
C
R
R R
D
t
C
t
C
(3)

Initial Condition (t =0)
0 ) Z , 0 ( C C
bi bi
= =

0 ) , , 0 ( = = Z R C C
pi pi
(4)
Boundary Conditions
Z = 0: ( )
oi bi
zi
bi
C C
D Z
C
=

(5)
Z =L: 0 =
Z
C
zi
(6)
R = 0: 0
R
C
pi
=
(7)
R = R
p
: ( )
p
R R , pi bi
pi p
fi
pi
C C
D
k
R
C
=
(8)
Dimensionless Groups
Defining the following Dimensionless Variables:

oi
bi
bi
C
C
c =
,
oi
pi
pi
C
C
c =
,
oi
*
pi *
pi
C
C
c = ,
L
t
= ,
p
R
R
r =
,
L
Z
z =
Also, the dimensionless parameters are defining as:
zi
D
L
Pe
Li
=
,
pi p
p fi
i
D
R k
Bi
= ,
=
2
p
pi p
i
R
L D
,
( )
b
b i i
i
1 Bi 3

=

The model equations can be transformed into the following dimensionless equations:
( ) 0
1
1 , 2
2
= +
= r pi bi i
bi bi bi
Li
c c
c
z
c
z
c
Pe

(9)
( ) [ ] 0
r
c
r
r r
1
c c 1
pi 2
2
i pi p
*
pi p
=
(
|
|
\
|
(10)
Initial Conditions become ( = 0) [13, 14]:
0 ) z , 0 ( c c
bi bi
= =
(11)
0 ) , , 0 ( = = z r c c
pi pi
(12)
And boundary conditions become;
z = 0: ( ) 1 =
bi Li
bi
c Pe
z
c
(13)
z =1: 0
z
c
bi
=
(14)
r = 0: 0
r
c
pi
=

(15)
r = 1: ( )
1 r , pi bi i
pi
c c Bi
r
c
=
=

(16)

= =
+
=
+
=
s s
N
1 j
pj j
pi i p
N
1 j
pj j
pi i p mi *
pi
C b 1
C a
C b 1
C b q
C
(17)
And in dimensionless form:
( )
=
+
=
s
N
1 j
pj oj j
pi i p *
pi
c C b 1
c a
c
(18)


Model Solution
The numerical method of lines is used in order to obtain, through space discretization of the PDE system, an ODE
system which can be solved with a common ODE solver. The bulk-fluid phase and the particle equations are first
discretized using the finite element (FE) and the orthogonal collocation (OC) methods, respectively [15]. The resulting
ODE system is solved using an existing ODE solver provided by MATLAB.

Figure 1: Computer Flow Diagram of the Numerical Method Used to Solve the PDE System in the GMRM
Homogenous Surface Diffusion Model (HSDM)
The mobile phase equation (Eq.2) simplifies to obtain the following equation [16]:
( )
[ ]
p
R r pi
C C
R
k
Z
C
V
t
C
bi
b p
b f
bi
i
bi
=
,
1 3
(19)
Where
Initial Condition: t=0; 0<Z<L; C
b
=0
Boundary Conditions: t>0; Z=0; C
b
=C
o
Z=L; C
b
=C
t
The rate of accumulation of adsorbate on the surface of adsorbent particles can be described by the following
partial differential equation with initial and boundary conditions [17]:
|
|
\
|
r
q
r r
q
D
t
q
s
2
2
2

Initial Condition: 0 = t
p
R r 0 ;
0 ; = q


Boundary Conditions: 0 t ; 0 = r ; 0 =
r
q

0 t ;
p
R r = ; dr qr
t
C C K R
p
R
p
p b f p
0
2
2
) (

p
R r = ; ) (
s p
q f C =
This solution is given [18]:
When 1 :
)
1
1 exp(
1
+ =
o
e
C
C
(20a)
For )
1
ln(
1
1

+
+ +
)
`
+
+ + +
+
= )
1
ln(
1
1
1
exp
1
1
o
e
C
C
(20b)
For )
1
ln(
1
1

+
+ +
When 1 :
) 1 exp( =
o
e
C
C

(20c)
For
) 1 ln( 1 +

[ ]
)
`
+ + +
+
= ) 1 ln( 1
1
exp
1
1

o
e
C
C
(20d)
For
) 1 ln( 1 +

and ,
inEqs. (20a) to (20d) were defined as:
p m
o
s
p f
q
C
D
R k
5
1
= (20e)
) (
3

L
t
q
C
R
k
p m
o
p
f
=

(20f)

L
R
k
b
b
p
f
) 1 (
3

=

(20g)


Second -Order Reversible Reaction Model (SRRM)
The rate equation for this model is given by:
q k q q C k
dt
q d
m 2 1
) ( =

(21)
The analytical solution to Eqs. (21) and (2) neglecting axial dispersion [19] :
)] )( / 1 1 exp[( )] / , ( 1 [ ) , / (
) , / (
J J J T T J J J J J T J
J J T J
o
e
T n n r r T n n J T n r n J
T n r n J
C
C
+
=

(21a)
With:
r
T
= 1+bC
o
(21b)
L k q
n
p m
b
b
J
1
) 1 (
=
(21c)
) 1 (
) / 1 (
) 1 (

+
=
L
t
q
C b
T
p m
o
b
b
J

(21d)
The function J is given by:
+ =
] ) / ( [
] ) / exp(
) / ( 1
2
1
) , / (
4 / 1 2
2
T J J
J J T J
J J T J J J T J
r T n T n
T n r n
T n r n erf T n r n J

(21e)
Where erf is the error function.
2.4 QUASICHEMICAL KINITCE MODEL (QKM)
In this model, it is assumed that the adsorbent-adsorbate interaction can be represented by the following quasi
chemical kinetic rate expression:
) (
3
q q C k q
m
=

(22)
Where k
3
is a rate constant. This rate equation implies that at equilibrium ( 0 =
t
q
) Eq. (22) reduced to a
rectangular (linear) equilibrium relationship between the bulk liquid and the GAC/GDAS particles (
m e
q q q = = ).
The analytical solution to Eqs. (22 and 2) neglecting axial dispersion, is given by:
1 ) exp( ) exp(
) exp(
+
=
w u
u
C
C
o
e
(22a)
With:
) (
3
v
L
t C k u
o
= (22b)

)
1
(
3
b
b
p m
v
L q k
w

=
(22c)
A useful approximation is to assume t>>L/ and to disregard the first term in the dominator since exp
) ( w
is
usually>>1 and rewrite the model Eq.(22a) as:
(

+
=
v
L q k
t C k
t C k
C
C
b
b b m
o
o
o
e
) 1 (
exp ) exp(
) exp(
3
3
3
(22d)
And by rearrangement, Eq.(22d) can be written as:
) exp(
) 1 (
exp ) exp(
3
3
3
t C k
C
C
v
L q k
t C k
o
e
o
b
b p m
o
=
(

(22e)
If divided each term in the above equation by exp(k
3
C
o
t), take the logarithm of each side, and rearrange the
equation, the equation become:
o
e
o
b
b p m
C k
C
C
v
L q
t
3
) 1 ln(
) 1 (

(22f)
If N= q
m
p
(1-
b
), which is the uptake capacity of GAC/GDAS per unit volume of the fixed bed andV
s
=
b
,
Eq.(22f) can be written as follows:
t C k
V
NLk
C
C
o
s e
o
3
3
) ln( =
(22g)
Equation (22g) suggests that a plot of ln(C
o
/C
e
) versus t should be linear with intercept of (NLk
3
/V
s
) and slop
(k
3
C
o
). The two parameters N and k
3
can, therefore, be estimated by fitting the above equation to the measured
breakthrough data provided that the following parameters are known: C
o
, L, and V
s
or by using non-liner regression
methods in STATISTICA software[20]
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1 Fixed Bed Models Parameters
The experimental breakthrough results with model predicted breakthrough curves and the required numerical
values for the parameters are listed in Table (2).
Table 2: List of Models and their Required Parameters
Model Designation Solution Method Required Parameters
GMRM Numerical Pe
L
, Bi, D
p
, k
f
, D
z
, q
m
, b
HSDM Analytical , ,
, k
f
, D
s
, q
m

SRRM Analytical r
T
, n
J
, T
J
, k
1
, q
m

QKM Analytical u , w, k
3
, q
m


3.2 Pore Diffusion Coefficient (D
p
)
The pore diffusion coefficient was found by using MATLAB. For furfural Figure (1) and mercury Figure (2) from
pore diffusion model.

Figure 1: Comparison of the Measured Concentration -Time Data with that
Predicted by Pore Diffusion Model for Furfural Adsorption /Biosorption

Figure 2: Comparison of the Measured Concentration -Time Data with that
Predicted by Pore Diffusion Model for Mercury Adsorption /Biosorption

3.3 Axial Dispertion Coefficient (D
z
)
The axial dispersion was a function of physical factors such as flow rate and particle size of the adsorbent, but
independent on the differences of the chemical properties of the solutes. The axial dispersion coefficient of the liquid
flowing through fixed beds was obtained from the following correlation [21]:
) Re 011 . 0 2 . 0 (
48 . 0
+ =
p b z
d
L
D
vL
for (Re < 10) (23)

The above correlation was used in the mathematical model (GMRM) to obtain D
z
at different operation conditions.

3.4 External Mass Transfer Coefficient (K
f
) in Fixed Bed Adsorber
In the model (GMRM) the following equation was used to obtain the values of k
f
[13]:
k
f
=2.4V
s
/(Sc
0.58
R
e
0.66
) (24)
Schmidt's number was calculated as follows:
m w
w
D
Sc
=
The liquid diffusivity coefficient was calculated using the following equation:
D
m
=2.7410
-9
(MW)
-1/3
(m
2
/s) (25)
3.5 Surface Diffusion Coefficient (D
s
)
Surface diffusion coefficients for each solute were obtained from Eqs.(26),(27) and (28)[22] :
[ ] Z
R
t D
q
q
p
s
+
|
|
\
|
=

2 / 1
2
2 / 1
6
(26)
Where: ) (
t o
m
L
o
C C
V
V
q q + = (27)
And:
) 1 )( (
e e o
e m
m
L
bC C C
bC q
V
V
+
=
(28)
Thus a plot of
q
q
versus the square root of time gives a straight line of slop 6(D
s
/R
p
2
)
1/2
as shown in
Figures (3, 4).

Figure 3: Estimation of Homogenous Surface Diffusion (D
S
) for Furfural Adsorption /Biosorption


Figure (4): Estimation of Homogenous Surface Diffusion (D
s
) for Mercury Adsorption /Biosorption

3.6 Second Order Forward Rate Constant (K
1
)
The forward rate constant for second-order reaction model (SRRM) of furfural and mercury
adsorption/biosorption was estimated using non-liner regression (Hooke-Jeeves and Quasi-Newton estimation method) in
STATISTICA software, after provided with values of
2
and . The rate constants were found to be:
k
1Hg
2+
, GDAS
= 4.25310
-9
m
3
/g.s, (R
2
= 0.933)>k
1Fu, GDAS
= 4.19810
-9
m
3
/g.s, (R
2
= 0.910) >k
1Fu, GAC
= 4.11710
-9

m
3
/g.s (R
2
= 0.949) >k
1Hg
2+
, GAC
= 3.58410
-9
m
3
/g.s, (R
2
= 0.913). It is cleared that, rates constant follow the same sequence
as mass transfer coefficients (k
f
).
3.7 Quasichemical Kinitic Rate Constant (K
3
)
The rate constant for quasichemical kinetic model (QKM) was determined by (Hooke-Jeeves and Quasi-Newton
estimation method) in STATISTICA software used in the present study. Since k
3
is depended on the fixed bed parameter
conditions (i.e., flow rate, bed height and initial concentration), therefore one condition was taken as a case study Table(3)
to compare with other continuous models at (Q
f
= 5.55510
-6
m
3
/s, L= 0.03 m and C
o
= 50 mg/l).
Table 3: Quasichemical Kinetic Rate Constants for Adsorption/Biosorption Process
Property
k
3
, (m
3
/g.s)
L= 0.03 m R
2

Fu onto GAC 3.88110
-11
0.8211
Hg
2+
onto GAC 2.09510
-11
0.7657
Fu onto GDAS 4.48310
-11
0.9101
Hg
2+
onto GDAS 6.32710
-11
0.8147

3.8 Comparison between Theortica Models and Experimental Breakthrough Curves
The comparison between the experimental breakthrough with the theoretical curves obtained from different
theoretical models is carried out in order to obtain the most acceptable values for the models parameters Table (2), and the
effect of each parameter on the predication of the breakthrough curves.
The comparisons are illustrated in Figs. (5,6) for furfural and mercury onto GAC while Figs. (7,8) for furfural and
mercury onto GDAS respectively. These curves were arranged to compare the experimental results (Q
f
=5.55510
-6
m
3
/s,

L=0.03 m and C
o
=50 mg/l) with the predicted values obtained from each models listed in Table (2) with the coefficient
determination (R
2
). Examining Figure (5, 6, 7, 8), it can be seen that fitting the experimental results with the theoretical
models follow the sequence according to correlation coefficient (R
2
): GMRM > SRRM > HSDM > QKM
GMRM gave excellent matching among the other models. This model dependson both external and internal mass
transfer resistances. On the other hand, SRRM gave good fitting. Since numerical solution of models required modern high
speed computers coupled with the availability of user-friendly software packages for solving sets of partial differential
equations. This model is suitable for limiting cases which facilitate greatly the design of continuous system or analysis of
experimental. HSDM gave less fitting comparing with SRRM. This indicates that pore diffusion mechanisms dominate
over surface diffusion. QKM does not give acceptable agreement between experimental and predicative breakthrough
curves. Therefore, the GMRM is chosen to compare between the adsorption/biosorption processes for furfural and mercury
in further fixed bed experiments.

Figure 5: Comparison between Experimental Results and Predictive
Models for Furfural Adsorption onto GAC

Figure 6: Comparison between Experimental Results and
Predictive Models for Mercury Adsorption onto GAC



Predictive Models for Furfural Biosorption onto GDAS

Predictive Models for Mercury Biosorption onto GDAS

4. CONCLUSIONS
From results, the following conclusions can obtained
Four mathematical models were tested for best fitting experimental results obtained from GAC/GDAS column.
It was found that, GMRM and SRRM can fit the experimental results well.
The time for reaching breakpoint for furfural and mercury biosorption was longer than that for adsorption process
for constant conditions (flow rate, bed height and initial concentration). This was so due to higher affinity for
GDAS than GAC for furfural and mercury.
Furfural was the strongly adsorbed component and mercury was the weakly adsorbed component. While for
biosorption the process was reveres.

REFERENCES
1. R.S. Dobson, J.E.Burgess (2007) Biological Treatment of Precious Metal from Refinery Wastewater: A review,
Minerals Eng., Vol.20, No. 6, pp. 519-532.
2. I.B.Rae, S.W. Gibb(2007) Removal of Metals from Aqueous Solutions Using Natural Chitinous Materials, Water
Science and Technology, Vol.47, No. 10, p. 189-196.
3. H.Sulaymon, S.E. Ebrahim, S.M. Abdulla,, and T.J. Al-Musawi (2010)Removal of Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury
Ions Using Biosorption, Desalination and water treatment, Vol. 24, pp. 344-352.
4. B.Volesky, Z.R.Holan (1995) Biosorption of Heavy Metals, Biotechnol. Progress, Vol. 11, pp. 235-250.
5. B. Yuncu, F.D. Sanin, U.Yetis (2006) An Investigation of Heavy Metal Biosorption in Relation to C/N Ratio of
Activated Sludge, J. Hazardous Materials, Vol. 137, No. 2, pp. 990-997.
6. G.M. Gadd (1990) Heavy metal accumulation by bacteria and other microorganisms Experentia,
Vol. 46, pp. 834-8403.
7. Z .Aksu (2005) Application of biosorption for the removal of organic pollutants: a review. Process Biochem,,
40, 997-1026.
8. T.C.Mask(2007) Activated Carbon Bed (Design and Regenration), Chem. Eng. Sump., Vol. 55, No. 29,,
pp 190-192.
9. A.H.Sulaymon, M.A Ali, S.K.Al-Naseri (2010) Mathematical Models Application for Natural Organic Matter
Adsorption onto Activated Carbon, Desalination and Water Treatment, Vol. 24,, pp. 93-100.
10. A.H Sulaymonand H. L. Swadi (2013) Performance of adsorption /biosorption for removal of organic and
inorganic pollutants. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research 5(12):1168-1178.
11. A.H Sulaymonand H. L. Swadi (2014) Adsorption/biosorption of furfural and mercury onto granular activated
carbon /granular dead of anaerobic sludge. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research
12. R. B., Bird, W. E. Steward, and E. N. Lighfoot, (1960) Transport Phenomena, John Wiley, New York.
13. H .M.Abdul-Hameed, (2009) Competitive adsorption of heavy metals onto activated carbon in fixed bed column,
Ph.D. Thesis,University of Baghdad, College of Engineering.
14. K. W.Ahmed (2006) Removal of multi-pollutants from wastewater by adsorption method, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Baghdad, College of Engineering.
15. S. L.Eggers (2001) Simulation of Frontal Adsorption, HIWI report by Hamburg-Harburg University.
16. D. W.Hand, J.C. Crittenden, D. R.Hokanson&J.L.Bulloch (1997) Predicting the performance of fixed-bed
granular activated carbon adsorbers, Water Scince and Technology, Vol. 35, No.7, pp. 235-241.
17. R. Stachiw, F.N. Junion, L. V.Arruda& L.M Assis (2007) Modeling and simulation of organic compounds
adsorption process in Brazilian oil shale, 17
th
European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering
ESCAPE17.

18. H.Yoshida,, T. Kataoka&D.M.Ruthven (1984) Analytical solution of the breakthrough curve for rectangular
isotherm systems, Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 39, pp.14891497.
19. L.K.Wang, J.H. Tay& S.T. Tay (2010) Environment Bioengineering, Handbook of Environmental Engineering,
Vol.11.
20. WV. Loebenstein (1962) Batch adsorption from solution, J. Res Natl Bur Stand A Phys. Chem.,
Vol. 66, pp.503-515.
21. H.Thong (2003) Ion Exchange Modeling of CrytallineSilicotitanate Column for Cesium Removal From
Arngentine Waste, Wisting house Savannah River Company.
22. X. L.Cooney (1999) Designing of Pilot Plant for Treatment of Wastewater Contaminated by Furfural, M. Sc.
Thesis, University of Bangalore, India.
APPENDICIES
List of Symbols
Units Definition Symbol
m
2
cross sectional area of the adsorber A
l/mg Langmuir constant b

Pitot number
pi p
p fi
D
R k
Bi
=

B
i

kg/m
3
solute concentration C
scaled concentration

c

m
2
/s axial dispersion coefficient D
L
m
2
/s molecular diffusion coefficient of component D
m

m
2
/s pore diffusion coefficient D
p
m
2
/s surface diffusion coefficient D
s

m particle diameter d
p
(mg/g)(l/mg)
1/n
F
Freundlich equilibrium parameter K
F
1/s rate constant of second order forward k
1

g/mg.s rate constant of second order reverse k
2

m/s external mass transfer coefficient
k
f

(m
3
/g.s) rate constant for qusichemical kinetic model k
3

m bed height L
Kg/kmol Molecular weight MW
Number of finite elements in particle radius direction
N
r
Number of finite elements in column axial direction N
z
Freundlich model parameter n

Peclt number
zi
D
L
Pe
Li
=

Pe
m
3
/s flow rate Q
mg/g biosorption capacity q
e
mg/g
adsorption equilibrium constant defined by Langmuir
equation
q
m

m radial distance in the particle R

Reynolds number
w
w p
v d
= Re

Re


m radius of particle R
p

separation factor R
s

scaled radial distance in the particle, R/R
p
r

Schmidt number of component
m w
w
D
Sc
=

Sc

K absolute temperature T
s time t

m/s Superficial velocity u
m
3
final Volume of solution V
f

m
3
initial Volume of solution V
L

l initial solution volume V
o

g mass of activated sludge W
m axial length in fixed bed z

Greek Symbols
b
Bed porosity
p
Particle porosity

Interstitial velocity
|
|
\
|
b
A
Q

m/s
p
Density of particle kg/m
3

w
Density of water kg/m
3

w

Viscosity of water Pa.s
Scaled axial length, z/L

Subscript
b bulk fluid phase
e equilibrium
i component number (1, 2)
j integer value
L liquid phase
o initial
P particle phase
s solid phase
* Micro

Chemical-Ijcpt-Removal of Mercuy and Furfural Using Adsorption and Biosorption in Fixed Bed Reactor 22

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chemical-Ijcpt-Removal of Mercuy and Furfural Using Adsorption and Biosorption in Fixed Bed Reactor 22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

editor@tjprc.org www.tjprc.

for (Re < 10) (23)

You might also like