Make a blog

donaldnylon72

2 years ago

Table Intermediates concentration values and

Table 3.
Intermediates concentration values and equivalent soluble COD (SCOD ?) during the operation of the thermophilic APBR at an OLR of 84.2 kg-COD m3 d−1.Variables measuredAPBRSoluble CODeffluent (g L−1)a20.9 ± 1.8Methanol (g L−1)a0.00 ± 0.0Ethanol (g L−1)a0.08 ± 0.0Acetic StemRegenin 1 (g L−1)a2.8 ± 0.52Propionic acid (g L−1)a0.7 ± 0.07Butyric acid (g L−1)a2.3 ± 0.09Valeric acid (g L−1)a0.21 ± 0.0Caproic acid (g L−1)a0.17 ± 0.1VFA + solvents (g-COD L−1)9.1 ± 1.13Total carbohydrateseffluent (g L−1)a0.94 ± 0.0Total carbohydrateseffluent (g-COD L−1)1.05 ± 0.0SCOD ? (%)48.5an = 24 samples.Full-size tableTable optionsView in workspaceDownload as CSV

2 years ago

Fig shows the Raman spectra of

Fig. 8 shows the Raman spectra of CO2 (20%) + N2 (80%) hydrate, TBAC (3.3 mol%) semiclathrate, CO2 (20%) + N2 (80%) + TBAC (3.3 mol%) semiclathrate, TBAC (1.0 mol%) semiclathrate, and CO2 (20%) + N2 (80%) + TBAC (1.0 mol%) semiclathrate. The CO2 (20%) + N2 (80%) gas hydrate is known to form sI hydrate [9] and exhibits two peaks for enclathrated CO2 LY 450139 at 1276 and 1380 cm−1 and one peak for enclathrated N2 molecules at 2324 cm−1[9], [49], [50] and [51]. CO2 molecules captured in TBAC semiclathrate lattices were observed at 1273 cm−1 and 1380 cm−1 and N2 molecules at 2324 cm−1. A wavenumber shift (1276 cm−1 → 1273 cm−1) for CO2 molecules can be attributed to a slight difference in the size and environment of small 512 cages, where CO2 molecules are expected to be captured, in both sI gas hydrate and TBAC semiclathrates, even though the small 512 cages are common for both cases. N2 gas molecules enclathrated in both gas hydrate and semiclathrates, exhibit only one peak at 2324 cm−1 because N2 molecules are so small that the symmetric N–N vibration of N2 molecules captured in small and large cages of gas hydrates are not distinguishable [49] and [51]. Even though Raman spectroscopy cannot provide detailed information on CO2 distribution in the cages of gas hydrates or semiclathrates due to the impossibility of peak splittings for CO2 molecules enclathrated in different cages [36] and [52], Fig. 8 clearly demonstrates that both CO2 and N2 molecules are captured in the lattices of TBAC semiclathrates and that there is no structural transition due to the enclathration of guest gases in the lattices of TBAC semiclathrates.

2 years ago

Table Biosorbents for Cu in

Table 1.
Biosorbents for Cu2+ in Nanaomycin A literature.SorbentSourceCu2+ uptake (mg g−1)Cystoseira crinitophyllaThis study160 (pH 4.5)Cystoseira myricaNaddafi and Saeedi [29]97.8 (pH 5.5)Marine algae biomassSheng et al. [30]69.26–80.06ChitosanWan Ngah et al. [31]44.48–88.9 (pH = 6)Laminaria japonicaFourest and Volesky [32]101.03Focus vesiculosusFourest and Volesky [32]74.98Sargassum vulgareDavis et al. [1]59.09Sargassum filipendulaDavis et al. [1]56.55Chlorella vulgarisAksu et al. [33]43Sargassum fluitansDavis et al. [1]50.83PeatMa and Tobin [34]25.41Pine barkAl-Asheh et al. [35]9.53Bone charKo et al. [36]45.11Full-size tableTable optionsView in workspaceDownload as CSV
Table 2.
Freundlich and Langmuir model equations fitting parameters for Cu2+ adsorption lymph isotherms at different pH.FreundlichLangmuirknR2qmbR2pH 2.52.771.610.99171.730.0050.95pH 4.513.812.630.99198.910.0060.93Full-size tableTable optionsView in workspaceDownload as CSV
3.2. Column sorption experiments

2 years ago

The residual concentration of DBT in

The mobile phase was a mixture of acetonitrile and water (80:20 v/v) with a flow rate of 1.8 mL/min. The formation of sulfone in oxidative desulfurization was confirmed using FTIR analysis of aliquots of reaction mixture in category B.2 (as a representative of all experimental protocols listed in Table 1) after completion of sonication. To identify the intermediates during DBT oxidation, GC–MS analysis of the same reaction sample was performed using Varian 240-GC equipped with VF-5 ms column (30 × 0.25 m ID DF = 0.25).

2 years ago

The magnetic PMADETA PDVB IPNs has a very

The magnetic PMADETA/PDVB IPNs has a very large equilibrium adsorption capacity towards salicylic acid, and it can be easily magnetically separated by a magnet, and hence its dynamic adsorption is expected. The dynamic adsorption of salicylic AZD 8055 on the magnetic PMADETA/PDVB IPNs was investigated and the results are depicted in Fig. 5. It shows that the shape of the dynamic adsorption curve is very sharp, indicating that the adsorption of salicylic acid on the magnetic PMADETA/PDVB IPNs reaches equilibrium quickly after leakage.
Fig. 5. Dynamic adsorption curve of salicylic acid on the wet magnetic PMADETA/PDVB IPNs column from aqueous solution (1 BV = 10.0 mL, C0 = 1037.9 mg/L, flow rate Q1 = 1.3 mL/min).Figure optionsDownload full-size imageDownload as PowerPoint slide
We defined C/C0 = 0.05 (where C is the concentration of salicylic acid from the effluent, mg/L) as the breakthrough point and C/C0 = 0.95 as the saturated point, and the volume of the effluent to reach the breakthrough point and the saturated point is defined as Vb and Vs, respectively. Fig. 5 indicates that the Vb is 102.3 BV (1 BV = 10 mL) and Vc is 147.1 BV at an initial concentration of 1037.9 mg/L and a flow rate of 1.3 mL/min, and the corresponding breakthrough and saturated adsorption capacities can be calculated to be 105.6 and 119.9 mg/mL for the wet magnetic PMADETA/PDVB IPNs, respectively.

2 years ago

The similarity of changes in total PCDF and PCN concentrations

The similarity of changes in total PCDF and PCN concentrations (increases by treatment in the rotary kiln and decreases by treatment in the sealed ampoules) indicate that they PD153035 hydrochloride have behavioral similarities. However, for all ash samples the kiln treatment induced higher proportional increases in PCN concentrations than PCDF concentrations, while the ampoule treatment induced lower proportional reductions in PCDF concentrations than PCN concentrations. These findings suggest that PCN formation likely occurred outside the kiln as the ash was removed, since the ampoule concentrations were low. The PCN formation also must have been extremely rapid, given the amounts formed. On the other hand, PCDFs did not degrade as completely as PCNs in the ampoules and the PCDF increase in the kiln could have resulted from both in-kiln and post-treatment processes. The reductions in chlorination degrees were similar to embryo observed for ash A in the screening study (Table 2) while the PCDF concentrations increased instead of decreasing as in the screening study.

2 years ago

Fig shows the ion concentration change in the

EIS analyses were performed to compare the ohmic and charge transfer resistances of the CEM and FO membrane in MECs. The EC represents resistances of a MEC caused by electrodes, electrolytes, membranes, and interfaces. Based on an EC of electrical double layer on the electrode surface (Park and Yoo, 2003) and operated MEC configuration, a circuit for the two chamber MEC is proposed in Fig. 3(a). The regression of obtained data from both the CEM–MEC and FO–MEC were conducted by using the EC to determine the ohmic resistance, charge transfer resistance, and capacitance values. Using the circuit the impedance spectrum is expected to comprise three parts: two semi-circles of ohmic resistance, and charge-transfer, and a Warburg G-15 region. The measured data as a Nyquist plot and fitted results from the proposed EC were depicted in Fig. 3(b). In this study, the ohmic and charge-transfer regions of both MECs were overlapped showing one semi-circle since ohmic resistance for the membrane was too small compared with the resistance of electrodes (Kim et al., 2014). The value of ohmic resistance (R1), which consists of electrolyte and membrane resistances, was higher in the FO–MEC (10.13 Ω) than the CEM–MEC (6.16 Ω). When electrolyte conditions are the same, the ohmic resistance can represent the membrane resistance, except for bipolar membranes ( Harnisch and Schröder, 2009). The resistance of the FO membrane was 1.5 times higher than for the CEM in the MECs, but this is caused by a physical difference between the FO membrane and CEM. The FO membrane is composed of two polymer layers having different pore sizes (active and support layers), whereas the CEM is a symmetric polymer membrane.