Cited by 206Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removalEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterialsIndustrial Gas Emission Control

Removal of Zn(II) and Hg(II) from aqueous solution on a carbonaceous sorbent chemically prepared from rice husk

El-Shafey, E.I.·2010·Journal of Hazardous Materials

Abstract

A carbonaceous sorbent was prepared from rice husk via sulfuric acid treatment. Sorption of Zn(II) and Hg(II) from aqueous solution was studied varying time, pH, metal concentration, temperature and sorbent status (wet and dry). Zn(II) sorption was found fast reaching equilibrium within approximately 2h while Hg(II) sorption was slow reaching equilibrium within approximately 120 h with better performance for the wet sorbent than for the dry. Kinetics data for both metals were found to follow pseudo-second order model. Sorption rate of both metals was enhanced with temperature rise. Activation energy, E(a), for Zn(II) sorption, was approximately 13.0 kJ/mol indicating a diffusion-controlled process ion exchange process, however, for Hg(II) sorption, E(a) was approximately 54 kJ/mol indicating a chemically controlled process. Sorption of both metals was low at low pH and increased with pH increase. Sorption was much higher for Hg(II) than for Zn(II) with higher uptake for both metals by rising the temperature. Hg(II) was reduced to Hg(I) on the sorbent surface. This was confirmed from the identification of Hg(2)Cl(2) deposits on the sorbent surface by scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction. However, no redox processes were observed in Zn(II) sorption. Sorption mechanism is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.10.006

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
El-Shafey, E. I.
Venue
Journal of Hazardous Materials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-03
Volume
175
Issue
1-3
Pages
319-327
ISSN
0304-3894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979783189
Cited by
206
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hazardous Materials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Industrial Gas Emission Control
Keywords
zinc removal, mercury removal, rice husk, carbonaceous sorbents, sulfuric acid treatment, heavy metal adsorption, sorption kinetics, pseudo-second-order kinetics, activation energy, pH effect, temperature effects, sorption mechanism, aqueous solution treatment
MeSH terms
Adsorption, Carbon, Chromatography, Ion Exchange, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Kinetics, Mercury, Metals, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Oxidation-Reduction, Powders, Oryza, Temperature, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Zinc, Water Purification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review