| Literature DB >> 36136511 |
Liang Pei1,2,3,4, Liying Sun2,4.
Abstract
A novel Di-phase membrane device with DZ272 (DDD) containing a replenishing feed section and replenishing resolving section for the purification behavior of Co(II) has been studied. The replenishing feed section was composed of feed solution and Di-isooctylphosphinic acid (DZ272) as the carrier in fossil oil, and the replenishing resolving section was composed of DZ272 as the carrier in fossil oil and HCl as the resolving agent. The effects of the voluminal ratio of the membrane solution and feed solution (O/F), pH, initial molarity of Co(II) and ionic strength in the feed solution, voluminal ratio of membrane solution and resolving agent (O/S), molarity of H2SO4 solution and DZ272 molarity in the replenishing resolving section on purification of Co(II) were considered. The benefits of DDD compared to the traditional membrane device, system stability, reuse of the membrane solution and retention of the membrane section were also studied. Experimental results indicated that the optimal purification conditions of Co(II) were obtained, as H2SO4 molarity was 2.00 mol/L, DZ272 molarity was 0.120 mol/L, O/S was 3:1 in the replenishing resolving section, O/F was 1:8 and pH was 5.20 in the replenishing feed section. The ions intensity in the replenishing feed section had no apparent effect on purification behavior of Co(II). When the initial Co(II) molarity was 3.00 × 10-4 mol/L, the purification percentage of Co(II) achieved 93.6% in 200 min. The kinetic equation was deduced in light of the law of mass diffusivity and interfacial chemistry.Entities:
Keywords: Di-phase membrane device; cobalt ion; organic phosphonic acid; replenishing feed section; replenishing resolving section
Year: 2022 PMID: 36136511 PMCID: PMC9506410 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10090546
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Figure 1Mechanism schematic of Co(II) purification through the Di-phase membrane device.
Figure 2The system stability comparison of DDD and a traditional membrane device.
Effect of voluminal ratio of the membrane solution and feed solution on purification of Co(II).
| Time | Purification Percentage (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1.0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 23.3 ± 2.1 | 32.7 ± 1.9 | 29.8 ± 1.1 | 27.8 ± 2.8 | 19.7 ± 1.2 |
| 50 | 39.8 ± 1.7 | 54.6 ± 3.6 | 47.1 ± 1.9 | 46.1 ± 4.6 | 31.8 ± 2.3 |
| 140 | 515 ± 3.3 | 63.7 ± 2.5 | 52.3 ± 3.9 | 51.2 ± 1.5 | 49.4 ± 1.8 |
| 170 | 61.9 ± 3.2 | 76.2 ± 4.3 | 62.4 ± 4.2 | 65.3 ± 5.1 | 59.5 ± 4.2 |
| 200 | 77.3 ± 2.4 | 82.3 ± 3.1 | 78.3 ± 3.5 | 74.9 ± 4.9 | 67.0 ± 2.1 |
Note: The values in the table are the average values ± standard deviation.
Figure 3The pH effect in the replenishing feed section on Co(II) purification.
Figure 4Effect of initial molarities of Co(II) on the purification of Co(II).
Figure 5Effect of the voluminal ratio of the membrane solution and H2SO4 solution on purification of Co(II).
Figure 6Effect of molarities of H2SO4 in replenishing resolving section on purification of Co(II).
Ionic intensity effect on the purification of Co(II).
| Time | Purification Percentage (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 1.1 | 1.75 | 2.0 | 2.5 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 29.2 ± 2.1 | 32.7 ± 1.9 | 33.1 ± 1.9 | 32.6 ± 4.0 | 29.8 ± 0.4 |
| 50 | 40.8 ± 1.6 | 54.6 ± 3.6 | 47.1 ± 3.9 | 46.1 ± 4.6 | 35.2 ± 3.0 |
| 140 | 59.9 ± 3.1 | 63.7 ± 2.5 | 53.4 ± 1.8 | 51.2 ± 1.5 | 47.4 ± 3.9 |
| 170 | 70.5 ± 3.4 | 76.2 ± 4.3 | 69.8 ± 2.5 | 65.3 ± 5.1 | 60.2 ± 1.2 |
| 200 | 82.3 ± 1.6 | 82.3 ± 3.1 | 81.3 ± 6.3 | 84.9 ± 4.9 | 79.8 ± 2.5 |
Note: The values in the table are the average values ± standard deviation.
Reuse of the membrane solution.
| Time | Purification Percentage (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 33.4 | 35.7 | 39.2 | 32.6 | 36.7 | 39.2 | 39.2 | 31.1 |
| 50 | 49.8 | 47.7 | 54.0 | 50.2 | 52.1 | 51.7 | 54.0 | 43.7 |
| 140 | 63.9 | 69.0 | 63.2 | 60.7 | 64.6 | 62.2 | 60.7 | 59.2 |
| 170 | 78.5 | 79.8 | 74.5 | 77.8 | 75.6 | 79.1 | 77.7 | 71.3 |
| 200 | 89.3 ± 1.9 | 91.0 ± 4.8 | 89.4 ± 5.8 | 91.2 ± 2.7 | 89.3 ± 4.7 | 92.3 ± 4.5 | 90.2 ± 4.9 | 85.1 ± 5.3 |
Note: The values in the table are the average values ± standard deviation.
Reuse of the membrane sheet.
| Technology Type | Purification Percentage (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| DDD | 91.2 ± 3.8 | 93.1 ± 5.8 | 92.7 ± 6.1 | 90.6 ± 4.2 | 90.4 ± 2.8 | 91.3 ± 3.9 | 88.7 ± 5.2 | 85.4 ± 3.7 |
| Traditional liquid membrane | 83.4 | 85.2 | 79.5 | 82.7 | 76.3 | 75.8 | 69.7 | 61.7 |
| Emulsion membrane | 79.9 | 77.2 | 74.4 | 70.6 | 62.3 | 61.9 | 44.7 | 43.1 |
| Ion exchange membrane | 81.5 | 81.8 | 79.5 | 61.4 | 69.3 | 52.9 | 40.9 | 35.4 |
Note: The values in the table are the average values ± standard deviation.
Figure 7Retention in the membrane section and effect of resolving.
Figure 8Dynamic relationship between the experimental results and theory.