Zeolit Kullanılarak Uzaklaştırılan Radyoaktif Kobaltın Cevap Yüzey Yöntemi ile Optimize Edilmesi

Year 2021, , 545 - 554, 25.04.2021

Ekrem Çiçek

https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.807860

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Radyoaktif kobalt, radyoaktif atıkta en bol bulunan radyonüklidlerden biridir. Bu çalışmada, radyoaktif kobaltın (60Co) su çözeltisinden zeolit 3A ve 5A ile adsorpsiyon yoluyla uzaklaştırılması araştırılmıştır. Cevap yüzey yöntemi, radyoaktif kobaltın uzaklaştırılmasında dekontaminasyon faktörünü tahmin etmek için öngörücü regresyon modelini oluşturmada kullanılmıştır. Deneysel maksimum dekontaminasyon faktörü zeolit 3A ve zeolit 5A için sırasıyla 30.37 ve 15.9 olarak elde edilmiştir. Hesaplanan model zeolit 3A ve 5A için anlamlıydı (p <0.05). Zeolit 3A ve zeolit 5A için tahmin edilen maksimum dekontaminasyon faktörü, optimum koşullarda sırasıyla 30.05 ve 15.19'dur. Sulu çözeltiden radyoaktif kobaltın uzaklaştırılmasında zeolit 3A, zeolit 5A'dan daha yüksek adsorban kapasitesine sahiptir.

Keywords

Radyoaktif kobalt, Adsorpsiyon, Cevap yüzey yöntemi, Zeolit 3A, Zeolit 5A

Zeolite Used for Optimized Removal of Radioactive Cobalt with Response Surface Methodology

Abstract

Radioactive cobalt is one of the most abundant radionuclides in radioactive waste. This study investigated the removal of radioactive cobalt (60Co) by adsorption with zeolite 3A and 5A from aqua solution. The response surface methodology was employed to constitute the predictive regression model to guess the decontamination factor for radioactive cobalt removal. The experimental maximum decontamination factor 30.37 and 15.9 were obtained for zeolite 3A and zeolite 5A, respectively. The calculated model was significant for both zeolite 3A and 5A (p<0.05). The predicted maximum decontamination factor was 30.05 and 15.19 in optimum conditions for zeolite 3A and zeolite 5A, respectively. Zeolite 3A has a higher adsorbent capacity than zeolite 5A for the removal of radioactive cobalt from aqueous solution.

Keywords

Radioactive cobalt, Adsorption, Response surface methodology, Zeolite 3A

References

• [1] M.W. Munthali, E. Johan, H. Aono and N. Matsue, “Cs+and Sr2+Adsorption selectivity of zeolites in relation to radioactive decontamination,” Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 245-250, 2015.
• [2] H.Y. Lee, H.S. Kim, H.K. Jeong, M. Park, D.Y. Chung, K.Y. Lee, E.H. Lee and W.T. Lim, “Selective removal of radioactive cesium from nuclear waste by zeolites: On the origin of cesium selectivity revealed by systematic crystallographic studies,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry, vol. 121, no. 19, pp. 10594–10608, 2017.
• [3] M. Sadeghi, S. Yekta, H. Ghaedi and E. Babanezhad, “Effective removal of radioactive 90Sr by CuO NPs/Agclinoptilolite zeolite composite adsorbent from water sample: Isotherm, kinetic and thermodynamic reactions study,” The International Journal of Industrial Chemistry, vol. 7, pp. 315–331, 2016.
• [4] H.M. Saleh, H.R. Moussa, H.H. Mahmoud, F.A. El-Saied, M. Dawoud and R.S.A. Wahed, “Potential of the submerged plant myriophyllum spicatum for treatment of aquatic environments contaminated with stable or radioactive cobalt and cesium,” Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 118, pp. 103147, 2020.
• [5] E. Hernfindez-Barrales and F. Granados-Correa, “Sorption of radioactive cobalt in natural mexican clinoptilolite,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, vol. 242, no. 1, pp. 111- 114, 1999.
• [6] Q.Q. Zhong, Y.Q. Zhao, L. Shen, B. Hao, X. Xu, B.Y. Gao, Y.N. Shang, K.Z. Chu, X.H. Zhang and Q.Y. Yue, “Single and binary competitive adsorption of cobalt and nickel onto novel magnetic composites derived from green macroalgae,” Environmental Engineering Science, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 188-200, 2020.
• [7] S. Hasan, A.R.M. Iasir, T.K. Ghosh, B.S. Gupta and M.A. Prelas, “Characterization and adsorption behavior of strontium from aqueous solutions onto chitosan-fuller’s earth beads,” Healthcare, vol. 7, pp. 52-70, 2019.
• [8] S. Ovhal, I.S. Butler and S. Xu, “The potential of zeolites to block the uptake of radioactive strontium-90 in organisms,” Contemporary Chemistry, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-13, 2018.
• [9] N. Manmai, Y. Unpaprom and R. Ramaraj, “Bioethanol production from sunflower stalk: Application of chemical and biological pretreatments by response surface methodology (RSM),” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s13399-020-00602-7
• [10] Y. Yang, Z. Zheng, D. Zhang and X. Zhang, “Response surface methodology directed adsorption of chlorate and chlorite onto miex resin and study of chemical properties,” Environmental Science Water Research & Technology, vol. 6, pp. 2454-2464, 2020.
• [11] J. Lin, B. Su, M. Sun, B. Chen and Z. Chen. “Biosynthesized iron oxide nanoparticles used for optimized removal of cadmium with response surface methodology,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 627, pp. 314-321, 2018.
• [12] J.C. Martínez-Patiño, B. Gullón, I. Romero, E. Ruiz, M. Brnčić, J.S. Žlabur and E. Castro, “Optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of biomass from olive trees using response surface methodology,” Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, vol. 51, pp. 487-495, 2019.
• [13] H.S. Hassan, S.H. Kenawy, G.T. El-Bassyouni, E.M.A. Hamzawy and R.S. Hassan, “Sorption behavior of cesium and europium radionuclides onto nano-sized calcium silicate,” Particulate Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 105-112, 2020.
• [14] X.H. Fang, F. Fang, C.H Lu and L. Zheng, “Removal of Cs+, Sr2+, and Co2+ ions from the mixture of organics and suspended solids aqueous solutions by zeolites,” Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 556-561, 2017.
• [15] E. Cicek, E. Aras, I. Bayrakli, B. Dede and A. Kilic, “The determination and modeling of the removal efficiencies of cobalt on zeolite 3A and 5A,” 4th International Conference on Radiation Interaction with Material and Its Use in Technologies, Kaunas, Lithuania, 2012, pp. 77-80
• [16] E. Cicek, C. Cojocaru, G. Zakrzewska-Trznadel, M. Harasimowicz and A. Miskiewicz, “Response surface methodology for the modeling of 85 Sr adsorption on zeolite 3A and pumice,” Environmental Technology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 51–59, 2012.
• [17] E. Cicek, C. Cojocaru, G. Zakrzewska-Trznadel, A. Jaworska and M. Harasimowicz, “Response surface methodology for cobalt removal from aqua solutions using Isparta pumice and zeolite 4A adsorbents,” Nukleonika, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 121-128, 2008.
• [18] C. Cojocaru and M. Macoveanu, “Modeling and optimization of diesel oil spill removal from water surface using shredded strips of polypropylene as the sorbent,” Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 145-154, 2003.
• [19] M. Khayet, C. Cojocaru and G. Zakrzewska-Trznadel, “Response surface modelling and optimization in pervaporation,” Journal of Membrane Science, vol. 321, pp. 272–283, 2008.
• [20] B. Chauhan and R. Gupta, “Application of statistical experimental design for optimization of alkaline protease production from bacillus sp. RGR-14”. Process Biochemistry, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2115–2122, 2004.
• [21] M.H. Le, S.K. Behera and H.S. Park, “Optimization of operational parameters for ethanol production from Korean food waste leachate,” International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 7, 157–164, 2010.