Yazar "Yoshizuka K." seçeneğine göre listele
Listeleniyor 1 - 7 / 7
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
Öğe Arsenic and boron in geothermal water and their removal(CRC Press, 2010) Yoshizuka K.; Kabay N.; Bryjak M.Selecting an As treatment technology for remediation of geothermal waters depends on several key factors. Among these, speciation of As, initial As concentration, regulatory requirements and target treatment levels must be considered. Due to variations in As speciation and large differences in the chemistry and physical properties of geothermal waters, no single technology will adequately meet the needs of every project. Furthermore, successful remediation often requires a combination of two or more treatment technologies. There are several inorganic arsenite species [inorganic As(III); e.g., H3AsO3, H2AsO3 Table 8.1 lists the As content of several geothermal waters in the world. Though large variation of As content is indicated in geothermal sites, extremely high As content is detected in some hot spring areas. This is linked to the mineralogical, chemical and physical characteristics of the soils, sediments and rocks in contact with these waters. In addition, the As is significantly leached from aquifers under the extremely high temperature and pressure conditions. Depending on oxidation-reduction (redox) conditions and biological activity, groundwater and geothermal water may contain As(V) and the more toxic As(III) forms (US EPA 2002). Considering that As contamination can originate from geological materials, the remediation of these materials is usually necessary to reduce As concentrations in associated geothermal waters. In some cases, however, geothermal water contamination is so severe that affordable and effective remediation is not possible. The physical and chemical characteristics of geothermal waters will affect the selection of reliable treatment technologies to work effectively under the high temperature condition. Alaerts and Khouri (2004) identified several factors that affect the costs and feasibility of treating As in geothermal water. The lowering of As drinking water standards (maximum contaminant level, MCL) from 50 to 10 µg L-1 in many countries has resulted in increasing demands for additional removal technologies when geothermal waters are used for drinking and cooking. © 2010 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Öğe Editors’ preface(CRC Press, 2010) Kabay N.; Bundschuh J.; Hendry B.; Bryjak M.; Yoshizuka K.; Bhattacharya P.; Anaç S.[No abstract available]Öğe Effect of Operational Conditions on Separation of Lithium from Geothermal Water by ?-MnO2 Using Ion Exchange–Membrane Filtration Hybrid Process(Taylor and Francis Inc., 2018) Recepoğlu Y.K.; Kabay N.; Yoshizuka K.; Nishihama S.; Yılmaz-Ipek İ.; Arda M.; Yüksel M.A hybrid system coupling ion exchange and ultrafiltration (UF) was employed to separate lithium from lithium-spiked geothermal water. The effect of process parameters such as adsorbent type, adsorbent dosage, permeate flow rate, and replacement speeds of fresh and saturated adsorbents have been evaluated to determine the efficiency of the hybrid system. According to the results obtained using ?-MnO2 derived from spinel-type lithium manganese dioxide, the optimal operating conditions to separate lithium from geothermal water were found with powdery ?-MnO2 with an adsorbent concentration of 1.5 g adsorbent/L solution, replacement rates of fresh and saturated adsorbents of 6.0 mL/min, and a permeate flow rate of 5.0 mL/min. The ion exchange–UF hybrid system providing an advantage to work with very fine particles easily can be considered as a favorable process for the separation of lithium from geothermal water. © 2018, © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Öğe Effect of Operational Conditions on Separation of Lithium from Geothermal Water by ?-MnO2 Using Ion Exchange–Membrane Filtration Hybrid Process(Taylor and Francis Inc., 2018) Recepoğlu Y.K.; Kabay N.; Yoshizuka K.; Nishihama S.; Yılmaz-Ipek İ.; Arda M.; Yüksel M.A hybrid system coupling ion exchange and ultrafiltration (UF) was employed to separate lithium from lithium-spiked geothermal water. The effect of process parameters such as adsorbent type, adsorbent dosage, permeate flow rate, and replacement speeds of fresh and saturated adsorbents have been evaluated to determine the efficiency of the hybrid system. According to the results obtained using ?-MnO2 derived from spinel-type lithium manganese dioxide, the optimal operating conditions to separate lithium from geothermal water were found with powdery ?-MnO2 with an adsorbent concentration of 1.5 g adsorbent/L solution, replacement rates of fresh and saturated adsorbents of 6.0 mL/min, and a permeate flow rate of 5.0 mL/min. The ion exchange–UF hybrid system providing an advantage to work with very fine particles easily can be considered as a favorable process for the separation of lithium from geothermal water. © 2018, © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Öğe Equilibrium and Kinetic Studies on Lithium Adsorption from Geothermal Water by ?-MnO2(Taylor and Francis Inc., 2017) Recepoğlu Y.K.; Kabay N.; Yılmaz-Ipek İ.; Arda M.; Yoshizuka K.; Nishihama S.; Yüksel M.The adsorption equilibria of lithium from geothermal water were investigated by using both powdery and granulated forms of ?-MnO2 derived from spinel-type lithium manganese dioxide. Optimum amounts of adsorbents were 1.0 g adsorbent/L-geothermal water for powdery ?-MnO2 and 6.0 g adsorbent/L-geothermal water for granulated ?-MnO2. The adsorbents exhibited the promising adsorption capacities and their adsorption equilibria of lithium agreed well with the Langmuir adsorption isotherm model. The kinetic data of lithium adsorption have been evaluated using pseudo-first-order, pseudo-second-order kinetics models, as well as Elovich kinetic model. In addition, intra-particle diffusion model has been used for evaluating the kinetic data to evaluate the adsorption mechanism. The adsorption kinetic process was attributed to the gradual adsorption stage where intra-particle diffusion was found as the rate-controlling step. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Öğe The global arsenic problem: Challenges for safe water production(CRC Press, 2010) Kabay N.; Bundschuh J.; Hendry B.; Bryjak M.; Yoshizuka K.; Bhattacharya P.; Anaç S.A prevalent and increasingly important issue, arsenic removal continues to be one of the most important areas of water treatment. Conventional treatment plants may employ several methods for removing arsenic from water. Commonly used processes include oxidation, sedimentation, coagulation and filtration, lime treatment, adsorption onto sorptive media, ion exchange, and membrane filtration. However, in the most affected regions, large conventional treatment plants may not be appropriate and factors such as cost and acceptability as well as performance must be considered. This book, published in cooperation with leading experts in this field, provides a thorough analysis of the problems, solutions, and possible alternatives to achieve safe water production on a global scale. © 2010 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Öğe Removal of boron and arsenic from Geothermal water in Kyushu Island, Japan, by using selective ion exchange resins(2011) Koseoglu P.; Yoshizuka K.; Nishihama S.; Yuksel U.; Kabay N.Batch and column mode tests were carried out to evaluate the efficiency of boron and arsenic removal from geothermal water in Kyushu Island, Japan by an ion exchange method. The geothermal water contained 34.0 mg-B/L and 3.23 mg-As/L. The sorption tests were performed using boron selective ion exchange resins (Lewatit MK 51 and Diaion CRB 03) and arsenic selective ion exchange resins (Lewatit FO 36, ArsenXnp). The optimum concentration of resin for boron removal from geothermal water was determined as 5.0 g/L-geothermal water for both LewatitMK51 andDiaion CRB 03 resins. On the other hand, Diaion CRB 03 performed better than Lewatit MK 51 during the column-mode study. For arsenic removal, the optimum resin amount was found as 6.0 g/L-geothermal water for both Lewatit FO 36 and ArsenXnp resins. It was observed that Lewatit FO 36 was more effective than ArsenXnp for the removal of As from geothermal water. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
