Modeling ion exchange equilibrium: Analysis of exchanger phase non-ideality
authors Aniceto, JPS; Cardoso, SP; Faria, TL; Lito, PF; Silva, CM
nationality International
journal DESALINATION
author keywords Ion exchange; Equilibrium; Activity coefficients; Mass action law; Isotherm
keywords AMBERLITE IR-120; TERNARY-SYSTEM; ACTIVITY-COEFFICIENT; AQUEOUS-SOLUTIONS; BINARY-SYSTEMS; CA2+ IONS; NA+ IONS; PREDICTION; H+; K+
abstract The accurate modeling of ion exchange under the scope of mass action law requires activity coefficients for both solution and exchanger phases. Generally, the Pitzer model is adopted for the liquid mixture due to the excellent behavior provided up to high ionic strengths (6 molal). For the sorbent, the Wilson equations are almost always chosen despite other models being available from thermodynamics. In this work the performance of the NRTL, Margules, and UNIQUAC models is compared with that achieved by Wilson, in order to evaluate their applicability in the field of ion exchange equilibrium. The analysis of the models is accomplished with experimental data collected from literature. The methods of Gaines and Thomas, and Ioannidis et al. are used in calculations, as well as the ion association effects in solution. The results point out the similar behavior provided by Wilson, NRTL, UNIQUAC, and Margules: 5.45, 6.52, 6.52, and 6.65%, respectively. Nonetheless, in the region of high concentrations, the Margules equations input an abnormal trend on the global ion exchange model. With respect to the predictive ability of the models, once more they behave similarly, with some better results accomplished with Margules. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
publisher ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
issn 0011-9164
year published 2012
volume 290
beginning page 43
ending page 53
digital object identifier (doi) 10.1016/j.desal.2012.01.001
web of science category Engineering, Chemical; Water Resources
subject category Engineering; Water Resources
unique article identifier WOS:000302453300004
  ciceco authors
  impact metrics
journal analysis (jcr 2017):
journal impact factor 6.603
5 year journal impact factor 6.255
category normalized journal impact factor percentile 96.429
dimensions (citation analysis):
altmetrics (social interaction):



 


Apoio

1suponsers_list_ciceco.jpg