These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparison for removing Cu2+ by micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration with SDS and SDBS].
    Author: Niu J, Zeng GM, Huang JH, Fang YY, Li X, Zhou CF, Liang ZX.
    Journal: Huan Jing Ke Xue; 2010 Dec; 31(12):2950-5. PubMed ID: 21360885.
    Abstract:
    Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration was used to remove Cu2+ (Cu2+ was fixed at 0.6 mmol/L) from simulant aqueous solutions with SDS and SDBS as anionic surfactants respectively. Compare SDS and SDBS separation through permeate flux, permeate concentration, rejection and enrichment ratio. Experimental results show that the average permeate flux with SDS is always higher than that with SDBS [the average flux with SDS is 29.92 L x (m2 x h)(-1), while that with SDBS is only 16.55 L x (m2 x h)(-1)], the permeate concentration of SDS is always lower than that with SDBS. When the permeate concentration of Cu2+ close to zero, 2 mmol/L and 6 mmol/L of SDBS and SDS are respectively required. Cu2+ rejection and enrichment ratio with SDS are always higher than those with SDBS (the average Cu2+ rejection and enrichment ratio with SDS are respectively 85.06% and 4.18, while those with SDBS are 69.05% and 4.05 respectively). Besides, the average enrichment ratio of SDS is also higher than that of SDBS (SDS is up to 3.89, while SDBS is 3.13). Therefore, SDS is more suitable than the SDBS for removal of Cu2+.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]