Home Journals JNMES Feasibility of the Redox Sulfur Recovery Process using Heteropoly Molybdophosphate

JOURNAL METRICS

Impact Factor (JCR) 2022: 0.9 ℹImpact Factor (JCR):

The JCR provides quantitative tools for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals. The impact factor is one of these; it is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The annual JCR impact factor is a ratio between citations and recent citable items published. Thus, the impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of current year citations to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years.

5-Year Impact Factor: 0.7 ℹ5-Year Impact Factor:

A 5-Year Impact Factor shows the long-term citation trend for a journal. This is calculated differently from the Journal Impact Factor, so it is not simply an average of the Impact Factors in the time period. The Impact Factor itself is based only on Web of Science Core Collection citation data from the last three years and thus reflects only recent impact. The Journal Impact Factor is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past two years have been cited in the Journal Citation Reports year.

CiteScore 2022: 1.9 ℹCiteScore:

CiteScore is the number of citations received by a journal in one year to documents published in the three previous years, divided by the number of documents indexed in Scopus published in those same three years.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2022: 0.21 ℹSCImago Journal Rank (SJR):

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2022: 0.296 ℹSource Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):

SNIP measures a source’s contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. It helps you make a direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. SNIP takes into account characteristics of the source's subject field, which is the set of documents citing that source.

240x200fu_ben_.jpg

123.png

Feasibility of the Redox Sulfur Recovery Process using Heteropoly Molybdophosphate

E. Fuentes-Quezada | A. K. Cuentas-Gallegos | J. G. Rivera | F. Castaneda | G. Orozco*

Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico en Electroquímica, P. Tecnológico, ZP. 76703 Pedro Escobedo, Querétaro, México

Instituto de Energías Renovables, Universidad Nacional Autónoma, de México, Priv. Xochicalco s/n, Col. Centro, Temixco 62580, Morelos, México

Corresponding Author Email:

gorozco@cideteq.mx

Received:

17 March 2016

| |

Accepted:

26 April 2016

| | Citation

v19n02a06_p085-90.pdf

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract:

The feasibility of the removal of sulfide species using acid solutions of 12-molybdophosphoric acid was studied. The key factor in this purification process is the formation of a hydrogen-bonded structure between the hydrogen sulfide species and the bridging oxygen atom of the MoO₆ octahedrons of the molybdophosphate complexes. The number of bridging oxygen atoms depends of the pH. Consequently, the efficiency of the process is also largely dependent on the pH. Most of the literature focuses on the redox potentials for the purification process. The slope of the redox pair S/H₂S and the molybdophosphate complexes is -59 pH/mV. The differences between the redox potentials do not fluctuate with the pH, which indicates that the oxidation of H₂S by molybdophosphate complexes is spontaneous in all pH intervals but does not explain why the efficiency decreases at high pH. In summary, the Keggin-type structure contributes to the efficient removal of sulfide because this structure contains the maximum number of bridging oxygen atoms. The solubility of H₂S gas is lower in acidic media. This drawback severely restricts the performance of the purification process.

Keywords:

12-Molybdophosphoric, phosphomolybdic acid, removal of sulfur compounds, hydrogen sulfide

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

3. Results

4. Conclusions

5. Acknowledgments

References

[1] Z. Mao, J. Electrochem. Soc. 138, 1299 (1991).

[2] B. Ateya, Electrochem. Commun., 4, 231 (2002).

[3] P.K. Dutta, R.A. Rozendal, Z. Yuan, K. Rabaey, J. Keller, Elec-trochem. Commun., 11, 1437 (2009).

[4] J.P. Fornés, J.M. Bisang, Electrochim. Acta, 173, 743 (2015).

[5] J.P. Fornés, G.A. González, J.M. Bisang, J. Chem. Technol Biotechnol., 91, 219 (2014).

[6] H. Huang, Y. Yu, K.H. Chung, Energy & Fuels, 23, 4420 (2009).

[7] Bakir Ogutveren Ulker, Electrochemical Processes for Gaseous Sulfur Oxides (SO and SOx) Removal, in: Gerhard Kreysa, Ken-ichiro Ota, Robert F. Savinell (Eds.), Encycl. Appl. Elec-trochem., Springer New York, 2014: pp. 543–548.

[8] G. Kelsall, Electrochemical Removal of H2S, in: G. Kreysa, K. Ota, R. Savinell (Eds.), Encycl. Appl. Electrochem. SE -103, Springer New York, 2014: pp. 593–600.

[9] M.T. Pope, A. Müller, Angew, Chem., Int. Ed. 30, 34 (1991).

[10]I.A. Weinstock, Chem. Rev. 98, 113 (1998).

[11]Y. Zhao, Q. Zhu, G. Gu, Water. Air. Soil Pollut., 102, 157 (1998).

[12]R. Wang, Sep. Purif. Technol., 31, 111 (2003).

[13]K. Kim, D. Song, J.-I. Han, Chem. Eng. J., 241, 60 (2014).

[14]N. Lange, Handbook of Chemistry. 15th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

[15]S.G. Bratsch, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 18, 1 (1989).

[16]A.J. Bard, G. Inzelt, F. Scholz, eds., in: Electrochem. Dict. SE -16, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008: pp. 535.

[17]M.M. Heravi, M. Vazin Fard, Z. Faghihi, Green Chem. Lett. Rev., 6, 282 (2013).

[18]K.M. Reddy, N. Lingaiah, P.S. Sai Prasad, I. Suryanarayana, J. Solution Chem., 35, 407 (2006).

[19]G.B. McGarvey, J.B. Moffat, J. Mol. Catal., 69, 137 (1991).

[20]L. Pettersson, I. Andersson, L.O. Oehman, Inorg. Chem., 25, 4726 (1986).

[21]D. Bajuk-Bogdanovic, I. Holclajtner-Antunovic, M. Todorovic, U. Mioc, J. Zakrzewska, J. Serbian Chem. Soc., 73, 197 (2008).

[22]C.E. Easterly, D.M. Hercules, M. Houalla, Appl. Spectrosc., 55, 1671 (2001).

[23]A. Lewera, M. Chojak, K. Miecznikowski, P.J. Kulesza, Elec-troanalysis., 17, 1471 (2005).

[24]M. Sadakane, E. Steckhan, Chem. Rev., 98, 219 (1998).

[25]B. Keita, L. Nadjo, Electrochemistry of Isopoly and Heteropoly Oxometalates, in: Encycl. Electrochem., Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2007.

[26]I.K. Song, M.A. Barteau, J. Mol. Catal. A Chem., 212, 229 (2004).

[27]L. Cheng, S. Dong, J. Electroanal. Chem., 481, 168 (2000).

[28]C. Sun, J. Zhang, Electrochim. Acta, 43, 943 (1998).

[29]H.X. Guo, Y.Q. Li, L.F. Fan, X.Q. Wu, M.D. Guo, Electro-chim. Acta, 51, 6230 (2006).

[30]W. Guo, X. Tong, S. Liu, Electrochim. Acta, 173, 540 (2015).

[31]K.H. Tytko, A bond model for polyoxometalate ions composed of MO6 octahedra (MOk polyhedra with k>4), in: A. Bard, I. Dance, P. Day, J. Ibers, T. Kunitake, T. Meyer, et al. (Eds.), Bond. Charg. Distrib. Polyoxometalates A Bond Val. Approach SE -2, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1999: pp. 67–127.

IJHT
MMEP
ACSM
EJEE
ISI
I2M
JESA
RCMA
RIA
TS
IJSDP
IJSSE
IJDNE
JNMES
IJES
EESRJ
RCES
AMA_A
AMA_B
AMA_C
AMA_D
MMC_A
MMC_B
MMC_C
MMC_D

Username
Password
Remember me

Search form

Feasibility of the Redox Sulfur Recovery Process using Heteropoly Molybdophosphate