ArticleJournal of occupational health2017
A new desorption method for removing organic solvents from activated carbon using surfactant.
Article in Journal of occupational health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA new desorption method was investigated, which does not require toxic organic solvents. Efficient desorption of organic solvents from activated carbon was achieved with an ananionic surfactant solution, focusing on its washing and emulsion action.
methodsIsopropyl alcohol (IPA) and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) were used as test solvents. Lauryl benzene sulfonic acid sodium salt (LAS) and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) were used as the surfactant. Activated carbon (100 mg) was placed in a vial and a predetermined amount of organic solvent was added. After leaving for about 24 h, a predetermined amount of the surfactant solution was added. After leaving for another 72 h, the vial was heated in an incubator at 60°C for a predetermined time. The organic vapor concentration was then determined with a frame ionization detector (FID)-gas chromatograph and the desorption efficiency was calculated.
resultsA high desorption efficiency was obtained with a 10% surfactant solution (LAS 8%, SDS 2%), 5 ml desorption solution, 60°C desorption temperature, and desorption time of over 24 h, and the desorption efficiency was 72% for IPA and 9% for MEK. Under identical conditions, the desorption efficiencies for another five organic solvents were investigated, which were 36%, 3%, 32%, 2%, and 3% for acetone, ethyl acetate, dichloromethane, toluene, and m-xylene, respectively.
conclusionsA combination of two anionic surfactants exhibited a relatively high desorption efficiency for IPA. For toluene, the desorption efficiency was low due to poor detergency and emulsification power.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.