Research Data Leeds Repository

Flotation using sodium dodecyl sulphate and sodium lauroyl isethionate for rapid dewatering of Mg(OH)2 radwaste suspensions - dataset

Lockwood, Alexander P.G. and Kok Shun, Philip and Peakall, Jeffrey and Warren, Nicholas J. and Barber, Thomas and Basharat, Nabil and Randall, Geoff and Barnes, Martyn and Harbottle, David and Hunter, Timothy N. (2021) Flotation using sodium dodecyl sulphate and sodium lauroyl isethionate for rapid dewatering of Mg(OH)2 radwaste suspensions - dataset. University of Leeds. [Dataset] https://doi.org/10.5518/990

Dataset description

In this study, Mg(OH)2 suspensions were floated utilising sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) and sodium lauroyl isethionate (SLI) collectors, for rapid dewatering of radwaste suspensions. The following provides a brief description of the included data files: Figure 1, schematic of batch flotation cell used for dispersed air flotation tests. Figure 2 particle size distributions of sonicated Mg(OH)2 dispersions agitated at 900 rpm, change in the d50 particle size with time, and the change in the volume based particle size distribution with time. Figure 3, (A) Two region fitted Freundlich adsorption isotherm including both monolayer and bilayer adsorption profiles for (i) sodium dodecyl sulphate and (ii) sodium lauroyl isethionate collectors on Mg(OH)2. (B) Calculated equilibrium concentration. Figure 4, particle size distributions for Mg(OH)2 suspensions sonicated for 20 minutes, dosed with varied concentrations of SDS and SLI. Figure 5, change in foam height with superficial air velocity for (A) SDS, (B) SLI, and (C) MIBC, and the calculated retention time. Figure 6, the flotation performance with increasing collector concentration for 2.5 vol.% suspensions, as a measure of (A) mass percentage of Mg(OH)2 particles recovered, (B) mass percentage of water remaining in the cell, and (C) the residual Mg(OH)2 concentration. (D) The corresponding mass percentage of water recovered with increasing mass percentage of Mg(OH)2 particles recovered. Figure 7, the effect of collector concentration on the collection efficiency factor. Figure 8, schematic illustrating the mechanistic differences between SDS and SLI collector flotation systems. Also included are datafiles for the Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) file, Figures S1-S3 respectively.

Divisions: Faculty of Engineering > School of Chemical and Process Engineering
Faculty of Environment > School of Earth and Environment
Related resources:
LocationType
https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RA01222CPublication
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/173950/Publication
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Date deposited: 03 Sep 2021 13:33
URI: http://archive.researchdata.leeds.ac.uk/id/eprint/884

Files

Documentation

Data

Research Data Leeds Repository is powered by EPrints
Copyright © 2021 University of Leeds