4.7 Article

Simultaneous removal of phenanthrene and lead from artificially contaminated soils with glycine-β-cyclodextrin

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 184, 期 1-3, 页码 690-695

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.08.094

关键词

Phenanthrene; Lead; Glycine-beta-cyclodextrin; Remediation; Co-contaminated soil

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [40861017, 50968001]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi, China [2007GZH0477]
  3. Science Funds of the Education Office of Jiangxi, China [GJJ09261]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preparation of glycine-beta-cyclodextrin (GCD) was carried out by the reaction of beta-cyclodextrin with glycine in the presence of KOH and epichlorohydrin. The enhanced solubilization behavior of phenanthrene and lead carbonate by GCD was studied, and the desorption behavior of phenanthrene and lead from co-contaminated soil was also investigated. The results showed that GCD has obvious solubilization for phenanthrene and lead carbonate. The solubility of phenanthrene in 30 g/L of GCD was enhanced about 30-fold. And the apparent aqueous solubilities of lead carbonate are also obviously increased with increasing GCD concentration, when the concentration of GCD reached 20 g/L, the aqueous lead concentration was 2945 mg/L GCD could simultaneously increase the apparent aqueous solubility of phenanthrene and complex with lead. The desorption process of GCD for phenanthrene and lead from co-contaminated soil followed the pseudo-second-order kinetic model. The removal efficiencies of phenanthrene and lead in soil increased dramatically with increasing GCD concentrations. At concentration of 40 g/L, GCD has a removal efficiency of 85.8% and 78.8% for lead and phenanthrene, respectively, from the combined contaminated soil. The use of GCD as an extractant to enhance the removal of heavy and hydrophobic organic contaminants (HOCs) from co-contaminated soils appears as a promising remediation method. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据