4.7 Article

Utilization of green sophorolipids biosurfactant in reverse micelle extraction of antibiotics: Kinetic and mass transfer studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR LIQUIDS
卷 276, 期 -, 页码 225-232

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2018.11.138

关键词

Amoxicillin; Biosurfactant; Erythromycin; Reverse micelles; Sophorolipids

资金

  1. Research Management Center (RMC) [Q.J130000.2546.17H02]
  2. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reverse micelle extraction of erythromycin and amoxicillin were studied by using eco-friendly sophorolipids biosurfactant. Application of biosurfactant can further improve reverse micelle extraction in terms of sustainability and environmental friendliness compared to synthetic surfactants. The mass transfer behavior of the antibiotics during reverse micelle extraction was investigated. Experimental results show that the reverse micelle extraction of amoxicillin and erythromycin were completed within 200 s. The range of combined mass transfer coefficients obtained is 1.748 x 10(-8) to 1.064 x 10(-7) for reverse micelle extraction of amoxicillin and 3.395 x 10(-7) to 1.131 x 10(-6) for erythromycin. The rate limiting steps for each extraction process were identified. The overall mass transfer coefficients of backward extraction were found to be lower than that of forward extraction for both antibiotics which indicates that the forward extraction process was more efficient and faster than the backward extraction. Comparisons between erythromycin and amoxicillin showed that erythromycin has better equilibrium partitioning and larger calculated overall mass transfer coefficients compared to amoxicillin. This may be due to some differences in behaviors and characteristics of amoxicillin and erythromycin during the reverse micelle extraction process. This reverse micelle extraction method was found to be more efficient in extracting erythromycin compared to amoxicillin. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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