4.8 Article

Treatment of furazolidone contaminated water using banana pseudostem biochar engineered with facile synthesized magnetic nanocomposites

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 297, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122472

关键词

Antibiotics; Adsorption; Banana pseudostem; Furazolidone; Magnetic biochar

资金

  1. Konkuk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning of South Korea [2017M3A9E4077234]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [NRF-2015M1A5A1037196, NRF-2019M3E6A1065160, NRF-2019R1F1A1058805]
  4. polar academic program (PAP) [PE18900]
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2019M3E6A1065160] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study enlightens facile synthesis and characterization of magnetic biochar derived from waste banana pseudostem biomass for the removal of nitrofuran antibiotic 'furazolidone' (FZD). Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), magnetic hysteresis, X-ray diffraction (XRD), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) revealed successful hybridization of magnetic nanocomposites with biochar (BPB600). The maximum adsorption capacity of magnetic BPB600 was 96.81% (37.86 mg g(-1)), which was significantly higher than the non-coated BPB600 (77.25%; 31.45 mg g(-1)). Adsorption kinetics data fitted well with pseudo-second order, and Elovich model demonstrating dominance of the chemisorption mechanism. Furthermore, the response surface methodology (RSM) was applied to evaluate the interactive effect of pH, temperature, and FZD concentration on adsorption. Therefore, the results of present study would provide an effective strategy to tackle antibiotic contaminants responsible for the antibiotic resistance genes or bacteria that decreases the therapeutic value of antibiotics.

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

4.8
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