4.4 Article

Efficient removal of cytotoxic drugs from wastewater by single-stage combined photocatalysis-algae treatment process

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 42, 期 20, 页码 3178-3190

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2020.1725139

关键词

Anabaena sp; flutamide; molybdenum disulphide nanosheets; optimization; sigmoid kinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluates the efficiency of a single-stage combined photocatalysis-algae treatment process in removing the anticancer drug FLU from aqueous solution. Compared to individual treatment methods, the combined system achieved a higher FLU removal efficiency in a shorter reaction time. Kinetics studies demonstrated a synergistic effect between algal treatment process and photocatalysis.
In this study, the efficiency of a single-stage combined photocatalysis-algae treatment process in the removal of the anticancer drug, flutamide (FLU), from aqueous solution has been evaluated. The removal abilities of the individual blue-green alga (Anabaena sp.), nano-sized MoS2 photocatalyst under visible light irradiation, and combined photocatalysis-algal treatment process were investigated. Using response surface optimization technique, 85.1% of the FLU removal was achieved at the optimum conditions of pH 7.0, nanophotocatalyst dose of 15.23 mg and 12.12 mL of the alga in 30 min. Compared to the individual biological and chemical treatment methods, a higher FLU removal efficiency was obtained at a shorter reaction time by using the combined treatment system. Kinetics study showed that FLU removal by the algal treatment, photocatalysis, and the combined processes followed the modified Freundlich, pseudo-first-order, and nonlinear sigmoidal kinetic models, respectively. The results indicate that a synergistic effect appears when algal treatment process and photocatalysis are performed simultaneously. The novel combined system is a low-cost and efficient microalgae-based technology for the removal of cytotoxic compounds from wastewaters.

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

4.4
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