4.6 Article

Development and evaluation of a low-cost ceramic filter for the removal of methyl orange, hexavalent chromium, and Escherichia coli from water

期刊

MATERIALS CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 249, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.122965

关键词

Biomass; Disinfection; Permeate; Pollution; Porous materials

资金

  1. Bindura University of Science Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lack of safe drinking water gives rise to waterborne diseases and other human health risks caused by various pollutants. Safe water provision in low-income countries is constrained by limited financial resources, and the problem is worsened during natural disasters. Thus, there is need to develop efficient low-cost technologies for point-of-use water treatment. Filtration using ceramic filters is a viable method as it uses locally available clay and biomass. The aim of this work was to develop and fabricate a laboratory-scale ceramic filter for water treatment, and to evaluate its capacity to remove Cr(VI), methyl orange (MO), and Escherichia coli 0157:H7 from water. Locally sourced clay and sawdust (SD) were used to fabricate filters with varying sawdust contents of 0, 2.5, 5, 10 and 30% (w/w). The clay-sawdust composites were fired in a muffle furnace at a heating rate of 200 degrees C/h up to 600, 750, and 900 degrees C for 3 h. Then the clay filter (CF) with the highest permeability was impregnated with silver nanoparticles (AgNP) to produce AgNP-CF. The surface charge, functional groups, surface morphology, and crystallinity of the filters were determined using the pH-drift method, Fourier transform infrared spectrometry, scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray powder diffraction, respectively. The permeability increased with biomass content and firing temperature. The AgNP-CF removed 57.3, 69.1, and 100% of Cr (VI), MO, and E. coli, respectively. Overall, the study demonstrated that AgNP-CF can potentially be used for water treatment in low-income communities.

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

4.6
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