4.7 Article

Removal of sulfamethoxazole and methylparaben using hydrocolloid and fiber industry wastes: Comparison with biochar and laccase-biocomposite

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 271, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122436

关键词

Biochar; Sulfamethoxazole; Methylparaben; Biosorbent; Biocomposite; Laccase

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities
  2. Xunta de Galicia
  3. ERDF [CTM2017-87326-R, ED431C 2017/47]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities [PRE2018-086993]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the application of hydrocolloid and fiber industry wastes and their transformation in biochar and biocomposite as biosorbents for emerging pollutants effective removal was carried out. Initially, the adsorption ability of six different wastes was ascertained in single and competitive removal of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) and methylparaben (MePa). Among them, fiber extraction process wastes presented the best result attaining maximum uptakes with removal levels up to 23 and 48% of MePa and SMX, respectively. The adsorption capacity was enhanced by fiber waste biochar preparation at 500 degrees C and 30 min under nitrogen atmosphere, and improved by the preparation of laccase-biocomposites, achieving maximum uptakes more than ten-fold the obtained using raw material. The simultaneous removal of the pollutants by the biocomposite followed a pseudo-second order kinetic and resulted in maximum uptakes of 24.06 and 23.15 mg/g for SMX and MePa, respectively. Finally, raw material and laccase-biocomposite behaviours were simulated by homogeneous surface diffusion model. Previously, the isotherms were studied fitting well to Freundlich model. The obtained results remarked the feasibility of laccase-biocomposite in which reactive groups incorporation on the biochar surface could be responsible for facilitating the pollutants removal from the aquatic environment. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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