4.6 Article

Preparation of magnetic mesoporous silica from rice husk for aflatoxin B1 removal: Optimum process and adsorption mechanism

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238837

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC1600904]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The liquid foodstuffs such as edible oil products remain a problem of excessive aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) content. This paper focused on the preparation of magnetic mesoporous silica (MMS) from rice husk ash for the removal of AFB1 in oil system. The MMS preparation process, adsorption conditions, structural characteristics, and adsorption mechanism were investigated. The optimum conditions for MMS preparation were pH 11.0 and 80 degrees C for 24 h. The characterization results showed that magnetic particles were successfully embedded in the MMS and had high responsiveness to a magnetic field, which was advantageous for recyclability. The MMS had ordered uniform channels with a specific surface area of 730.98 m(2)/g and pore diameter of 2.43 nm. The optimum adsorption conditions were 2 h at 20 degrees C. For AFB1 with an initial concentration of 0.2 mu g/mL, the MMS adsorption capacity was 171.98 mu g/g and the adsorption rate was 94.59%. The MMS adsorption isotherm fitted the Langmuir model well under the assumption of monolayer AFB1 adsorption with uniformly distributed adsorption sites on the MMS surface. The maximum amount of AFB1 adsorbed according to the Langmuir isotherm was 1118.69 mu g/g. A quasi-second-order kinetic model gave a better fit to the process of AFB1 adsorption on MMS. The values of Delta H(-19.17 kJ/mol) and Delta G(-34.09, -34.61, and -35.15 kJ/mol at 283, 293, and 303 K, respectively) were negative, indicating that AFB1 adsorption on MMS was a spontaneous exothermic process. The results indicated that MMS was a promising material for AFB1 removal in oil system, and this study will serve as a guide for practical MMS applications.

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