4.7 Article

Eco-Structured Adsorptive Removal of Tigecycline from Wastewater: Date Pits' Biochar versus the Magnetic Biochar

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano11010030

关键词

tigecycline; antibiotics; removal; wastewater; adsorption; date pits; magnetic biochar

资金

  1. Qatar University [QUCGCAS-19/20-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-magnetic and magnetic low-cost biochar derived from date pits were utilized for tigecycline removal from artificially contaminated water. Magnetic biochar showed higher adsorption efficiency and capacity compared to non-magnetic biochar, making it a promising material for tigecycline removal from water.
Non-magnetic and magnetic low-cost biochar (BC) from date pits (DP) were applied to remove tigecycline (TIGC) from TIGC-artificially contaminated water samples. Pristine biochar from DP (BCDP) and magnetite-decorated biochar (MBC-DP) were therefore prepared. Morphologies and surface chemistries of BCDP and MBC-DP were explored using FT-IR, Raman, SEM, EDX, TEM, and BET analyses. The obtained IR and Raman spectra confirmed the presence of magnetite on the surface of the MBC-DP. SEM results showed mesoporous surface for both adsorbents. BET analysis indicated higher amount of mesopores in MBC-DP. Box-Behnken (BB) design was utilized to optimize the treatment variables (pH, dose of the adsorbent (AD), concentration of TIGC [TIGC], and the contact time (CT)) and maximize the adsorptive power of both adsorbents. Higher % removal (%R), hitting 99.91%, was observed using MBC-DP compared to BCDP (77.31%). Maximum removal of TIGC (99.91%) was obtained using 120 mg/15 mL of MBC-DP for 10 min at pH 10. Equilibrium studies showed that Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms could best describe the adsorption of TIGC onto BCDP and MBC-DP, respectively, with a maximum adsorption capacity (q(max)) of 57.14 mg/g using MBC-DP. Kinetics investigation showed that adsorption of TIGC onto both adsorbents could be best-fitted to a pseudo-second-order (PSO) model.

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