4.6 Article

Efficacy of Different Waste and By-Products from Forest and Food Industries in the Removal/Retention of the Antibiotic Cefuroxime

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr9071151

关键词

antibiotics; eucalyptus leaves; mussel shell; pine bark; pine needles; retention/release; wood ash

资金

  1. SPANISH MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, INNOVATION AND UNIVERSITIES [RTI2018-099574-B-C21, RTI2018-099574-B-C22]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the adsorption and desorption of the antibiotic cefuroxime in four by-products/residues from the forestry and food industries. Results showed that mussel shell and wood ash are potential efficient adsorbents for environmental contamination by cefuroxime.
Environmental pollution due to antibiotics is a serious problem. In this work, the adsorption and desorption of the antibiotic cefuroxime (CFX) were studied in four by-products/residues from the forestry and food industries. For this, batch-type experiments were carried out, adding increasing concentrations of CFX (from 0 to 50 mu mol L-1) to 0.5 g of adsorbent. The materials with a pH higher than 9 (mussel shell and wood ash) were those that presented the highest adsorption percentages, from 71.2% (23.1 mu mol kg(-1)) to 98.6% (928.0 mu mol kg(-1)). For the rest of the adsorbents, the adsorption was also around 100% when the lowest concentrations of CFX were added, but the percentage dropped sharply when the highest dose of the antibiotic was incorporated. Adsorption data fitted well to the Langmuir and Freundlich models, with R-2 greater than 0.9. Regarding desorption, the materials that presented the lowest values when the highest concentration of CFX was added were wood ash (0%) and mussel shell (2.1%), while pine bark and eucalyptus leaves presented the highest desorption (26.6% and 28.6%, respectively). Therefore, wood ash and mussel shell could be considered adsorbents with a high potential to be used in problems of environmental contamination by CFX.

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