4.7 Article

Woody residues of the grape production chain as an alternative precursor of high porous activated carbon with remarkable performance for naproxen uptake from water

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 16988-17000

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-16792-0

关键词

Activated carbon; Vitis vinifera; Adsorption; Naproxen; Mechanism

资金

  1. CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel)
  2. CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that activated carbon derived from grape branches is effective in removing naproxen and treating synthetic mixtures containing drugs and salts, with a removal efficiency of 95.63%. Furthermore, the adsorbent can be regenerated up to 7 times using an HCl solution, showcasing its sustainable reuse potential.
Activated carbon prepared from grape branches was used as a remarkable adsorbent to uptake naproxen and treat a synthetic mixture from aqueous solutions. The material presented a highly porous texture, a surface area of 938 m(2) g(-1), and certain functional groups, which were key factors to uptake naproxen from effluents. The maximum adsorption capacity predicted by the Langmuir model for naproxen was 176 mg g(-1). The thermodynamic study revealed that the adsorption process was endothermic and spontaneous. The linear driving force (LDF) model presented a good statistical adjustment to the experimental decay data. A suitable interaction pathway of naproxen adsorption onto activated carbon was proposed. The adsorbent material was highly efficient to treat a synthetic mixture containing several drugs and salts, reaching 95.63% removal. Last, it was found that the adsorbent can be regenerated up to 7 times using an HCl solution. Overall, the results proved that the activated carbon derived from grape branches could be an effective and sustainable adsorbent to treat wastewaters containing drugs.

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