4.4 Article

Copper and zinc adsorption from bacterial biomass-possibility of low-cost industrial wastewater treatment

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 44, 期 16, 页码 2441-2450

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2022.2031312

关键词

Adsorption isotherms; biosorption; Langmuir; Freundlich; SDGs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the use of biomass from a polluted area for the adsorption of Zn and Cu in wastewater treatment. The results showed that the biomass demonstrated high efficiency in adsorbing the metallic ions, making it a technically feasible option for industrial wastewater treatment.
The increasing interest of all stakeholders to achieve environmental protection with socioeconomic development puts pressure on industrial processes for less negative impact on the environment. The use of biomass for wastewater treatment has increased due to its low costs and technical feasibility. The present study aimed the use of biomass from a waste of known polluted area for the adsorption of Zn and Cu in a fixed-bed reactor. Samples were collected in Cubatao (Brazil) and cultivated in LB medium. Resulting cultivable bacterial communities were identified as Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Adsorption experiments were performed varying the metallic ion concentration and the amount of biomass. Adsorption experiments showed efficiency rates up to 90%. As the concentration of metallic ions increased, the adsorption efficiency decreased, indicating that the active sites were saturated. Activated charcoal demonstrated lower adsorption rates than biomass. Elution process showed that HNO3 had better efficiency than HCl. Zn adsorption fitted better for Lineweaver-Burk model (Q(max )= 200 mg/g of biomass), while Cu adsorption fitted better for Langmuir model (Q(max )= 164 mg/g of biomass). Results here demonstrated that the adsorption of Zn and Cu simulating an industrial wastewater by the biomass from a contaminated area is technically feasible.

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

4.4
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