4.7 Article

Obtention of biochar-Ca nanoparticles using Citrus tangerina: A morphological, surface and study remotion of Aflatoxin AFB1

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 424, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127339

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized Citrus tangerina peel to produce biochar with calcium nanoparticles for the removal of Aflatoxin B1 in water. The optimal pyrolysis time for obtaining biochar with the best surface properties and adsorption capacity was found to be 180 minutes.
This work presents the formation of biochar with calcium nanoparticles (NPsCa) in function of pyrolysis time (C10, C30, C60, C120 and C180 min) using the Citrus tangerina peel and their evaluation in the remotion of Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) in aqueous phase. Firstly, the Citrus tangerina was studied by Thermogravimetric analysis to determine the optimal temperature (TGA), obtaining a result of 600 degrees C. The biochar (NPsCa) were characterized by Scanning Electronic Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), as well as surface properties including the identification of functional groups by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR), and energetic states through the X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS). The adsorption studies were carried out on the different materials and later, the experimental data was adjusted to different mathematical models, obtaining the best fit of the kinetic data to the Ho-McKay model, whilst the adsorption isotherms were adjusted to the model of Langmuir, which indicates that the Aflatoxin B1 adsorption process is carried out through a monolayer chemisorption process with maximum sorption capacities (qm) ranging between 15.72 and 63.22 mu g g(-1)- with the 180th minute being the adequate time to obtain the carbon with the best surface properties and the best adsorption capacity. Additionally, it was observed that each material can be reused up to five times in accordance with the results from the reuse cycles.

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