4.7 Article

Improving nanoplastic removal by coagulation: Impact mechanism of particle size and water chemical conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 425, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127962

关键词

Nanoplastics; Coagulation; Removal efficiency; Aluminum chlorohydrate; XDLVO

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51808284, 52170024, 21677015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that selecting appropriate pH and coagulant concentrations can improve the removal efficiency of polystyrene nanoplastic particles by polyacrylamide, and humic acid has a certain inhibitory effect on this process.
Plastic particles may bring potential threats to the ecosystem. Coagulation, as a widely used method to remove particles, has been rarely studied for plastic particles in the nanometer range. In this work, the coagulation removal of polystyrene nanoplastic particles (PSNPs, 50-1000 nm) was conducted in a model system containing coagulants aluminum chlomhydrate (PAC) and polyacrylamide (PAM). The optimal removal efficiency (98.5%) was observed in the coagulation process at pH= 8.0, 0.4 mg.L-1 PAC and 20 mg.L-1 PAM. The inhibition impact of humic acid was also noticed, due to its competitive adsorption with PSNPs onto flocs. The interaction energies between PSNPs and PAC were calculated by the extended Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (XDLVO) theory, which showed that electrical neutralization resulted in the difference of the remove efficiency in different sizes and coagulant concentrations. The formation of Al-O bond between PSNPs and PAC/PAM flocs promoted the removal of PSNPs. Excessive PAM (> 20 mg.L-1) increased clusters size and solution viscosity, which resulted in the settling of clusters being controlled by buoyancy and the reduced remove efficiency. The findings suggest that the chemical coagulation dominants the removal of NPs, and the coagulation efficiency can be optimized by choosing suitable coagulant and water chemical conditions.

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