4.7 Article

Removal of Petroleum Hydrocarbons from Brackish Water by Natural and Modified Sorbents

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse10050597

关键词

oil pollution; oil spill clean-up; sorbent; sorbent modification; sorption capacity; MTMS treatment; evaporation rate; THC analysis

资金

  1. Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology [01.2.2-MITA-K-702-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the remediation efficiency of brackish water polluted with crude oil, marine diesel oil (MDO), and lubricating oil using different sorbents. The results show that the sorbents can increase the evaporation of oil and water, reduce the dissolved oil in water, and retain the absorbed proportion of lubricating oil and partially of MDO, indicating effective remediation.
Crude oil and petroleum products made from it are increasingly being extracted and consumed worldwide as an important energy source. During necessary transportation, e.g., by tanker, an oil spill might occur, which leads to water pollution by oil. One of the methods of cleaning up oil spills is to use sorbents, preferably made from natural materials. This study evaluates the remediation efficiency of brackish water polluted with crude oil, marine diesel oil (MDO) and lubricating oil. The experiment was performed with three different sorbents (straw, straw modified with methoxytrimethylsilanes (MTMS) and wood chip shavings) and without them. The evaporation loss and the dissolved and sorbed fractions of oil were measured by gas chromatography (GC) to evaluate remediation efficiency. Hydrophobization made the natural sorbents buoyant for the duration of the experiment, with only a slight increase in the maximum sorption capacity. The sorbents increased the evaporation of the oils and also of the water, reduced the proportion of the oil dissolved in water and retained the sorbed proportion for the lubricating oil and partly for the MDO, to such an extent that it could not be extracted entirely even after a 60-min extraction time.

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