4.7 Article

Adsorption of pharmaceuticals onto activated carbon fiber cloths - Modeling and extrapolation of adsorption isotherms at very low concentrations

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 544-555

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.056

关键词

Extrapolation; Adsorption capacities; Trace concentrations; Activated carbon fiber cloths; Micropollutants

资金

  1. French National Research Agency [ANR-11-ECOT-0005]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-11-ECOT-0005] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activated carbon fiber cloths (ACFC) have shown promising results when applied to water treatment, especially for removing organic micropollutants such as pharmaceutical compounds. Nevertheless, further investigations are required, especially considering trace concentrations, which are found in current water treatment. Until now, most studies have been carried out at relatively high concentrations (mg L-1), since the experimental and analytical methodologies are more difficult and more expensive when dealing with lower concentrations (ng L-1). Therefore, the objective of this study was to validate an extrapolation procedure from high to low concentrations, for four compounds (Carbamazepine, Diclofenac, Caffeine and Acetaminophen). For this purpose, the reliability of the usual adsorption isotherm models, when extrapolated from high (mg L-1) to low concentrations (ng L-1), was assessed as well as the influence of numerous error functions. Some isotherm models (Freundlich, Toth) and error functions (RSS, ARE) show weaknesses to be used as an adsorption isotherms at low concentrations. However, from these results, the pairing of the Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm model with Marquardt's percent standard of deviation was evidenced as the best combination model, enabling the extrapolation of adsorption capacities by orders of magnitude. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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