4.6 Article

Humic Acids Derived from Lignocellulosic Biomass: Characterization and Utilizing for Environmental Applications

期刊

WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION
卷 233, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s11270-022-05866-5

关键词

Lignocellulosics; Humic acid; Carbon isotope analysis; Heavy metals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this research was to evaluate waste lignocellulosic materials for the production of humic acid (HA) as an effective and low-cost adsorbent for heavy metals removal from water. The chemical structure and adsorption efficiency of humic acids obtained from different lignocellulosic sources were compared. The results showed that humic acid derived from corn straw had higher adsorption efficiency for Cu ions, while the adsorption of Ni ions was lower. This study suggests that lignocellulosic-derived humic acids can be used as efficient adsorbents for removing heavy metals from water with low concentrations of metal ions.
The goal of this research is to evaluate waste lignocellulosic materials for the production humic acid (HA) as a natural, low-cost, and effective adsorbent for heavy metals (Ni, Cr, and Cu) removal from aqueous medium. The fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, fluoresence spectroscopy, LC-ESI-TOF/MS, and stable carbon isotopes analysis were applied to compare the chemical structure of humic acids obtained from wheat straw (C3) and corn straw (C4). The adsorption efficiency of humic acids obtained from different lignocellulosic sources was investigated and compared to the commercial HA. The adsorption efficiency for Cu ions was almost 70% and the metal adsorption capacity of corn-HA is remarkably higher than commercial HA. Ni ions exhibited the lowest adsorption percentage for which the removal reached 21.0% with corn-HA. This work showed that lignocellulosic-derived humic acids are suitable adsorbent for heavy metals and can be used for cleaning of waters or other systems with low concentrations of metal ions.

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

4.6
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