4.7 Article

Performance of Pristine versus Magnetized Orange Peels Biochar Adapted to Adsorptive Removal of Daunorubicin: Eco-Structuring, Kinetics and Equilibrium Studies

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano13091444

关键词

orange peels biochar; magnetic biochar; daunorubicin; Plackett-Burman design; desirability function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the efficacy of two biochar sorbents derived from orange peels for the removal of the antineoplastic drug daunorubicin from pharmaceutical wastewater. The results showed that magnetite-impregnated biochar had higher removal efficiency compared to pristine biochar.
Drugs and pharmaceuticals are an emergent class of aquatic contaminants. The existence of these pollutants in aquatic bodies is currently raising escalating concerns because of their negative impact on the ecosystem. This study investigated the efficacy of two sorbents derived from orange peels (OP) biochar (OPBC) for the removal of the antineoplastic drug daunorubicin (DNB) from pharmaceutical wastewater. The adsorbents included pristine (OPBC) and magnetite (Fe3O4)-impregnated (MAG-OPBC) biochars. Waste-derived materials offer a sustainable and cost-effective solution to wastewater bioremediation. The results showed that impregnation with Fe3O4 altered the crystallization degree and increased the surface area from 6.99 m(2)/g in OPBC to 60.76 m(2)/g in the case of MAG-OPBC. Placket-Burman Design (PBD) was employed to conduct batch adsorption experiments. The removal efficiency of MAG-OPBC (98.51%) was higher compared to OPBC (86.46%). DNB adsorption onto OPBC followed the D-R isotherm, compared to the Langmuir isotherm in the case of MAG-OPBC. The maximum adsorption capacity (q(max)) was 172.43 mg/g for MAG-OPBC and 83.75 mg/g for OPBC. The adsorption kinetics for both sorbents fitted well with the pseudo-second-order (PSO) model. The results indicate that MAG-OPBC is a promising adsorbent for treating pharmaceutical wastewater.

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