4.6 Article

Production and Characterization of Activated Carbon from Pomegranate Peel for Pharmaceutical Waste (Paracetamol) Removal: Response Surface Methodology Application

期刊

WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION
卷 234, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s11270-023-06641-w

关键词

Pomegranate peel; Activated carbon; RSM; Adsorption; Paracetamol removal; Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized activated carbon derived from pomegranate peel to remove paracetamol. The characteristics of the activated carbon were analyzed, and the most suitable kinetic and isotherm models were determined. The study provides evidence for the effectiveness of using activated carbon as an adsorbent in paracetamol removal processes.
In this study, the goal was to utilize activated carbon (designated as PPAC) derived from pomegranate peel (PP) for the removal of paracetamol (PCM). The distinctive structure of PPAC activated with KOH at 800 C was characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), revealing a surface area of 692.07 m2/g and a pore diameter of 0.429 cm3/g. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to determine the relationship between input parameters such as PCM concentration, PPAC amount, time, pH and temperature parameters and the resulting PCM concentration output. Eight kinetic models and seven isotherm models were examined and compared. As a result, a PCM removal capacity of 214 mg/g was attained, with the most fitting kinetic model being Pseudo Second-Order (R2: 0.997) and the most suitable isotherm model being Redlich-Peterson (R2: 0.999). According to the Response Surface Methodology (RSM) results, the most effective parameters are time, PPAC amount, initial PCM concentration and pH, respectively. This investigation provides substantial evidence for the viability of utilizing PPAC as an economical and efficient adsorbent in PCM removal processes.

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