4.2 Review

Activated carbon adsorption of quinolone antibiotics in water: Performance, mechanism, and modeling

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 145-152

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2016.09.010

关键词

Quinolone antibiotics; Powdered activated carbon; Adsorption; pH-dependent isotherm model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51290284, 21477059]
  2. Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program [20131089247]
  3. National Water Major Project [2015ZX07 402-002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The extensive use of antibiotics has led to their presence in the aquatic environment, and introduces potential impacts on human and ecological health. The capability of powdered activated carbon (PAC) to remove six frequently used quinolone (QN) antibiotics during water treatment was evaluated to improve drinking water safety. The kinetics of QN adsorption by PAC was best described by a pseudo second-order equation, and the adsorption capacity was well described by the Freundlich isotherm equation. Isotherms measured at different pH showed that hydrophobic interaction, electrostatic interaction, and pi-pi dispersion force were the main mechanisms for adsorption of QNs by PAC. A pH-dependent isotherm model based on the Freundlich equation was developed to predict the adsorption capacity of QNs by PAC at different pH values. This model had excellent prediction capabilities under different laboratory scenarios. Small relative standard derivations (RSDs), i.e., 0.59%-0.92% for ciprofloxacin and 0.09%-3.89% for enrofloxacin, were observed for equilibrium concentrations above the 0.3 mg/L level. The RSDs increased to 11.9% for ciprofloxacin and 32.1% for enrofloxacin at mu g/L equilibrium levels, which is still acceptable. This model could be applied to predict the adsorption of other chemicals having different ionized forms. (C) 2016 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.2
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