4.7 Article

Adsorption of microcystin-LR on mesoporous carbons and its potential use in drinking water source

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 177, 期 -, 页码 15-23

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.150

关键词

Mesoporous carbon; Adsorption; Microcystin-LR; Pore diffusion; Water quality parameter; Drinking water source

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MEST) [NRF-2014M3C8A4034282]
  2. Eco-Innovation Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL) of the Korean Ministry of the Environment (MOE) [E416-00020-0606-0]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea - Korean Government (MSIP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microcystin-LR (MC-LR) is a common toxin derived from cyanobacterial blooms an effective, rapid and non-toxic method needs to be developed for its removal from drinking water treatment plants (DWTP). For an adsorption-based method, mesoporous carbon can be a promising supplemental adsorbent. The effect of mesoporous carbon (MCI, MC2, and MC3) properties and water quality parameters on the adsorption of MC-LR were investigated and the results were analyzed by kinetic, isotherm, thermodynamic, Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO), and intraparticle diffusion models. MC1 was the most appropriate type for the removal of MC-LR with a maximum adsorption capacity of 35,670.49 mu g/g. Adsorption of MC-LR is a spontaneous reaction dominated by van der Waals interactions. Pore sizes of 8.5 14 nm enhance the pore diffusion of MC-LR from the surface to the mesopores of MC1. The adsorption capacity was not sensitive to changes in the pH (3.2-8.0) and the existence of organic matter (2-5 mg/L). Furthermore, the final concentration of MC-LR was below the WHO guideline level after a 10-min reaction with 20 mg/L of MC1 in the Nak-Dong River, a drinking water source. The MC-LR adsorption mainly competed with humic substances (500-1000 g/mole); however, they did not have a great effect on adsorption. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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