4.7 Article

Single and competitive sorption properties and mechanism of functionalized biochar for removing sulfonamide antibiotics from water

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 311, 期 -, 页码 348-358

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.11.106

关键词

Sulfonamide antibiotics; Competitive sorption; Biochar; Functional groups: pi-pi electron

资金

  1. Blue Sky Seed Fund from the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Australia [2232137]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single and competitive sorption of ionisable sulphonamides sulfamethazine, sulfamethoxazole and sulfathiazole on functionalized biochar was highly pH dependent. The equilibrium data were well represented by both Langmuir and Freundlich models for single solutes, and by the Langmuir model for competitive solutes. Sorption capacity and distribution coefficient values decreased as sulfathiazole > sulfamethoxazole > sulfamethazine. The sorption capacity of each antibiotic in competitive mode is about three times lower than in single solute sorption. The kinetics data were best described by the pseudo second-order (PSO) model for single solutes, and by PSO and intra-particle diffusion models for competitive solutes. Adsorption mechanism was governed by pore filling through diffusion process. The findings from pH shift, FTIR spectra and Raman band shift showed that sorption of neutral sulfonamide species occurred mainly due to strong H-bonds followed by its-it electron-donor-acceptor (EDA), and by Lewis acid-base interaction. Moreover, EDA was the main mechanism for the sorption of positive sulfonamides species. The sorption of negative species was mainly regulated by proton exchange with water forming negative charge assisted H-bond (CAHB), followed by the neutralization of -OH groups by H+ released from functionalized biochar surface; in addition pi-pi electron-acceptor-acceptor (EAA) interaction played an important role. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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