4.8 Article

Sorption of norfloxacin, sulfamerazine and oxytetracycline by KOH-modified biochar under single and ternary systems

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 263, 期 -, 页码 385-392

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.022

关键词

Sorption modeling; Antibiotics; Competitive sorption; Organic pollutant; Engineered biochar

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21367011, 21467008, 41763015, 21577131]
  2. Major Scientific and Technological Projects of Hainan Province, China [ZDKJ2017002]
  3. Fundamental Research Fund of for Environmental and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences [2017hzs1J023]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [2017A030311019]
  5. Special Funding for the Introduced Innovative R&D Team of Dongguan, China [2014607101003]
  6. Major Science and Technology Project in Zhejiang Province, China [2015C03019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pollution of water by single antibiotics has been investigated in depth. However, in reality, a wide range of different contaminants is often mixed in the aquatic environment (contaminant cocktail). Here, single and competitive sorption dynamics of ionizable norfloxacin (NOR), sulfamerazine (SMR) and oxytetracycline (OTC) by both pristine and modified biochars were investigated. Sorption kinetics of the three antibiotics was faster in ternary-solute than single-solute system. Sorption efficiency was enhanced in the competitive system for NOR by the pristine biochar, and for OTC by both the pristine biochar and the modified biochar, while SMR sorption by the pristine biochar and the KOH-modified biochar was inhibited. Sorption was governed by electrostatic interactions, pi-pi EDA and H-bonds for antibiotics sorption by biochar. SMR and OTC sorption by biochar was influenced by cation bridging and surface complexation, respectively. This research finding will guide the development of treatment procedures for water polluted by multiple antibiotics.

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

4.8
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