4.8 Article

Removal of inorganic mercury from aqueous solutions by biomass of the marine macroalga Cystoseira baccata

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 14, 页码 3199-3210

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.05.041

关键词

Cystoseira baccata; mercury; adsorption; marine macroalga

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of Cystoseira baccata algal biomass to remove Hg(II) from aqueous solutions is investigated. The mercury biosorption process is studied through batch experiments at 25 degrees C with regard to the influence of contact time, initial mercury concentration, solution pH, salinity and presence of several divalent cations. The acid-base properties of the alga are also studied, since they are related to the affinity for heavy metals. The studies of the pH effect on the metal uptake evidence a sharp increasing sorption up to a pH value around 7.0, which can be ascribed to changes both in the inorganic Hg(II) speciation and in the dissociation state of the acid algal sites. The sorption isotherms at constant pH show uptake values as high as 178 mg g(-1) (at pH 4.5) and 329 mg g(-1) (at pH 6.0). The studies of the salinity influence on the Hg(II) sorption capacity of the alga exhibit two opposite effects depending on the electrolyte added; an increase in concentration of nitrate salts (NaNO3, KNO3) Slightly enhances the metal uptake, on the contrary, the addition of NaCl salt leads to a drop in the sorption. The addition of different divalent cations to the mercury solution, namely Ca2+, Mg2+, Zn2+, Cd2+, Pb2+ and Cu2+, reveals that their effect on the uptake process is negligible. Finally, the equilibrium sorption results are compared with predictions obtained from the application of a simple competitive chemical model, which involves a discrete proton binding constant and three additional constants for the binding of the main neutral inorganic Hg(II) complexes, Hg(Cl)(2), HgOHCl and Hg(OH)(2), to the algal surface sites. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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