4.8 Article

Effects of Chemical, Biological, and Physical Aging As Well As Soil Addition on the Sorption of Pyrene to Activated Carbon and Biochar

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 45, 期 24, 页码 10445-10453

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es202970x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council [204112/F10]
  2. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) [9891]
  3. USDA Hatch

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the suitability of biochar and activated carbon (AC) for contaminated soil remediation is investigated by determining the sorption of pyrene to both materials in the presence and absence of soil and before as well as after aging. Biochar and AC were aged either alone or mixed with soil via exposure to (a) nutrients and microorganisms (biological), (b) 60 and 110 degrees C (chemical), and (c) freeze-thaw cycles (physical). Before and after aging, the pH, elemental composition, cation exchange capacity (CEC), microporous SA, and sorption isotherms of pyrene were quantified. Aging at 110 degrees C altered the physicochemical properties of all materials to the greatest extent (for example, pH increased by up to three units and CEC by up to 50% for biochar). Logarithmic K(Fr) values ranged from 7.80 to 8.21 (ng kg(-1)) (ng L(-1))(-nF) for AC and 5.22 to 6.21 (ng kg(-1))(ng L(-1))(-nF) for biochar after the various aging regimes. Grinding biochar to a smaller particle size did not significantly affect the sorption of d(10) pyrene, implying that sorption processes operate on the subparticle scale. Chemical aging decreased the sorption of pyrene to the greatest extent (up to 1.8 log unit for the biochar+soil). The sorption to AC was affected more by the presence of soil than the sorption to biochar was. Our results suggest that AC and biochar have a high sorption capacity for pyrene that is maintained both in the presence of soil and during harsh aging. Both materials could therefore be considered in contaminated land remediation.

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