4.7 Article

How heavy metals impact on flocculation of combined pollution of heavy metals-antibiotics: A comparative study

期刊

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 398-406

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2015.06.018

关键词

Flocculation; Heavy metals; Antibiotics; Coordination; Combined pollution

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [51278253]
  2. Project for Comprehensive Management of Tai Lake Water Environment in Jiangsu Province [TH2014206]
  3. Priming Scientific Research Foundation for Advanced Talents in Nanjing Normal University [2014103XG Q0196]
  4. priority academic program development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous research found that certain types of heavy metals could play a bridge role in promoting removal of antibiotics in flocculation, but details (i.e. under what conditions and how heavy metals wielded this effect) were not clear. To investigate this point, two sorts of combined pollution [Cu(II)-tetracycline and Zn(II)-sulfadiazine] were selected in synthetic wastewaters for flocculation, to give a comparative study. A flocculant with high capacity to coordinate with heavy metals was applied. The flocculation performance declared that, Cu(II) improved removal of coexisted antibiotic molecules whereas Zn(II) did not. Analyses of macro- and micro-scopic properties of flocs demonstrated that, (i) tightly binding of the flocculant with heavy metals, and (ii) strong coordination of heavy metals-antibiotics when the two contaminants were suitably matched according to Hard-Soft-Acid-Base theory and steric effect, were two factors for heavy metals to perform the bridge role, and to achieve high co-removal efficiencies of both contaminants. The finding had operational significance for both promoted removal of antibiotics with the coexistence of heavy metals and mutual promotion in the removal of the combined contaminants from water. (C) 2015 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