4.6 Article

Study on the Application of Shell-Activated Carbon for the Adsorption of Dyes and Antibiotics

期刊

WATER
卷 14, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w14223752

关键词

shell activated carbon; methylene blue; ofloxacin; adsorption

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51508268]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province in China [BK20201362]
  3. 2018 Six Talent Peaks Project of Jiangsu Province [JNHB-038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrated that SAC has efficient adsorption capacity for methylene blue dye and ofloxacin antibiotic, with electrostatic interactions being the main adsorption mechanism. By adjusting the solution pH and removing specific ions, the removal efficiency can be enhanced. Additionally, SAC retains high adsorption capacity even after multiple regenerations, showing potential as a replacement for traditional activated carbon in removing new pollutants.
In this study, we prepared homemade fruit shell-activated carbon (SAC) with efficient adsorption of new pollutants and used it in the removal of methylene blue dye (MB) and ofloxacin antibiotic (OFL) in water. We fitted the experimental data for MB and OFL adsorption with isothermal and kinetic models and performed extensive characterization to study the properties of SAC. We also studied the effects of solution pH, dosage amount, initial concentration, and coexisting ions on the adsorption capacity. The results show that SAC has a rich pore structure, and electrostatic interactions are its main adsorption mechanism. Adjusting the solution pH by changing the SAC dosage and removing the K+, SO42-, and Cu2+ could increase the removal of MB and OFL to 99.9% and 97.6%, respectively. In addition, the adsorption capacity of SAC for MB remained at more than 50% of the initial state after three iterations of adsorption regeneration, showing a good regeneration ability. These results show the potential of SAC in replacing conventional activated carbon to remove new pollutants.

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

4.6
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