4.8 Article

Influence of dissolved organic matter and activated carbon pore characteristics on organic micropollutant desorption

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 133, 期 -, 页码 123-131

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.01.015

关键词

Activated carbon; Organic micropollutants; Desorption; Adsorption; Drinking water; Dissolved organic matter

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [GRK 2032/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By simulating decreasing inflow concentrations, the extent of desorption of organic micropollutants (OMP) from three activated carbons (AC) was examined in laboratory batch tests. The tested AC showed strong differences in pore size distribution and could therefore be characterized as typical micro-, meso- and macroporous AC, respectively. Adsorption and desorption conditions were varied by using drinking water (containing dissolved organic matter (DOM)) and DOM-free pure water as background solutions to examine the influence of DOM on OMP desorption for the different AC. Under ideal conditions (adsorption and desorption in pure water) adsorption of the tested OMP was found to be highly up to completely reversible for all tested AC. Under real conditions (adsorption and desorption in drinking water) additional DOM adsorption affects desorption in different ways depending on the AC pore structure. For the micro- and mesoporous AC, an increased irreversibility of OMP adsorption was found, which shows that DOM adsorption prevents OMP desorption. This could be referred to pore blockage effects that occur during the parallel adsorption of DOM and OMP. For the macroporous AC, DOM adsorption led to an enhanced OMP desorption which could be attributed to displacement processes. These results show that smaller pores tend to be blocked by DOM which hinders OMP from desorption. The overall larger pores of the macroporous AC do not get blocked which could allow (i) OMP to desorb and (ii) DOM to enter and displace OMP. (C) 2018 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