Adsorptive removal of ascertained and suspected endocrine disruptors from aqueous solution using plant-derived materials
- 244 Downloads
The present study deals with the use of low-cost plant-derived materials, namely a biochar, spent coffee grounds, spent tea leaves, and a compost humic acid, for the adsorptive removal from water of two estrogens, 4-tert-octylphenol (OP) and 17-β-estradiol (E2), and two pesticides, carbaryl and fenuron, each spiked at a concentration of 1 mg L−1. Kinetics and adsorption isotherms have been performed using a batch equilibrium method to measure the sorption capacities of the adsorbents towards the four molecules. Adsorption constants were calculated using the linear, Freundlich, and Langmuir models. Kinetics data obtained evidenced a rapid adsorption of each compound onto both biochar and coffee grounds with the attainment of a steady-state equilibrium in less than 4 h. Significant differences among the adsorbents and the compounds were found regarding the model and the extent of adsorption. In general, the estrogens were adsorbed more quickly and in greater amounts than the less hydrophobic pesticides, following the order: OP > E2 > carbaryl > fenuron. The ranges of Freundlich constants obtained for OP, E2, carbaryl, and fenuron onto the sorbents were 5049–2253, 3385–206, 2491–79, and 822–24 L kg−1, respectively. The maximum values of constants were obtained for biochar, except for OP that was more adsorbed by spent coffee grounds. Adsorption kinetic data followed a pseudo-second-order model, thus indicating the occurrence of chemical interactions between the compounds and the substrates. The remarkable sorption capacities of all adsorbents towards the four molecules suggest the valuable exploitation of these materials for decontamination purposes, such as the treatment of wastewater before a feasible recycle in soil.
KeywordsBiochar Spent coffee grounds Tea leaves Humic acid Adsorption Estrogen Pesticide
This work was funded by University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy.
- Hansch C, Leo A, Hoekman D (1995) Exploring QSAR: hydrophobic, electronic, and steric constants. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
- Idowu AA, Sunday O, Olateju KS (2016) Removal of Mn(II) from aqueous solution by Irvingia gabonensis immobilized Aspergillus sp. TU-GM14: isothermal, kinetics and thermodynamic studies. J Environ Biotechnol Res 3:1–11Google Scholar
- Loffredo E, Senesi N (2006a) The role of humic substances in the fate of anthropogenic organic pollutants in soil with emphasis on endocrine disruptor compounds. In: Twardowska HE, Allen MM, Häggblom S, Stefaniak I (eds) Viable methods of soil and water pollution monitoring, protection and remediation, NATO sciences series, Vol 69. Springer, NL, pp 69–92Google Scholar
- Loffredo E, Senesi N (2006b) Fate of anthropogenic organic pollutants in soils with emphasis on adsorption/desorption processes of endocrine disruptor compounds. Pure Appl Chem 78:947–961Google Scholar
- Loffredo E, Traversa A, Gattullo CE (2012) Benefits from compost use in the preparation of growing substrates for plants in container: inhibition of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and protection of philodendron. Fresenius Environ Bullet 21:2208–2214Google Scholar
- Schnitzer M (1982) Organic matter characterization. In: Page BL et al (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 2, chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd edn agronomy monograph 9 SSSA, Madison, WI, pp 581–594Google Scholar
- Senesi N, Loffredo E (2001) Soil humic substances. In: Hofrichter M, Steinbüchel A (eds) Biopolymers Vol 1: Lignin, Humic Substances and Coal. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, pp 247–299Google Scholar
- Senesi N, Loffredo E, D’Orazio V, Brunetti G, Miano TM, La Cava P (2001) Adsorption of pesticides by humic acids from organic amendments and soils. In: Clapp CE et al (eds) Humic Substances and Chemical Contaminants. Soil Sci Soc Am, Madison, WI, USA, pp 129–153Google Scholar
- Stevenson FJ (1994) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reactions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar