Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 26, pp 26562–26575 | Cite as

Production, characterization, and potential of activated biochar as adsorbent for phenolic compounds from leachates in a lumber industry site

  • Flavia Lega Braghiroli
  • Hassine Bouafif
  • Nesrine Hamza
  • Carmen Mihaela Neculita
  • Ahmed Koubaa
Research Article

Abstract

There is growing interest in low-cost, efficient materials for the removal of organic contaminants in municipal and industrial effluents. In this study, the efficiency of biochar and activated biochar, as promising adsorbents for phenol removal, was investigated at high (up to 1500 mg L−1) and low concentrations (0.54 mg L−1) in synthetic and real effluents (from wood-residue deposits in Québec), respectively. The performance of both materials was then evaluated in batch adsorption experiments, which were conducted using a low solid/liquid ratio (0.1 g:100 mL) at different phenol concentrations (C0 = 5–1500 mg L−1), and at 20 °C. Activated biochars presented higher phenol adsorption capacity compared to biochars due to their improved textural properties, higher micropore volume, and proportion of oxygenated carbonyl groups connected to their surface. The sorption equilibrium was reached within less than 4 h for all of materials, while the Langmuir model best described their sorption process. The maximum sorption capacity of activated biochars for phenol was found to be twofold relative to biochars (303 vs. 159 mg g−1). Results also showed that activated biochars were more effective than biochars in removing low phenol concentrations in real effluents. In addition, 95% of phenol removal was attained within 96 h (although 85% was removed after 4 h), thus reaching below the maximum authorized concentration allowed by Québec’s discharge criteria (0.05 mg L−1). These results show that activated biochars made from wood residues are promising potential adsorbent materials for the efficient treatment of phenol in synthetic and real effluents.

Keywords

Biochar Activated biochar Adsorption Phenol removal Water treatment Synthetic and real effluents Lumber industry sites 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Miss Anne-Marie Marleau Claveau, Miss Maéva Giasson, Mr. Gilles Villeneuve, Mr. Mamadou Dia, and Mr. Nicolas Bergeron for their assistance with experiments, analysis and testing in the laboratory.

Funding information

This research was funded by the Québec’s Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation (Ministère de l’Économie, de la Science et de l’Innovation du Québec), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canada Research Chair Program, the College of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and the Technology Centre for Industrial Waste (Centre Technologique des Résidus Industriels) through its partner on this project, Airex Energy. The first author, Dr. Flavia Lega Braghiroli, also sincerely acknowledges NSERC financial support via a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship (2017–2019).

References

  1. Adamu H, Dubey P, Anderson JA (2016) Probing the role of thermally reduced graphene oxide in enhancing performance of TiO2 in photocatalytic phenol removal from aqueous environments. Chem Eng J 284:380–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aharoni C, Tompkins FC (1970) Kinetics of adsorption and desorption and the Elovich equation. Adv Catal 21:1–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-0564(08)60563-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmaruzzaman M (2008) Adsorption of phenolic compounds on low-cost adsorbents: a review. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 143:48–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2008.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ania CO, Parra JB, Pis JJ (2002) Effect of texture and surface chemistry on adsorptive capacities of activated carbons for phenolic compounds removal. Fuel Process Technol 77–78:337–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(02)00072-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker EL, Landrigan PJ, Bertozzi PE, Field PH, Basteyns BJ, Skinner HG (1978) Phenol poisoning due to contaminated drinking water. Arch Environ Health 33:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belviso C, Cavalcante F, Di Gennaro S et al (2014) Removal of Mn from aqueous solution using fly ash and its hydrothermal synthetic zeolite. J Environ Manag 137:16–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunauer S, Emmett PH, Teller E (1938) Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J Am Chem Soc 60:309–319.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01269a023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crini G, Badot P-M (2010) Sorption processes and pollution: conventional and non-conventional sorbents for pollutant removal from wastewaters. In: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, BesançonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dąbrowski A, Podkościelny P, Hubicki Z, Barczak M (2005) Adsorption of phenolic compounds by activated carbon—a critical review. Chemosphere 58:1049–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.09.067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daifullah AAM, Girgis BS (1998) Removal of some substituted phenols by activated carbon obtained from agricultural waste. Water Res 32:1169–1177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00310-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dehkhoda AM, Ellis N, Gyenge E (2016) Effect of activated biochar porous structure on the capacitive deionization of NaCl and ZnCl2 solutions. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 224:217–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.11.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubinin MM (1989) Fundamentals of the theory of adsorption in micropores of carbon adsorbents: characteristics of their adsorption properties and microporous structures. Carbon 27:457–467.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-6223(89)90078-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. El-Hendawy A-NA, Samra SE, Girgis BS (2001) Adsorption characteristics of activated carbons obtained from corncobs. Colloids Surf Physicochem Eng Asp 180:209–221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(00)00682-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ettinger M, Ruchhoft C, Lishka R (1951) Sensitive 4-aminoantipyrine method for phenolic compounds. Anal Chem 23:1783–1788.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60060a019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fierro V, Torné-Fernández V, Montané D, Celzard A (2008) Adsorption of phenol onto activated carbons having different textural and surface properties. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 111:276–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2007.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freedonia Group (2014) World Activated Carbon. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/industry-study/world-activated-carbon-3172.htm. Accessed 1 Jul 2017
  17. Freundlich HMF (1906) Over the adsorption in solution. J Phys Chem 57:385–471Google Scholar
  18. Fu D, Farag S, Chaouki J, Jessop PG (2014) Extraction of phenols from lignin microwave-pyrolysis oil using a switchable hydrophilicity solvent. Bioresour Technol 154:101–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.11.091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ganzenko O, Huguenot D, van Hullebusch ED, Esposito G, Oturan MA (2014) Electrochemical advanced oxidation and biological processes for wastewater treatment: a review of the combined approaches. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:8493–8524.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-2770-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García-Martínez J, Cazorla-Amorós D, Linares-Solano A (2000) Further evidences of the usefulness of CO2 adsorption to characterize microporous solids. Characterisation Porous Solids V 128:485–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2991(00)80054-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrido J, Linares-Solano A, Martin-Martinez JM, Molina-Sabio M, Rodriguez-Reinoso F, Torregrosa R (1987) Use of nitrogen vs. carbon dioxide in the characterization of activated carbons. Langmuir 3:76–81.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la00073a013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonzalez-Serrano E, Cordero T, Rodriguez-Mirasol J, Cotoruelo L, Rodriguez JJ (2004) Removal of water pollutants with activated carbons prepared from H3PO4 activation of lignin from kraft black liquors. Water Res 38:3043–3050.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.04.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregg SJ, Sing KSW (1991) Adsorption, surface area, and porosity. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Gümüş D, Akbal F (2016) Comparison of Fenton and electro-Fenton processes for oxidation of phenol. Process Saf Environ Prot 103:252–258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta RK, Dubey M, Kharel P, Gu Z, Fan QH (2015) Biochar activated by oxygen plasma for supercapacitors. J Power Sources 274:1300–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.10.169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hameed BH, Rahman AA (2008) Removal of phenol from aqueous solutions by adsorption onto activated carbon prepared from biomass material. J Hazard Mater 160:576–581.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Health Canada (2017) Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. Summary table. OttawaGoogle Scholar
  28. Hu Z, Srinivasan M (1999) Preparation of high-surface-area activated carbons from coconut shell. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 27:11–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1387-1811(98)00183-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ibáñez SG, Alderete LGS, Medina MI, Agostini E (2012) Phytoremediation of phenol using Vicia sativa L. plants and its antioxidative response. Environ Sci Pollut Res 19:1555–1562.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0664-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jung M-W, Ahn K-H, Lee Y, Kim KP, Rhee JS, Tae Park J, Paeng KJ (2001) Adsorption characteristics of phenol and chlorophenols on granular activated carbons (GAC). Microchem J 70:123–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0026-265X(01)00109-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilic M, Apaydin-Varol E, Pütün AE (2011) Adsorptive removal of phenol from aqueous solutions on activated carbon prepared from tobacco residues: equilibrium, kinetics and thermodynamics. J Hazard Mater 189:397–403.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.02.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim J-S (2015) Production, separation and applications of phenolic-rich bio-oil—a review. Bioresour Technol 178:90–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lagergren S (1898) About the theory of so-called adsorption of soluble substances. K Sven Vetenskapsakademiens Handl 24:1–39Google Scholar
  34. Langmuir I (1918) The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum. J Am Chem Soc 40:1361–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja02242a004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. László K, Szűcs A (2001) Surface characterization of polyethyleneterephthalate (PET) based activated carbon and the effect of pH on its adsorption capacity from aqueous phenol and 2,3,4-trichlorophenol solutions. Carbon 39:1945–1953.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6223(01)00005-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lazarević S, Janković-Častvan I, Jovanović D, Milonjić S, Janaćković D, Petrović R (2007) Adsorption of Pb2+, Cd2+ and Sr2+ ions onto natural and acid-activated sepiolites. Appl Clay Sci 37:47–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2006.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li Y, Ruan G, Jalilov AS, Tarkunde YR, Fei H, Tour JM (2016) Biochar as a renewable source for high-performance CO2 sorbent. Carbon 107:344–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2016.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lorenc-Grabowska E, Rutkowski P (2014) High basicity adsorbents from solid residue of cellulose and synthetic polymer co-pyrolysis for phenol removal: kinetics and mechanism. Appl Surf Sci 316:435–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.08.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marsh H, Rodríguez-Reinoso F (2006) Activated carbon, 1st edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  40. MDDELCC (1997) Portrait régional de l’eau: Nord-du-Québec (région administrative 10). http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/eau/regions/region10/10-nord-du-qc(suite).htm. Accessed 27 Jul 2017
  41. MDDELCC (2015a) Modèle de règlement relatif aux rejets dans les réseaux d’égout des municipalités du Québec. MDDELCC, QC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  42. MDDELCC (2015b) Lignes directrices sur l’industrie du sciage et des matériaux dérivés du bois. MDDELCC, QC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  43. Miao Q, Tang Y, Xu J, Liu X, Xiao L, Chen Q (2013) Activated carbon prepared from soybean straw for phenol adsorption. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 44:458–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2012.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mishra A, Clark JH (eds) (2013) Green materials for sustainable water remediation and treatment. Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Mohan S, Gandhimathi R (2009) Removal of heavy metal ions from municipal solid waste leachate using coal fly ash as an adsorbent. J Hazard Mater 169:351–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mohd Din AT, Hameed BH, Ahmad AL (2009) Batch adsorption of phenol onto physiochemical-activated coconut shell. J Hazard Mater 161:1522–1529.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nabais JMV, Gomes JA, Suhas, Carrott PJM, Laginhas C, Roman S (2009) Phenol removal onto novel activated carbons made from lignocellulosic precursors: influence of surface properties. J Hazard Mater 167:904–910.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.01.075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Namane A, Mekarzia A, Benrachedi K et al (2005) Determination of the adsorption capacity of activated carbon made from coffee grounds by chemical activation with ZnCl2 and H3PO4. J Hazard Mater 119:189–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nath K, Panchani S, Bhakhar MS, Chatrola S (2013) Preparation of activated carbon from dried pods of Prosopis cineraria with zinc chloride activation for the removal of phenol. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:4030–4045.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1325-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Park CM, Han J, Chu KH, al-Hamadani YAJ, Her N, Heo J, Yoon Y (2017) Influence of solution pH, ionic strength, and humic acid on cadmium adsorption onto activated biochar: experiment and modeling. J Ind Eng Chem 48:186–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2016.12.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Patterson JW (1985) Industrial wastewater treatment technology, 2nd edn. Butterworth Publishers, StonehamGoogle Scholar
  52. Ren L-F, Chen R, Zhang X, Shao J, He Y (2017) Phenol biodegradation and microbial community dynamics in extractive membrane bioreactor (EMBR) for phenol-laden saline wastewater. Bioresour Technol 244:1121–1128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rengaraj S, Moon S-H, Sivabalan R, Arabindoo B, Murugesan V (2002) Agricultural solid waste for the removal of organics: adsorption of phenol from water and wastewater by palm seed coat activated carbon. Waste Manag 22:543–548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(01)00016-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rincón-Silva NG, Moreno-Piraján JC, Giraldo LG (2015) Thermodynamic study of adsorption of phenol, 4-chlorophenol, and 4-nitrophenol on activated carbon obtained from Eucalyptus seed. J Chem 2015:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/569403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodrigues LA, da Silva MLCP, Alvarez-Mendes MO, Coutinho AR, Thim GP (2011) Phenol removal from aqueous solution by activated carbon produced from avocado kernel seeds. Chem Eng J 174:49–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.08.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shen B, Li G, Wang F, Wang Y, He C, Zhang M, Singh S (2015) Elemental mercury removal by the modified bio-char from medicinal residues. Chem Eng J 272:28–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sing KSW (1985) Reporting physisorption data for gas/solid systems with special reference to the determination of surface area and porosity (recommendations 1984). Pure Appl Chem 57:603–619.  https://doi.org/10.1351/pac198557040603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Singh KP, Malik A, Sinha S, Ojha P (2008) Liquid-phase adsorption of phenols using activated carbons derived from agricultural waste material. J Hazard Mater 150:626–641.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.05.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sun H, Feng X, Wang S, Ang HM, Tadé MO (2011) Combination of adsorption, photochemical and photocatalytic degradation of phenol solution over supported zinc oxide: effects of support and sulphate oxidant. Chem Eng J 170:270–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.03.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tan X, Liu Y, Zeng G, Wang X, Hu X, Gu Y, Yang Z (2015) Application of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 125:70–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.12.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tarazona P (1995) Solid-fluid transition and interfaces with density functional approaches. Proc 14th Eur Conf Surf Sci 331:989–994.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-6028(95)00170-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Temkin MJ, Pyzhev V (1940) Recent modifications to Langmuir isotherms. Acta Physicochim USSR:217–222Google Scholar
  63. Terzyk AP (2003) Further insights into the role of carbon surface functionalities in the mechanism of phenol adsorption. J Colloid Interface Sci 268:301–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9797(03)00690-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weber WJ, Morris JC (1963) Kinetics of adsorption on carbon from solution. J Sanit Eng Div:31–60Google Scholar
  65. Wu F-C, Tseng R-L (2006) Preparation of highly porous carbon from fir wood by KOH etching and CO2 gasification for adsorption of dyes and phenols from water. J Colloid Interface Sci 294:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2005.06.084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhang D, Huo P, Liu W (2016) Behavior of phenol adsorption on thermal modified activated carbon. Chin J Chem Eng 24:446–452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2015.11.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhu L, Yin S, Yin Q, Wang H, Wang S (2015) Biochar: a new promising catalyst support using methanation as a probe reaction. Energy Sci Eng 3:126–134.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Flavia Lega Braghiroli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hassine Bouafif
    • 2
  • Nesrine Hamza
    • 1
  • Carmen Mihaela Neculita
    • 3
  • Ahmed Koubaa
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Forest Institute (Institut de recherche sur les forêts - IRF)University of Québec in Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT)Rouyn-NorandaCanada
  2. 2.Centre Technologique des Résidus Industriels (CTRI, Technology Center for Industrial Waste)Cégep de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue (College of Abitibi-Témiscamingue)Rouyn-NorandaCanada
  3. 3.Research Institute on Mines and Environment (RIME)University of Québec in Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT)Rouyn-NorandaCanada

Personalised recommendations