Sustainable Activated Carbons from Agricultural Residues Dedicated to Antibiotic Removal by Adsorption

Development and physicochemical characterization of a new magnetic nanocomposite as an economic antibiotic remover

“…According to TC speciation, the adsorbed form is the zwitterions form of the TC (TCH 2 ) which is also the main TC form found in natural waters. Similar result was found for TC adsorption onto activated carbons prepared from beet pulp and peanut hull (Torres-Perez et al, 2012). With the increasing of pH, TC changes from cation in strongly acidic solutions to anionic under alkaline conditions, at the same time, the surface functional groups of activated carbon dissociate, resulting an increase in the negative charge density on the surface.…”

Adsorptive removal of antibiotics from water and wastewater: Progress and challenges

“…In another study over 90% adsorption removal efficiency (Table 2) for trimethoprim, sulphonamides (sulfachloropyridazine, sulfadimethoxine, sulfamerazine, sulfamethazine and sulfathiazole), carbadox and tetracycline was achieved using PAC as adsorbent (Adams et al, 2002;Pouretedal and Sadegh, 2014;Torres-Pérez et al, 2012).…”

“…However, the main drawbacks of ACs are their high production cost and high regeneration costs (Aksu and Tunç, 2005), and the adsorption of antibiotics on their surface is significantly influenced by their characteristics such as surface physical morphology and functionality (Foo and Hameed, 2012). Recent studies on using ACs for antibiotic removal have shown that ACs or modified ACs have potential applications for significant remediation of various antibiotics from wastewater, with an efficiency varying from 74% to 100% (Torres-Pérez et al, 2012;Pouretedal and Sadegh, 2014). During batch adsorption of nitroimidazoles on AC, it was found that the pH of the medium and the electrolyte concentration did not influence the adsorption process (Rivera-Utrilla et al, 2009).…”

Treatment technologies for emerging contaminants in water: A review

“…Tetracycline was removed from water using AC from four different sources, namely, sugar beet pulp, peanut hulls, coconut shell and wood activated with phosphoric acid. High tetracycline removal (>90%) were found for the former two while the AC from activated wood was able to remove 75% and, coconut shell only produced 30% removal [64]. The reason for the differences among the types of sources is attributed to the carbon structure of the raw material, with compacted fibers in coconut shell producing smaller pore sizes and the absence of additional activation prevents the generation of new pores and/or unclogging and widening of existing pores [51,53].…”