See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326586089

EFFICIENCY OF ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION IN REMOVAL OF

SELECTED PHAMACEUTICALS FROM WATER

Thesis · January 2014

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32554.11203

CITATIONS READS

0 629

1 author:

Antoine P Trzcinski
University of Southern Queensland 
77 PUBLICATIONS   928 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Treatment of organic sludges View project

Soluble Microbial Products View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antoine P Trzcinski on 25 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EFFICIENCY OF ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORPTION IN REMOVAL OF SELECTED
PHAMACEUTICALS FROM WATER

WANG XIAOYI

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

2014/15
 EFFICIENCY OF ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORPTION IN REMOVAL OF SELECTED
PHAMACEUTICALS FROM WATER

Submitted by
Wang Xiaoyi

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

College of Engineering
Nanyang Technological University

A Final Year Project presented to the Nanyang Technological University in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Engineering

2014/15
ABSTRACT
This study presents adsorption performance for caffeine and salicylic acid using Granular
activated carbon (GAC) and various Powdered Activated Carbons (PAC) namely Hydrodarco
C, NRS EA 0.5-1.5, SAE 2 and SAE Super. It was found that for caffeine SAE Super
outperformed the rest with much higher removal efficiencies. The data were well fit to
Langmuir isotherm model. As for salicylic acid, desorption occurred when using GAC and SAE
2, resulting in a less efficient adsorption performance. Either Langmuir or Freundlich model
could be fitted. However, Freundlich gave a slightly better fit. With regard to adsorption
kinetics, it was better explained by the second-order kinetic model for all the activated carbons.
Although the activated carbons behaved somewhat differently toward the two pharmaceuticals,
SAE Super can be recommended for its better overall performance compared to the others.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express her sincere gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Tan Soon Keat for giving
his continuous support throughout the whole project. The author appreciates the many learning
opportunities provided and the invaluable experience gained in the accomplishment of this
project.

The author would like to extend her thankfulness to Ms. Zhang Dongqing and Dr. Antoine
Trzcinski for their guidance and help on preparing the resources, conducting the experiments
and analyzing the results. The experiments could not be successful without their kind advice
and selfless efforts.

Last but not least, the author is grateful for the support provided by the staffs of the AEBC
Laboratory. They displayed professionalism and always helped to ensure the availability of the
equipment required for the experiments.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) ............................................... 1
1.1.2 Activated Carbon Adsorption ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives and Scope ........................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 5
2.1 Mechanisms for PPCP Removal by Activated Carbon Adsorption ............................. 5
2.1.1 Mathematical Models applied ..................................................................................... 5
2.2 Effectiveness of Activated Carbon for PPCP Removal ................................................. 8
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY ............................................. 10
3.1 Materials .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Activated Carbons ..................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Pharmaceuticals ......................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Calibration Curve ...................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Adsorption Test ......................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................................................... 14
4.1. Caffeine ........................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Evolution with Time of Caffeine Concentration ....................................................... 14
4.1.2 Effect of Adsorbent on Removal Rate of 50 mg/L Pharmaceutical Solution............ 17
4.1.3 Langmuir and Freundlich Isotherm Model................................................................ 18
4.1.4 First- and Second-order Kinetic Model ..................................................................... 20
4.2 Salicylic Acid ................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.1 Evolution with Time of Salicylic Acid Concentration .............................................. 21
4.2.2 Effect of Adsorbent on Removal Rate of 50 mg/L Pharmaceutical Solution............ 24
4.2.3 Langmuir and Freundlich Isotherm Model................................................................ 25
4.2.4 First- and Second-order Kinetic Model ..................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 29
5.1 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Recommendations in Future Works ............................................................................. 29
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 31

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Calibration curve of caffeine .................................................................................... 12

Figure 2. Calibration curve of salicylic acid ............................................................................ 12
Figure 3. Adsorption test setup ................................................................................................ 13
Figure 4. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L GAC ...................... 14
Figure 5. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L Hydrodarco C........ 15
Figure 6. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L NRS EA 0.5-1.5 .... 15
Figure 7. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L SAE 2 .................... 16
Figure 8. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L SAE Super ............ 16
Figure 9. Evolution with time of initial caffeine concentration of 50 mg/L for the total five
activated carbons ............................................................................................................. 18
Figure 10. Langmuir isotherm model for caffeine ................................................................... 19
Figure 11. Freundlich isotherm model for caffeine.................................................................. 19
Figure 12. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L GAC ............ 21
Figure 13. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L Hydrodarco C22
Figure 14. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L NRS EA 0.5-1.5
......................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 15. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L SAE 2 .......... 23
Figure 16. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L SAE Super .. 23
s 24
Figure 17. Evolution with time of initial salicylic acid concentration of 50 mg/L for the total
five activated carbons ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 18. Langmuir isotherm model for salicylic acid ........................................................... 26
Figure 19. Freundlich isotherm model for salicylic acid ......................................................... 26

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Specifications and characteristics of activated carbons ............................................. 10
Table 2. Properties of pharmaceuticals .................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Removal efficiencies according to different initial caffeine concentrations .............. 17
Table 4. Isotherm constants of Langmuir and Freundlich models for adsorption onto the five
activated carbons ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 5. Kinetic constants for first- and second-order model for caffeine concentration of 50
mg/L ................................................................................................................................ 21
Table 6. Removal efficiencies according to different initial salicylic acid concentrations ...... 24
Table 7. Isotherm constants of Langmuir and Freundlich models for adsorption onto the five
activated carbons ............................................................................................................. 27
Table 8. Kinetic constants for first- and second-order model for salicylic acid concentration of
50 mg/L ........................................................................................................................... 27

vi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)

PPCPs in the environment have become an emerging health and environmental concern around
the world. Pharmaceuticals are basically commercial drugs and medicines made for human use
or veterinary to treat illness, diseases and medical conditions. Personal care products include a
wide variety of compounds, such as cosmetics, shampoos, sunscreens and etc. Generally, the
chemicals from those different products can function as both pharmaceuticals and personal care
products, so PPCPs are usually considered and named together. Unlike many contaminants
appearing in wastewater that are mainly from industrial plants or agribusiness, PPCPs enter the
environment not only as residues from manufacturing or hospital, but also through individual
human activity.

Although the exact effects of these chemicals on humans and the environment are not yet
known, pharmaceuticals have been detected throughout the environment where at least in some
cases, they have been shown to have a detrimental effect (Alfred et al., 2011). Because PPCPs
can be active at extremely low concentrations, they are of concern for potential ecological and
environmental impacts, and they may concentrate in the food chain and especially affect aquatic
organisms (Weil, 2009). There also exists unpredictable biochemical interactions between
different PPCPs when mixed, and the full effects of the mixtures of low concentrations of
PPCPs are also unknown.

Contemporarily, there is no drinking water standard for PPCP compounds and most drinking
water treatment plants cannot or do not treat for these compounds. The technology needed to
remove PPCPs from wastewater is lagging behind science’s ability to detect them. From recent
studies, caffeine, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, carbamazepine, diclofenac and salicylic acid
were found to be the dominant compounds in wastewater treatment plants (Kosma et al., 2014).

1.1.2 Activated Carbon Adsorption

Activated carbon adsorption is part of the wastewater treatment processes. The application of
activated carbon adsorption can be usually found in the filtration or after filtration process or
right before final disinfection. Activated carbon, when incorporated with other treatment

1
processes, can be a more effective and powerful approach for PPCP removal.

The activation process of activated carbons produces it with extensive internal porosity, which
will create large amount of surface area to which contaminants can adsorb. Nowadays, the
application of the activated carbon adsorption method is very broad, with an emphasis on the
micropollutants removal of an aqueous solution.

2
1.2 Objectives and Scope
The primary objective of this experiment is to determine the removal efficiency of
pharmaceuticals using granular and powdered activated carbons and to select the activated
carbon with the best adsorption performance for each pharmaceutical. Five activated carbons
and two pharmaceuticals, Caffeine and Salicylic Acid, were chosen. The introduction and
detailed properties of each adsorbent and pharmaceutical will be shown in Chapter 3.

This experiment is served as a fundamental research on different activated carbons’ adsorption

capability when interacting with different pharmaceuticals. The ultimate objective of this
experiment is to select the best activated carbon that may be further applied to other wastewater
treatment plants’ equipment such as a membrane bioreactor (MBR) to enhance the overall
performance of the treatment process.

Before conducting the experiment, a study of the activated carbon adsorption process will be
discussed. Furthermore, in order to analyze the performance of the absorbents in terms of the
surface adsorption mechanisms, the adsorption process and the removal efficiency, some
mathematical models are applied, including Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm models, first-

3
and second-order kinetic models. A review on these models will also be elaborated in the
following chapter.

4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Mechanisms for PPCP Removal by Activated Carbon

Adsorption
Although the technology for PPCP removal from water is not well developed, there is a growing
evidence supports the use of activated carbon for PPCP removal, according to Westerhof et al.
(2005). The adsorption process is principally about the attachment of a chemical compound
(adsorbate) onto the surface of a material (adsorbent) (Ridder,2012). This attachment can be
classified as two broad categories: chemisorption and physisorption. Chemisorption is the use of
chemical bonds to make the solute attach to the adsorbent surface, implying that it usually
involves a more specific binding mechanism. Physisorption or physical adsorption, however, is
a nonspecific looser binding of the adsorbate to the adsorbent via van der Waals type
interactions. Moreover, multilayered adsorption is possible for physical adsorption but not for
chemisorption, which forms a higher energy bond and has chemical reaction that only allows
monolayer adsorption.

As in chemisorption the contaminant is chemically bonded to the surface, the process is

generally irreversible. On the contrary, physical adsorption is usually reversible, meaning that
as the adsorption goes on the contaminant will desorb back into the solution when the
concentration in solution decreases (Lee et al., 2009). This phenomenon also attributed to an
unstable and dynamic process of the adsorption, where solute adsorbs onto and desorbs from the
activated carbon from time to time (Ridder, 2012). Therefore, there exists an equilibrium stage
where amount adsorbed equals the amount desorbed. The contaminants will partition between
the water and the activated carbon surface until they reach the equilibrium.

One activated carbon may be very effective in removing a specific compound, but if its
adsorption is highly reversible, it will cause further environmental problems (Cecen & Aktas,
2009). Nevertheless, desorption of activated carbons does not occur often in an aqueous phase
according to many studies before.

2.1.1 Mathematical Models applied

2.1.1.1 Langmuir and Freundlich Isotherm Models

The adsorption isotherm indicates how the adsorbed molecules distribute between the liquid and
the solid phase when the adsorption process reaches an equilibrium state (Nwabanne &

5
Igbokwe, 2008). The performance and the adsorption capacity of the activated carbon can then
be predicted from the equilibrium adsorption isotherm (Kumar et al., 2008). Many researchers
including Potgieter (1991) and Ochonogor et al. (2005) have suggested that adsorption isotherm
is very useful in selecting the best activated carbon for adsorption of compounds of interests.
Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm equations are widely used for modeling adsorption data
(Jeppu & Clement, 2012).

The Langmuir isotherm assumes monolayer adsorption with no transmigration of adsorbate in

the plane surface (Hameed et al., 2007). Hence, it best describes chemisorption processes.
Another two important assumptions required are: The surface of the adsorbant is in contact with
a solution containing an adsorbate which is strongly attracted to the surface; the surface has a
specific number of sites where the solute molecules can be adsorbed. The equation of the
Langmuir isotherm is

𝐾𝐿 𝐶𝑒
𝑞𝑒 =
1 + 𝑎𝐿 𝐶𝑒

where qe is the amount of solute adsorbed onto the activated carbon in equilibrium, Ce is the
solute concentration in water phase at equilibrium, KL and aLare Langmuir equilibrium constant.

This equation can be linearized by plotting Ce/qe against Ce, yielding a straight line with a slope
of aL /KL and an interception point of 1/KL. The Linearized isotherm equation is represented as

𝐶𝑒 𝑎𝐿 𝐶𝑒 1
= +
𝑞𝑒 𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝐿

The Freundlich isotherm is an alternative model to the Langmuir isotherm model. It assumes
heterogeneity of adsorption sites (Desta, 2013). It can be expressed as

𝑞𝑒 = 𝐾𝐹 𝐶𝑒 1⁄𝑛
where qe and Ce mean the same as in the equation of Langmuir model, KF represents the
quantity of adsorbate adsorbed onto activated carbon for a unit equilibrium concentration and
1/n is a Freundlich constant.

Although the constants are specific to test conditions and adsorption type, they are very useful
in the assessment of the performance of different activated carbon adsorbents (Okeola &
Odebunmi, 2010). The degree of nonlinearity between solution concentration and adsorption is
represented by the coefficient n: If n = 1, then adsorption is linear; if n < 1, then adsorption is a

6
chemical process; if n > 1, then adsorption is a physical process (Desta, 2013). The most
common situation is n >1, and the n values within the range of 1–10 represent good adsorption
(Özer & Pirinççi, 2006).

When the Freundlich equation is linearized into logarithmic form for data fitting and parameter
evaluation, the equation becomes:

1
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑞𝑒 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐾𝐹 + 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐶𝑒
𝑛

where KF and n are correspond to the adsorption capacity and adsorption intensity, respectively.

Based on the linear plot, Langmuir and Freundlich adsorption constants and correlation
coefficients R2 can be evaluated to determine the most suitable model for the activated carbon
adsorption of each selected pharmaceutical.

2.1.1.2 First- and Second-order Kinetic Models

Adsorption kinetic models correlate the adsorbate uptake rate with concentration of the
adsorbate. To observe the adsorption process over time, Nadeem et al. (2006) also indicated that
pseudo first- and second-order models are the most common models being used to explain
adsorption kinetics.

The first-order equation can be written as:

𝑑𝑞𝑡
= 𝑘𝑓 (𝑞𝑒 − 𝑞𝑡 )
𝑑𝑡

where qt (mg/g) is the amount of adsorbate absorbed at time t, qe is the adsorption capacity in
equilibrium, and kf is the rate constant for pseudo-first-order model. By integration and applying
the initial conditions qt = 0 at t = 0 and qt = qt at t = t, the following form of the equation is
obtained (Abdullah et al., 2009):

𝑘𝑓 𝑡
log(𝑞𝑒 − 𝑞𝑡 ) = 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑞𝑒 − ( )
2.303

The adsorption rate constant, kf, and equilibrium adsorption capacity, qe, of the first-order
model can be calculated from the slope and intercept of the plots of log(qe –qt ) against t.

The pseudo-second-order model can be presented in the following form:

7
 𝑑𝑞𝑡
= 𝑘𝑠 (𝑞𝑒 − 𝑞𝑡 )2
𝑑𝑡

where ks is the rate constant of pseudo-second-order model (in g/mg min). After integration of
this equation for the same boundary conditions as above, the equation becomes:

𝑡 1 1
= 2
+ ( )𝑡
𝑞𝑡 (𝑘𝑠 𝑞𝑒 ) 𝑞𝑒

The initial sorption rate, h, at t = 0 can be defined as h=ksqe2. This rate, along with the

equilibrium adsorption capacity, qe, and the second-order rate constants, ks, can be obtained
from the slope and intercept of the plots of t/qt against t.

2.2 Effectiveness of Activated Carbon for PPCP Removal

The removal efficiency is usually determined by the time the water and carbon are in contact
with each other and the adsorption capacity of the activated carbon (Lee et al., 2009). According
to Crittenden et al. (2005), the adsorption of compounds to activated carbon primarily depends
on properties of the water, the activated carbon, and the compounds. Studies also found that the
activated carbon adsorption process is effective at removing many, if not most, targeted
microconstituents (Lee et al., 2009). Additionally, Snyder et al. (2007) also stated that activated
carbons are capable of greatly reducing the concentrations of emerging contaminants.

Lee et al. (2009) indicated that the compounds which are more nonpolar, more hydrophobic,
and have lower solubility should be removed efficiently by carbon adsorption. Moreover,
compounds with lower molecular weight are more efficiently removed by activated carbon
because of increased accessibility to inner pores of the carbon. Besides, the pH of the solution
will also affects adsorption for ionic solutes. Referring to Crittenden et al. (2005), activated
carbon has a nonpolar surface at a neutral pH. Given that water is a polar liquid, nonpolar
organics are more hydrophobic and have lower aqueous solubility. As a result, neutral
hydrophobic compounds will have the strongest affinity to carbon surface, and organic
compounds that are polar, hydrophilic, or charged will not be adsorbed as strongly due to strong
water-adsorbate forces (Crittenden et al., 2005).

However, another parameter that will give obvious negative effect on the adsorption efficiency
is the natural organic matter (NOM), which is usually measured as DOC in the water. The
presence of NOM can reduce the removal efficiency of microconstituents by activated carbon
due to the competition for adsorption sites. To be more specific, the NOM can block the pores

8
within the activated carbon structure, leaving less opportunity for the microconstituents to be
adsorbed (Lee et al., 2009). Westerhoff et al. (2005) also stated that the quantity and
characteristics of DOC in the water is an important parameter that can influence the removal
efficiency for activated carbon.

This adverse impact on the effectiveness of activated carbon can be attributed to the fact that
molecules of both the solute and the solvent have the possibility to be adsorbed onto the
adsorbent and compete for the available surface area of the activated carbon (Lee et al., 2009).
Any presence of other compounds especially the NOM can significantly reduce the removal
efficiency. Therefore, adsorption studies of single solutes in distilled water provide an upper
limit to the adsorbability of a compound.

In real life situation, the concentration of absorbable natural organic matter in wastewater may
be orders of magnitude higher than the concentration of the target PPCPs. The adsorption
capacity and operating life can be dramatically reduced by competitive adsorption between
compounds. As a result, a pretreatment of the wastewater prior to the use of activated carbon
adsorption will be very advantageous. Many studies have found that combined use of activated
carbon with other wastewater treatment processes is highly effective at removing
microconstituents. For example, Verliefde et al. (2007) reported that the combination
application of membrane process with activated carbon adsorption appeared to be very
effective. He also pointed out that nanofiltration (NF) membrane and activated carbon used
together can provide a robust dual barrier for the removal of organic microconstituents, because
the NF membrane is able to effectively remove high- molecular weight polar solutes, while
activated carbon is more effective at removing non-polar solutes.

Overall, the use of activated carbon will yield significant benefits in wastewater effluent quality
(Oulton et al., 2010). Activated carbon can provide an additional barrier in a treatment
procedure that, when combined with other effective processes, should offer a multi-barrier and a
more effective approach for PPCP removal (Lee et al., 2009). Therefore, the selection of
activated carbon with the best performance is very important in the design and operational
strategies to maximize PPCP removal.

9
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Materials

3.1.1 Activated Carbons

Normally, the two main types of activated carbon used in water treatment applications are
powdered activated carbon (PAC) and granular activated carbon (GAC), and their primary
difference is their particle size. The five commercially available activated carbons used in this
study were purchased from Cabot Norit and Sigma-Aldrich. Some detailed information about
the activated carbons is listed in Table 1. To characterize PAC, iodine number, which measures
the micropore content of the activated carbon by adsorption of iodine from solution, is typically
used. An activated carbon with larger total surface area usually has a bigger iodine number.

Activated Carbon Total surface Iodine number Particle size Remarks

area (B.E.T)
(m2/g)
Granular Activated 600-800 N.R. 2.4 - 4.6 mm GAC
Charcoal

Hydrodarco C 600 550 d50=25 μm PAC

d99=150 μm

NRS EA 0.5-1.5 950 850 d98=500 μm Reactivated GAC

SAE 2 925 850 d50=22 μm PAC

d97=150 μm
SAE Super 1150 1050 d50=15 μm PAC
d97=150 μm
Table 1. Specifications and characteristics of activated carbons

deff, the effective size of activated carbon. N.R., not reported.

3.1.2 Pharmaceuticals
The pharmaceuticals selected in this experiment are caffeine and salicylic acid, which were both
purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. A summary of their properties is shown in Table 2.

10
 Pharmaceutical Formula Use Mol. Weight log Kow Solubility
(g/mol) (g/L)
Caffeine C8H10N4O2 Stimulant 194.19 -0.07 20
Salicylic Acid C7H6O3 Analgesic 138.12 2.26 2
Table 2. Properties of pharmaceuticals

The octanol water partition-coefficient (Kow) is the ratio of a chemical’s concentration in the
octanol phase to its concentration in the aqueous phase. It can be used in measuring how
hydrophilic or hydrophobic a chemical substance is. When comparing the Kow values of two
solutes, the compound with higher Kow number could be considered more hydrophobic (Mitra,
2004). The polar character of a compound can also be described by this constant, although there
is not a direct relation between Kow and the charge distribution in the molecule (Moldoveanu &
David, 2014). Frequently, molecules with low values of Kow are indicated as polar. Moreover,
caffeine is moderately soluble in water at room temperature, while salicylic acid is poorly
soluble.

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 Calibration Curve

Calibration curve, acting as a standard in determining the concentration of the chemicals, needs
to be set up before conducting the adsorption tests. A set of standards containing nine known
amounts of the compound of interest, which are 50 mg/L, 25 mg/L, 10 mg/L, 5 mg/L, 2.5 mg/L,
1 mg/L, 0.5 mg/L, 0.1 mg/L and 0.05 mg/L, were prepared. After that, a UV spectrophotometer
(Model XXX?, Shimadzu, Japan) was used to establish the relationship between the instrument
response (absorbance) and the concentration [at which wavelength?]. The amount of the
compound present in the test samples can then be estimated using this relationship. The
calibration curve for caffeine and salicylic acid are shown in Figure 1 and 2 below.

Their nearly one correlation coefficient R2 value indicates an almost perfect positive linear
relationship between the chemical concentration and the machine absorbance. It is, thus,
acceptable to be further used to determine the samples’ concentration.

11
 Caffeine Calibration Curve
1.6
1.4 R² = 0.9983
Absorbance 1.2
1
0.8
Caffeine
0.6
0.4 Linear (Caffeine)

0.2
0
0 10 20 30
Conc. (mg/L)

Figure 1. Calibration curve of caffeine

Salicylic Acid Calibration Curve

1.6
1.4 R² = 0.9996
1.2
Absorbance

1
0.8 Salicylic Acid
0.6
0.4 Linear (Salicylic
Acid)
0.2
0
0 10 20 30
Conc. (mg/L)

Figure 2. Calibration curve of salicylic acid

3.2.2 Adsorption Test

The purpose of the adsorption tests was to determine the activated carbon with the best
performance for each selected pharmaceutical. Hence, the amount of the activated carbon was
constant, with variance in pharmaceutical concentrations. First of all, pharmaceutical solutions
were prepared and diluted with deionized (DI) water into six concentrations: 50 mg/L, 40 mg/L,
25 mg/L, 10 mg/L, 5 mg/L and 1 mg/L at a constant volume of 100 ml. They were then added
into six beakers containing 10 mg of the activated carbons. A 50 mg/L pharmaceutical control
solution without adding any activated carbon was prepared in each test to make sure that the
change in pharmaceutical concentration solely attributed to the adsorbant. The adsorption tests

12
were performed with the help of a magnetic stirrer at speed of 350 rpm, ensuring adequacy
contact between the activated carbon and the solution. Due to the fact that the pharmaceutical
solution was prepared using DI water and the objective of this experiment was to test the
adsorbability of activated carbons under different pharmaceutical concentrations, the pH value

was not controlled. The experiment was conducted at room temperature around 25◦C. Figure 3
below shows the experiment setup for the adsorption test.

Figure 3. Adsorption test setup

The adsorption tests were carried out for 24 hours to ensure that the adsorption equilibrium had
been attained. Parafilm was used to cover and seal the beakers to prevent evaporation during the
experiment. Samples were collected from the beakers at 0 min, 10 min, 30 min, 45 min, 1 hour,
2 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour and 24 hour, respectively. They were then filtered through a 0.45 microns
filter using a syringe into a 2ml Eppendorf tube. The concentration of all the samples was
measured using UV spectrophotometry eventually. In order to calculate the coefficient of
variance (COV) to determine the human error range, ten identical samples were taken from the
beaker with 50 mg/L pharmaceutical concentration at 24 hour.

13
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Caffeine

4.1.1 Evolution with Time of Caffeine Concentration

The concentration change with time for the five activated carbons was observed and plotted in
Figures 4-8 below, respectively. For lower pharmaceutical concentrations especially at 1 mg/L,
some concentration values turned to be negative at 24 hour because they were near to the UV
spectrophotometry’s detection limit. Hence, they were considered as 0 when plotting the graphs.
Error bars were also added based on the COV value. However, due to the small percentage error
(all less than 1%), the error bars were not clearly appeared on each point. [don’t show horizontal
error bars, only show the vertical ones]

Granular Activated Carbon

(Caffeine)
50
45
40
35 50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

30
40 mg/L
25
25 mg/L
20
15 10 mg/L

10 5 mg/L
5 1 mg/L
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 4. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L GAC

14
 Hydrodarco C (Caffeine)
50
45
40
35
50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

30
40 mg/L
25
25 mg/L
20
10 mg/L
15
5 mg/L
10
1 mg/L
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 5. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L Hydrodarco C

NRS EA 0.5-1.5 (Caffeine)

50
45
40
35
50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

30
40 mg/L
25
25 mg/L
20
10 mg/L
15
5 mg/L
10
1 mg/L
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 6. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L NRS EA 0.5-1.5

15
 SAE 2 (Caffeine)
50

40

50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

30
40 mg/L
25 mg/L
20
10 mg/L

10 5 mg/L
1 mg/L
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 7. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L SAE 2

SAE Super (Caffeine)

50
45
40
35 50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

30
40 mg/L
25
25 mg/L
20
15 10 mg/L
10 5 mg/L
5 1 mg/L
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 8. Evolution with time of caffeine concentration using 100 mg/L SAE Super

It was observed that almost all activated carbons, except for NRS carbon, reached equilibrium
within half an hour. For NRS carbon, the caffeine concentration gradually decreased from the
beginning until 24 hour. Another observation was that SAE Super had the sharpest drop and
performed the most of its adsorption within 10 minutes. Also, it was seen that the
pharmaceutical concentration went up a bit using Hydrodarco C and SAE Super after 6 hour
and 3 hour, respectively. However, the increase was so small that it can be negligible.

16
Moreover, the concentration in the control sample remained the same at the beginning and the
end, indicating that the change in the concentration of pharmaceutical was due to the presence
of the activated carbons.

With regard to the removal efficiency at equilibrium, a summary was made in Table 3. At
concentration lower than 10 mg/L, most of the removal efficiencies were nearly 100%.
However, the values at equilibrium were so small that the UV spectrophotometer was not
efficient enough to determine the concentration. Therefore, it was more reasonable to analyze
their removal efficiency at higher concentrations. It was found that SAE Super outperformed the
others with the highest efficiency achieved in each of the concentration. It was in line with the
literature that higher removals are obtained with increasing total surface area of the activated
carbons.

Removal GAC Hydrodarco NRS EA SAE 2 SAE Super

efficiency (%) C 0.5-1.5
50 mg/L 27.5 17.0 40.5 34.0 50.4
40 mg/L 36.0 26.2 38.8 41.5 62.4
25 mg/L 61.4 35.2 56.5 70.5 88.8
10 mg/L 93.6 85.4 95.1 97.6 99.2
5 mg/L 98.6 97.6 92.5 96.2 98.4
1 mg/L 96.1 94.6 61.9 86.4 90.5
Table 3. Removal efficiencies according to different initial caffeine concentrations

4.1.2 Effect of Adsorbent on Removal Rate of 50 mg/L Pharmaceutical

Solution
By plotting the evolution with time of caffeine concentration of 50 mg/L for the five carbons in
Figure 9, it was also found that SAE Super was the activated carbon with the highest removal
and the fastest removal rate, followed by SAE 2. GAC and NRS carbon had similar amount of
removal but GAC completed the most of its removal within 10 minutes, whereas NRS carbon
had a much slower rate of removal. This phenomenon can be explained by the properties of the
activated carbons. The greater the total surface area or iodine number, the better the adsorption
efficiency.

17
 Caffeine 50 mg/L
50
45
40
35
Conc. (mg/L)

30 Granular
25 Hydrodarco C
20 NRS Carbon
15
SAE 2
10
SAE Super
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 9. Evolution with time of initial caffeine concentration of 50 mg/L for the total five activated
carbons

4.1.3 Langmuir and Freundlich Isotherm Model

Figures 10 and 11 illustrate Langmuir and Freundlich model that were used to analyze the
equilibrium adsorption onto the activated carbons. Table 4 summarizes the data of the two
models. The regression correlation coefficient R2 was used to determine the linear equation of
best fit. The results revealed that Langmuir was the best model for this adsorption of caffeine,
thus it implied a monolayer chemisorption process. The qe value indicates the maximum amount
of pharmaceutical that can be adsorbed by one gram of the activated carbon. SAE Super again
had a much larger value which was 214 mg/g. The second largest was NRS carbon with a value
of 186 mg/g. Hydrodarco C had the least adsorption of 92 mg/g.

18
 Langmuir (Caffeine)
600

500

400
Granular
Ce/qe

300 Hydrodarco
NRS
200
SAE Super

100 SAE 2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ce

Figure 10. Langmuir isotherm model for caffeine

Freundlich (Caffeine)
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5

-1 Granular
Hydrodarco
log qe

-1.5
NRS
SAE 2
-2
SAE Super
-2.5

-3
log Ce
Figure 11. Freundlich isotherm model for caffeine

19
Model GAC Hydrodarco NRS SAE 2 SAE Super
Langmuir
KL -0.772 -0.323 0.042 0.250 0.297
aL -6.396 -3.936 0.212 1.613 1.347
qe(mg/g) 145 92 186 168 214
R2 0.994 0.991 0.879 0.994 0.991
Freundlich
KF 0.060 0.048 0.044 0.062 0.079
n 3.541 4.871 2.334 3.050 2.229
R2 0.727 0.633 0.528 0.581 0.622
Table 4. Isotherm constants of Langmuir and Freundlich models for adsorption onto the five
activated carbons

4.1.4 First- and Second-order Kinetic Model

A summary of the kinetic model results for caffeine concentration of 50 mg/L is shown in Table
5. Since the R2 values were all very close to 1 in the second-order model, the adsorption kinetics
could be explained better by the second-order for all the activated carbons. The value of h [are
the units mg/g.hr? please indicate in the table] that represents the initial sorption rate
highlighted the faster adsorption of SAE Super. Moreover, qe is the adsorption capacity in
equilibrium and this confirmed with the result obtained from the Freundlich model that SAE
Super got the largest value followed by NRS carbon. [no need to show again qe in Table 5, you
already reported it in table 4. The kinetic models are used to find the kinetics, so they are not
very useful to find qe which is a thermodynamic value.]

Model GAC Hydrodarco NRS SAE 2 SAE Super

1st order
kf 0.842 0.744 0.182 0.856 6.203

R2 0.905 0.967 0.963 0.629 0.978

2nd order
h 0.417 -0.591 0.084 4.753 5.308
ks 50.003 -113.042 2.039 214.580 109.881

20
R2 0.999 0.999 0.994 1 1

Table 5. Kinetic constants for first- and second-order model for caffeine concentration of 50 mg/L

4.2 Salicylic Acid

4.2.1 Evolution with Time of Salicylic Acid Concentration

Figures 12 to 16 illustrate the change of the salicylic acid concentration with time. With the help
of the error bars, it can be determined with confidence that GAC and SAE 2 started to desorb
after 3 hours. Because the percentage error calculated using COV were all less than 1%, the
error bars were almost hidden by the points. NRS carbon again spent the most of the time to
reach the equilibrium compared to Hydrodarco C and SAE Super. This time, SAE Super still
completed its adsorption and reached equilibrium at 10 minute. [don’t show horizontal error bars,
only vertical error bars]

Granular Activated Carbon

(Salicylic Acid)
50
45 50 mg/L
40
40 mg/L
35
Conc. (mg/L)

25 mg/L
30
25 10 mg/L
20 5 mg/L
15
1 mg/L
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 12. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L GAC

21
 Hydrodarco C (Salicylic Acid)
60

50

40 50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

40 mg/L
30
25 mg/L

20 10 mg/L
5 mg/L
10 1 mg/L

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 13. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L Hydrodarco C

NRS EA 0.5-1.5 (Salicylic Acid)

45
40
35
30 50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

25 40 mg/L
20 25 mg/L
15 10 mg/L
10 5 mg/L

5 1 mg/L

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 14. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L NRS EA 0.5-1.5

22
 SAE 2 (Salicylic Acid)
50
45
40
35
50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

30
40 mg/L
25
25 mg/L
20
10 mg/L
15
5 mg/L
10
1 mg/L
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 15. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L SAE 2

SAE Super (Salicylic Acid)

45
40
35
30 50 mg/L
Conc. (mg/L)

25 40 mg/L
20 25 mg/L
15 10 mg/L
10 5 mg/L

5 1 mg/L

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 16. Evolution with time of salicylic acid concentration using 100 mg/L SAE Super

A summary of the removal efficiency is shown in Table 6. From the table, it was found that
GAC and SAE 2 had a better adsorption performance. However, they experienced desorption
after 3 hours with a desorption percentage of about 50%, meaning that they did not reach an
equilibrium and actually had a much lower removal efficiency considering the desorption. Even
though it was stated in the literature that desorption of activated carbons does not occur often in

23
an aqueous phase, if it occurred, it could affect the overall removal efficiency to some extent.
Thus, in this case, it was shown that a slightly larger surface area of an activated carbon can
result in a higher pharmaceutical removal; the removal efficiency will also depend on several
other factors; desorption can have a significant impact on the overall adsorption performance.

Removal GAC Hydrodarco NRS EA SAE 2 SAE Super

efficiency (%) C 0.5-1.5
50 mg/L 52.6 31.5 31.1 58.4 34.8
40 mg/L 56.0 31.5 47.1 66.6 42.9
25 mg/L 62.5 34.2 42.8 64.1 50.6
10 mg/L 62.9 52.6 59.4 77.8 52.8
5 mg/L 74.5 72.9 79.0 88.2 77.1
1 mg/L 73.8 98.3 42.7 78.7 69.1
Table 6. Removal efficiencies according to different initial salicylic acid concentrations

4.2.2 Effect of Adsorbent on Removal Rate of 50 mg/L Pharmaceutical

Solution
It can be easily seen in Figure 17 that although GAC and SAE 2 had a greater removal, it
released back the pharmaceutical from 3 hour on and finally got a similar concentration to NRS
Carbon and SAE Super at 24 hour. Hydrodarco C had a slightly higher initial concentration due
to the human error in preparing the stock solution, but the total amount of the removal was
almost the same as NRS Carbon and SAE Super at pharmaceutical concentration of 50 mg/L.

24
 Salicylic Acid 50 mg/L
60

50

40
Conc. (mg/L)

Granular
30 Hydrodarco C
NRS Carbon
20
SAE 2
10 SAE Super

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hr)

Figure 17. Evolution with time of initial salicylic acid concentration of 50 mg/L for the total five
activated carbons

4.2.3 Langmuir and Freundlich Isotherm Model

The equilibrium adsorption data were fitted into the two models in Figure 18 and Figure 19,
respectively, and the parameters derived from the plots are presented in Table 7. It was hard to
conclude which model was a better fit, with most of the data fitting well to the two models.
However, slightly higher values of R2 in Freundlich model compared to Langmuir indicated that
Freundlich model gave a better fit. The coefficient n that represents the degree of nonlinearity
between solution concentration and adsorption were all greater than 1 in this case, meaning that
the adsorption is a multilayer physical process. This further explained why desorption occurred
more significantly in this case. Also, this agrees with the studies in literature that the physical
adsorption is not very stable and sometimes can be reversible. It is, thus, hard to maintain at an
equilibrium stage if desorption occurs.

25
 Langmuir (Salicylic Acid)
250

200

150 Granular
Ce/qe

Hydrodarco
100 NRS
SAE 2

50 SAE Super

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ce

Figure 18. Langmuir isotherm model for salicylic acid

Freundlich (Salicylic Acid)

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

-0.5

Granular
-1
Hydrodarco
log qe

NRS
-1.5
SAE 2
SAE Super
-2

-2.5
log Ce

Figure 19. Freundlich isotherm model for salicylic acid

26
Model Granular Hydrodarco NRS SAE 2 SAE Super
Langmuir
KL 0.026 0.482 0.015 0.046 0.023
aL 0.070 3.070 0.071 0.124 0.118
qe (mg/g) 225 178 164 265 150
R2 0.913 0.922 0.900 0.877 0.933
Freundlich
KF 0.025 0.049 0.017 0.041 0.022
n 1.335 3.484 1.437 1.523 1.615
R2 0.988 0.939 0.910 0.936 0.934
Table 7. Isotherm constants of Langmuir and Freundlich models for adsorption onto the five
activated carbons

4.2.4 First- and Second-order Kinetic Model

Table 8 below summarizes the constants of the two kinetic models for salicylic acid
concentration of 50 mg/L. Obviously, the second-order described the adsorption kinetics better,
despite of a slightly lower R2 value for GAC. A significant high value of h for SAE Super
indicated a faster initial sorption rate, which could be also confirmed by comparing the figures
of the evolution with time of pharmaceutical concentration.

Model Granular Hydrodarco NRS SAE 2 SAE Super

1st order
Kf 1.581 0.324 0.255 3.741 5.445

R2 0.688 0.368 0.982 0.829 0.862

2nd order
H [units] 0.329 0.497 0.049 0.933 8.354
Ks 3.615 15.269 2.335 9.371 367.813

R2 0.863 0.999 0.999 0.939 1

Table 8. Kinetic constants for first- and second-order model for salicylic acid concentration of 50
mg/L

27
Overall, the activated carbons performed differently toward the two pharmaceuticals. This may
be probably due to the characteristics of the pharmaceuticals. According to the literatures,
compounds with lower molecular weight and lower solubility and which are more nonpolar and
more hydrophobic should be removed efficiently by carbon adsorption. The molecular weight
of caffeine and salicylic acid can be deemed as similar and salicylic acid is less soluble in water.
Also, based on the value of Kow, salicylic acid is less polar and more hydrophobic compared to
caffeine. It was observed that especially at higher pharmaceutical concentrations salicylic acid
was adsorbed more by most of the activated carbons, which in line with the literatures.
However, desorption occurred significantly for salicylic acid especially using GAC and SAE 2,
because the adsorption was a more physical process and hence not very stable. It was also found
that SAE Super seemed to be more efficient in adsorbing caffeine. Hence, there is no simple
relationship between the characteristic of pharmaceuticals such as hydrophobicity, solubility
and polarity and the adsorption affinity toward the adsorbent.

28
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions
Results from the experiment showed that activated carbons are able to greatly reduce the
pharmaceutical concentrations in water. Analysis of the five activated carbons for a specific
pharmaceutical adsorption provided evidences that the total surface area of the activated carbon
was a very essential characteristic in determining the adsorption efficiency. SAE Super was
found to be the most efficient activated carbon in removing caffeine. Salicylic acid was
removed more by GAC and SAE 2, but desorption affected their final removals dramatically,
leading to a better selection of NRS carbon and SAE Super to treat salicylic acid.

In addition, Langmuir isotherm model was the best fit for caffeine, while Freundlich model was
better for salicylic acid. This suggested that the adsorption of caffeine was a monolayer
chemisorption process and with n value greater than 1 in Freundlich model, a multilayer
physical process was indicated for the adsorption of salicylic acid. In combination with the
observation that more desorption appeared when treating salicylic acid, it is evident that the
physical adsorption process was usually unstable and reversible.

Through analysis of the adsorption kinetics, it can be concluded that for all of the activated
carbons and the pharmaceuticals the second-order kinetic model was the perfect fit.
Furthermore, SAE Super had the fastest initial sorption rate with the highest h value.

In conclusion, based on the results and analysis, SAE Super was considered as the best activated
carbon in removing caffeine and salicylic acid in water. Although no simple relationship
between the properties of the activated carbon and the pharmaceutical and the removal
efficiency can be stated in judging the best adsorbent, their properties still have important
influences on their adsorption performances. Typically, the activated carbon with larger total
surface area will perform better.

5.2 Recommendations in Future Works

This project studies the activated carbon adsorption of pharmaceuticals using DI water,
providing an upper limit to the adsorbability of a compound by eliminating the disturbance from

29
other compounds. However, in reality, the wastewater contains many different contaminants,
which will affect the activated carbons’ performance in several aspects. Because this activated
carbon adsorption method can be further applied to a membrane bioreactor (MBR) to enhance
the overall performance of the treatment process, conducting this experiment with MBR
effluent instead of DI water will be worth doing in next experiment. Specifically, it is known
that some natural organic matter (NOM) or soluble microbial products (SMP) in the effluent
may affect the activated carbon’s performance. Hence, in future work, an experiment can be
designed to determine whether there is any competition between SMP and the pharmaceuticals
as well as to analyze the adsorption efficiency with the presence of other compounds.

30
REFERENCES
Abdullah,M.A., Chiang,L., Nadeem,M. (2009). Comparative evaluation of adsorption kinetics
and isotherms of a natural product removal by Amberlite polymeric adsorbents. Chem.
Eng. J., 146(3), 370–376.

Alfred Y.C. Tonga, Barrie M. Peakeb, Rhiannon B. (2011). Disposal practices for unused
medications around the world. Environmental International, Vol. 37, Issue 1, pp. 292-
298.

Amuda, O.S. & Ibrahim A.B. (2006). Industrial waste water treatment using natural material as
adsorbent. African Journal of Biotechnology, 5(16), 483-1487.

Cecen, F., & Aktas, O. (2009). Activated Carbon for Water and Wastewater Treatment:
Integration of Adsorption and Biological Treatment. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=ubVxmXZ0j8wC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepag
e&q&f=false

Crittenden, J. C., Trussell, R. R., Hand, D. W., Howe, K. J. & Tchobanoglous, G. (2005). Water
Treatment: Principles and Design. 2 ed, 1948. 


Desta, M. B. (2013). Batch Sorption Experiments: Langmuir and Freundlich Isotherm Studies
for the Adsorption of Textile Metal Ions onto Teff Straw (Eragrostis tef) Agricultural
Waste. Journal of Thermodynamics, 2013. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/375830

Hameed B. H., Din A. T. M., & Ahmad A. L. (2007). Adsorption of methylene blue onto
bamboo-based activated carbon: kinetics and equilibrium studies. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 141(3), 819–825.

Jeppu, G. P., & Clement, T. P. (2012). A modified Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm model for
simulating pH-dependent adsorption effects. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 129, 46-
53. Retrieved from
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~clemept/publsihed_pdf/MLFisotherm_published.pdf

Kosma, C. I., Lambropoulou, D. A., & Albanis, T. A. (January, 2014). Investigation of PPCPs
in wastewater treatment plants in Greece: Occurrence, removal and environmental risk

31
 assessment. Science of The Total Environment, 466-467, 421-438. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713008127

Kumar, V.K., K. Porkodi & F. Rocha. (2008). Comparison of various error functions predicting
the optimum isotherm by linear and non-linear regression analysis for the sorption of
basic red 9 by activated carbon. Journal of Hazardous Material, 150: 158-165.

Lee, C. O., Howe, K. J., & Thomson, B. M. (2009, April 17). State of Knowledge of
Pharmaceutical, Personal Care Product, and Endocrine Disrupting Compound Removal
during Municipal Wastewater Treatment. The University of New Mexico.

Leimkuehler, E. P. (2010). Production, Characterization, and Applications of Activated Carbon

(Master's thesis, University of Missouri). Retrieved from
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/8078/research.pdf?sequenc
e=3

Mitra, S. (2004). Sample Preparation Techniques in Analytical Chemistry. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=yk1RZ9HD6hcC&printsec=frontcover&source=g
bs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Moldoveanu, S. C., & David, V. (2014). Modern Sample Preparation for Chromatography.
Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=vqHvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq
=low+kow+values+hydrophobic&source=bl&ots=HlgmB-
c9E6&sig=X_inxXMLX9qq49XkjtlTxdqDiyI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5ycKVeLVCeXFmQW
anIHICQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=low%20kow%20values%20hydrop
hobic&f=false

Motzer, W. E. (2005). Using Pharmaceuticals and Protective Care Products (PPCP) as Forensic.
Retrieved from http://www.grac.org/PPCPs.pdf

Nadeem, M., Mahmood, A., Shahid, S.A., Shah, S.S., Khalid, A.M., & McKay, G. (2006).
Sorption of lead from aqueous solution by chemically modified carbon adsorbents. J.
Hazard. Mater, 138(3), 604–613.

Okeola, F. O., & Odebunmi, E. O. (2010). Freundlich and Langmuir Isotherms Parameters for
Adsorption of Methylene Blue by Activated Carbon Derived from Agrowastes. Advances

32
 in Natural and Applied Sciences, 4(3), 281-228. Retrieved from
http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/okeolafo/FILE3%20%20LANGMUIR%20AND
%20FREUNDLICH%20CF%208A-ANAS,%20DEC%202010.pdf

Oulton, R. L., Kohn, T., & Cwiertny, D. M. (2010, November). Pharmaceuticals and personal
care products in effluent matrices: A survey of transformation and removal during
wastewater treatment and implications for wastewater management. Journal of
Environmental Monitoring, 12(11), 1929-2188.

Özer A. & Pirinççi H. B. (2006). The adsorption of Cd(II) ions on sulphuric acid-treated wheat
bran. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 137(2), 849–855.

Ridder, D. J. (2012). Adsorption of organic micropollutants onto activated carbon and zeolites .
Retrieved from
http://www.citg.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/Faculteit/CiTG/Gezondheidstechniek/doc/Proefschrif
ten/Proefschrift_David_de_Ridder.pdf

Snyder, S. A., Adham, S., & Redding, A. M. (2007). Role of membranes and activated carbon
in the removal of endocrine disruptors and pharmaceuticals. Desalination, 202(1-3), 156-
181. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916406012094

Trzcinski, A. P., Ofoegbu, N., & Stuckey, D. C. (2011). Post-treatment of the permeate of a
submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR) treating landfill leachate. Journal
of Environmental Science and Health, 46, 1539–1548.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Powdered Activated Carbon, Drinking Water
Treatability Database. Retrieved from
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tdb/pages/treatment/treatmentOverview.do?treatmentProcessId=210
9700949

Verliefde, A. R. D., Heijman, S. G. J., Cornelissen, E. R., Amy, G., Van der Bruggen, B., & van
Dijk, J. C. (2007). Influence of electrostatic interactions on the rejection with NF and
assessment of the removal efficiency during NF/GAC treatment of pharmaceutically
active compounds in surface water. Water Research, 41(15), 3227-3240. 


33
 Wang, R. Z., & Wang, Q. B. (1999). Adsorption Mechanism and Improvements of the Equation
for Adsorption Refrigeration Pairs. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY
RESEARCH, 23, 887-898.

Weil, J. (2009). PPCPs in the Environment. Retrieved from

http://www.campusecology.wsu.edu/page_055.htm

Westerhof, P., Yoon, Y., Snyder, S., & Wert, E. (2005). Environmental Science Technology, 39,
6649–6663.

Westerhoff, P., Yoon, Y., Snyder, S., & Wert, E. (2005). Fate of endocrine-disruptor,
pharmaceutical, and personal care product chemicals during simulated drinking water
treatment processes. Environmental Science and Technology, 39 (17), 6649- 6663. 


34

View publication stats