Startseite Naturwissenschaften pH dependence of glyphosate adsorption from aqueous solution using a cationic cellulose microfibers (cCMF) biosorbent
Artikel Öffentlich zugänglich

pH dependence of glyphosate adsorption from aqueous solution using a cationic cellulose microfibers (cCMF) biosorbent

  • Maria Vitória Guimarães Leal , Andressa Silva Gomes , Gabrieli Roefero Tolosa , Guilherme Dognani EMAIL logo und Aldo Eloizo Job
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 27. Juni 2023

Abstract

Currently, the agricultural sector is responsible for the contamination of groundwater and springs due to the excessive use of pesticides, which represents a risk to human and environmental health. Among pesticides, glyphosate is the most used herbicide to increase agricultural production, however, it can cause intoxication in humans and has been classified as a potentially carcinogenic agent. Alternatives for removing these contaminants from water have been studied and discussed, including biosorption, a physical-chemical process that removes substances from solutions using a natural and renewable material. In this sense, this work studied the process to obtain cationic cellulose microfibers (cCMF) from sugarcane bagasse residue, by cellulose isolation followed by cationization reaction with Girard T reagent to promote a new adsorbent for glyphosate removal from water. It was observed that cCMF structure maintains the fibrillar morphology after the microfiber production (1.375 mmol g−1 oxidation degree). Results of zero charge of cCMF microfibers showed an isoelectric point pH = 5.4 ± 0.016 and the highest adsorption capacity was reached at pH 14 (59.21 %), showing a clear pH dependence on the adsorption process. Thereby, the cCMF can be produced from sugarcane bagasse residue being applied as a potential biomaterial for removing organic compounds from water.

Introduction

The world demand for food has been growing as the population increases, according to the United Nations (UN) in 2050 the population will be greater than 9 billion people [1]. In recent decades, Brazil has been seen as a country of constant prominence in agricultural production, exporting a wide variety of grains to many countries around the world [2]. In order to maintain these levels of production, it is necessary to apply several alternatives for agricultural management, which includes the use of various agricultural inputs, such as different types of fertilizers and pesticides [2].

The indiscriminate use of these products can generate numerous problems, including contamination of water, soil, and atmosphere, generating toxic effects that harm living organisms and their ecosystems [3]. However, the use of pesticides is still important for world agricultural production. One of the most commonly used pesticides to increase agricultural production is the herbicide glyphosate [4].

Glyphosate, or N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, is a broad-spectrum, non-selective systemic herbicide that suppresses or eliminates many types of weeds [4, 5]. It was created in 1950 and it is widely used nowadays, being the herbicide with the highest volume of production worldwide [6, 7]. Although, glyphosate has great potential to contaminate water bodies, acting not only at the planting level but also preventing enzymatic functions of animals that come in contact with the effluent, in addition to causing direct or indirect harm to humans, increasing the risks of allergic reactions, as well as heart and respiratory problems [8, 9].

Water pollution by the excess of this herbicide has become a constant concern in recent years. In this context, there is a demand to create new alternative methods to remove glyphosate from wastewater [10]. Several procedures can be used to remove pesticides from water, such as advanced oxidation processes [11, 12], photocatalytic degradation [13, 14], and ozonation [15], however, through the advancement of technology, biosorbents have gained notoriety as an effective and low-cost method [16, 17].

Biosorption is a physicochemical process for removing substances via adsorption from aqueous solutions or air by natural and renewable materials [18]. Among the most common sources for obtaining biosorbents, there is cellulose, present in all plant species. Thus, the use of agricultural residues, such as green coconut husk [19], orange peel [20], grape pomace [21], and pineapple peel [22] are a promising alternative for the removal of a huge variety of contaminants from water.

In order to reach higher efficiency in the adsorption capacity of contaminating agents, cellulose-based adsorbents have been modified by different methods and/or functionalization of fibers such as carboxylation [23], acetylation [24], mediated oxidation by TEMPO [25], cationization [26] and others. Notable works based on cationic cellulose applied to nitrates [27], fluoride, sulphate, and phosphate [28] adsorption are found with high performance.

Therefore, this work proposes to study the removal of the herbicide glyphosate from an aqueous medium using functionalized cellulose microfibers with cationic properties (cCMF), at different pH values. In addition, this work aims to contribute to the class of lignocellulosic materials applied in adsorption processes, showing the possibility of using an agroindustrial residue applied in water treatments.

Experimental

Materials

Sugarcane bagasse was obtained from Usina Alto Alegre S/A (Santo Inácio, Paraná-Brazil). For the delignification process, the NaOH (97 %) was acquired from Synth®. For the bleaching process, the NaClO2 (80 %) was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich. The oxidation process was carried out with NaIO4 (99.9 %) from Dinâmica and the cationization process with Girard T reagent ([(CH3)3N+CH2CONHNH2]Cl], 99 %) from Sigma-Aldrich. The adsorption test was performed with commercial glyphosate from Bayer company, sodium molybdate (Na2MoO4·2H2O, 99.5 %), and ninhydrin (C9H6O4, 99 %) both from Dinâmica. All the solutions were prepared using ultrapure water with 18.2 MΩ from a Milli-Q system.

Synthesis of cationic cellulose microfibers (cCMF)

Initially, the bagasse was delignified for 24 h in 1.0 mol L−1 NaOH aqueous solution and constant stirring. The fibers were washed until pH 8. Then, were soaked in a 1.8 % (m/v) NaClO2 aqueous solution at 70 °C and pH 4 (adjusted with glacial acetic acid), for 2 h promoting the bleaching and isolating the cellulose structure. The dialdehyde cellulose was obtained by cellulose oxidation, using NaIO4 at 55 °C for 24 h, in constant stirring and light protection. After the reaction, the material was placed in dialysis membranes (Spectra/Por®, MWCO: 6–8 kD) for its purification, until the water conductivity reached 5 μS. Finally, to obtain the cCMF, the fibers were cationized by Girard T reagent (3× molar ratio). The fibers were kept in constant stirring for 72 h at room temperature. Finally, the material was dialyzed again to purify the fibers until 5 μS.

Characterization of the microfibers

The images were obtained by a Nova inverted optical microscope (OM), model XDS-100 and, by a Carls Zeiss, model EVO LS15 scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). The samples were prepared by dropping the cellulose suspension (0.1 %) on conductive carbon tape and dried at room temperature. The degree of oxidation of dialdehyde cellulose (DAC) fibers was obtained by titration, previously reported in Veelaert et al. [29]. In this sense, a suspension of 0.1 g of DAC (dry weight) was added in a 0.25 M solution of hydroxylamine hydrochloride at pH 4.5 under stirring for 24 h. A NaOH solution at 0.05 M was used for titration until the pH returned to 4.5. Reaction yields were calculated based on the initial mass. In order to understand the pH effect on cCMF, the point of zero charge (pHPZC) for microfibers was defined using the 11 Point Method [30]. Briefly, 0.1 mol L−1 sodium chloride solutions under different initial pH values (from 2 to 12) were prepared, then 7.5 mg of cellulose microfibers were added and taken to an orbital shaking table for 24 h. The solutions were centrifuged and the final pH values were determined. The procedure was performed in triplicate. To FTIR, a Perkin Elmer, Frontier model, equipped with a diamond crystal ATR module was used. Measurements were made in the range from 500 to 4000 cm−1 with a resolution of 2 cm−1 and 120 scans.

Adsorption test

Stock solution of glyphosate (100.0 mg L−1) was prepared. For the tests, solutions of 50.0 mg L−1 were prepared and their pH was adjusted to 2, 6, 10, and 14, using solutions of 0.5 and 1.0 mol L−1 of HCl and NaOH assisted by a pHmeter. Then, 7.5 mg of microfibers (dry weight) were added. The solutions containing the microfibers were shaken for 24 h on an orbital shaking table. After that, an aliquot of 0.75 mL of each solution was added to 0.75 mL of ninhydrin solution (5 % m/v) and 0.75 mL of sodium molybdate solution (5 % m/v). Following the procedure described in the literature [31], the solutions were heated in a bath for 12 min and cooled at room temperature. The samples were analyzed in triplicate by a spectrophotometer Shimadzu, UV1800 model.

The removal efficiency was calculated according to the relationship between the final concentration and the initial concentration of glyphosate in each sample, according to Equation (1) and the adsorption capacity as a function of pH was calculated following Equation (2):

(1) E R ( % ) = [ ( C 0 C e ) / C 0 ] × 100

(2) q e = ( C 0 C e ) × ( V / m )

where C 0 and C e (mg L−1) are the initial and final concentrations of glyphosate, respectively. V (L) is the volume of the solution, and m (g) is the mass of microcellulose content.

Results and discussion

Optical microscopy allowed the first observation of the fibers at lower magnification in order to identify the most notable changes throughout the obtaining processes (Fig. 1). The sugarcane bagasse samples are raw fibers that underwent a micronization and drying process at a mild temperature of 60.0 °C. At this stage, it was possible to reduce the size of the fibers between 0.11 and 0.15 mm to simplify the process of obtaining functionalized cellulose microfibers.

Fig. 1: 
Optical microscopy images (10× objective lens) and SEM images (magnification of 100×) of the isolated cellulose after bleaching (A); dialdehyde cellulose (DAC) microfibers (B); and cCMF microfibers (C).
Fig. 1:

Optical microscopy images (10× objective lens) and SEM images (magnification of 100×) of the isolated cellulose after bleaching (A); dialdehyde cellulose (DAC) microfibers (B); and cCMF microfibers (C).

Besides the cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin contribute to forming the structure of the biomass, making the fibers opaque due to a matter of density in the fiber structure, occupying the spaces between the cellulose fibrils. This fact was observed by the change in the fibers after the chemical treatment stages, which includes the delignification and bleaching of the fibers, ensuring that the other components were removed, and isolating the cellulose.

In the following steps, the fibers suffer the functionalization processes. In the oxidation step (Fig. 1B), NaIO4 is used as a strong oxidizing agent in the proportion of 2.0 mmol g−1. This concentration is based on previous studies in the literature [32]. Nevertheless, it is natural that the fibers decrease in size or suffer partial degradation even under the action of an oxidizing agent since the oxidative attack has the principle of decreasing hydrogen bonds and causing a decrease in intermolecular interactions [32].

For the last functionalization step of fiber cationization (Fig. 1C), the dialdehyde groups are replaced by the quaternary ammonium salt, Girard T reagent. This replacement affords a positive charge along the fiber that was characteristically neutral. As the previous synthesis step, it causes the exit of two water molecules from each aldehyde group, leading to another fragmentation process, which explains why the fibers become even smaller in length and width when observed under an optical microscope.

Fibrils are formed from the packaging of long polymeric cellulose chains [33] and the SEM analysis (Fig. 1A–C) confirms that the structure maintains the fiber characteristics despite going through two chemical processes, the delignification of the in natura fiber and the bleaching of the pulp.

Yield calculations were based on the initial mass of sugarcane bagasse in natura (100 % w/w) after successive chemical steps. Table 1 shows the results obtained.

Table 1:

Chemical analysis of DAC microfibers and the yield of the proposed reactions.

Sample Reaction yield % (w/w) Total yield % (w/w) Degree of oxidation (mmol g−1)
Bleached cellulose 60.00
DAC 52.11 31.27 1.3752
cCMF 89.94 28.12

It is possible to observe the loss of the total mass obtained at the end of the synthesis caused by chemical processes of cellulose fibers isolation as well as for the groups inserted in the cellulosic structure in the oxidation and cationization process. The process of bleaching cellulose fibers obtained 60.0 % (w/w) of yield, that is the amount of mass of sugarcane bagasse, used at the beginning of the process, transformed into bleached cellulose fibers. This happens due to the removal of lignin and hemicellulose present in the sugarcane bagasse. After the oxidation of the bleached fibers, there is a tendency to form smaller fibers, which leads to a total yield of 31.27 % (w/w).

The degree of oxidation was also calculated following the methodology described above. This data shows how much the cellulose fibers were oxidized in the structure, making it possible to evaluate the efficiency of the reaction since an oxidation of 2.0 mmol g−1 was initially calculated. This oxidation breaks the bond between carbons 2 and 3 of the anhydroglucose unit and simultaneously creates two aldehyde groups in this structure, allowing further functionalization, such as cationization (Fig. 2) [34].

Fig. 2: 
Synthesis of cCMF by the oxidation of cellulose structure and cationization of DAC.
Fig. 2:

Synthesis of cCMF by the oxidation of cellulose structure and cationization of DAC.

Finally, the cationization process of microfibers shows a high degree of yield, since the fibers are slightly degraded. In this step, the aldehyde groups are broken down for the insertion of the quaternary ammonium groups. This reaction obtained a yield of 89.94 % concerning the initial mass of DAC involved and 28.12 % of the general yield.

The FTIR spectra of different products from the cCMF obtaining process are shown in Fig. 3. Cellulosic materials tend to have several small peaks between 800 and 1800 cm−1 with two peaks of greater intensity drawing attention in this region of the spectrum [32].

Fig. 3: 
FTIR spectra of samples at different stages of microfiber production.
Fig. 3:

FTIR spectra of samples at different stages of microfiber production.

The peak present at 1029 cm−1 refers to the symmetrical stretching of the C–O vibrations present mainly in hemicellulose and lignin; the peak at 1634 cm−1 may be related to vibrations of the aromatic groups present in the structure; the peaks at 1723 cm−1 and 895 cm−1 are due to the nonconjugated C=O stretching assigned to hemiacetals and hydrated forms of aldehyde groups [35]. Another outstanding peak appears at 2901 cm−1, which indicates a vibrational stretching of the C–H groups of cellulose and the symmetrical stretching of the CH2 and C–H groups. A very characteristic band appears around 3335 cm−1 which represents strong vibrations in the intermolecular and intramolecular OH bond present in cellulosic structures, as well as moisture present in the material from absorbed water molecules [32]. Around 931 cm−1 there is a discrete signal that refers to the vibrational mode of N–N present in the Girard T group [32, 35, 36], proving the formation of cCMF.

To determine the point of zero charge (Fig. 4), the average value between the final pH points that tended to the same value (pH 4, 5, 6, and 7) was calculated [30].

Fig. 4: 
Point of zero charge (pHPZC) of the cationic cellulose microfibers produced to adsorb the glyphosate molecules.
Fig. 4:

Point of zero charge (pHPZC) of the cationic cellulose microfibers produced to adsorb the glyphosate molecules.

The region of zero charge of cCMF is between pH 4 and 7, with the isoelectric point pH = 5.4 ± 0.016. As the pH of the solution increases, the charges on the microfibers become more negative, however, due to the high cationicity of the fibers, there is still a positive charge present on the surface of the fibers which can interact by electrostatic interactions between the negatively charged adsorbate and positively charged quaternary ammonium functional groups on the cellulose surface (N(CH3)3 +) [32, 36].

Adsorption test

The results obtained in the glyphosate adsorption test showed that at higher pH values the removal efficiency increases (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5: 
Adsorption capacity (q
e) of glyphosate (50 mg L−1) and removal efficiency (%) as a function of pH values (2, 6, 10, and 14).
Fig. 5:

Adsorption capacity (q e) of glyphosate (50 mg L−1) and removal efficiency (%) as a function of pH values (2, 6, 10, and 14).

According to the literature, glyphosate molecule changes depend on the pH values [37, 38], as shown in Fig. 6. At pH below 2, the molecule is fully protonated with three hydroxyl groups in equilibrium, conferring a neutral charge to the molecule. Considering that cCMF presents positive charges at acid pH [39], the possibilities of interaction between both species involved slightly decrease, resulting in an adsorption capacity substantially lower, with a value of removal efficiency of 6.79 % (q e = 2.039 mg g−1). As the pH increases to a range between 2-2.6, a process of deprotonation of the molecules begins, releasing at least one proton from the glyphosate, and becoming the pesticide molecules more negative [40]. This tendency of deprotonation continues and at pH higher than 10.6 the glyphosate molecule is totally deprotonated, showing a negative charge, which favors its adsorption in cationic adsorbents [37, 38]. In this sense, the removal efficiency increases almost linear (Fig. 5). Thus, at pH 14 the fibers reached a maximum removal value of 59.21 %.

Fig. 6: 
Chemical structure of glyphosate under different pH conditions.
Fig. 6:

Chemical structure of glyphosate under different pH conditions.

Parallelly with glyphosate behavior, the cCMF detains the cationic group (N(CH3)3 +) which is responsible for the positive charge, justifying this increase in the removal process. Then, even though increasing the pH value of the middle consequently increases negative charges, there is this cationic group distributed along microfibers that promotes the possibilities of adsorption by charge disparity [36, 39]. As mentioned, sugarcane bagasse was subjected to several chemical processes, including cationization, a step very important to which is responsible for removal efficiency. In this way, the interaction between cationic cellulose microfibers and glyphosate is favored at higher pH, such as 14, where the positive charge of the microfibers interacts with the negative charges of glyphosate.

SEM images showed the microfibers before and after interaction with glyphosate (Fig. 7). The images prove that the glyphosate interacted with the fibers by adsorption process, increasing the average fiber diameter (AFD) from 9.545 ± 2.491 μm (Fig. 7A) to 12.715 ± 2.738 μm (Fig. 7B). The presence of glyphosate can be observed by the formation of a rough layer on the surface of the microfibers.

Fig. 7: 
SEM images (magnification of 3000×) of cCMF before (A) and after (B) glyphosate (50 mg L−1) adsorption, both at pH 14.
Fig. 7:

SEM images (magnification of 3000×) of cCMF before (A) and after (B) glyphosate (50 mg L−1) adsorption, both at pH 14.

The presence of the glyphosate layer adsorbed on the surface of the cCMF allows, through simple separation processes such as filtration, precipitation, or centrifugation, to remove the contaminant and the biosorbent from the aqueous solution.

Conclusions

The cationic microfibers were obtained from sugarcane bagasse, an agroindustrial residue, with a total yield of 28.12 % cCMF. Morphological analyzes showed the transformation of micronized bagasse to cationic cellulose microfibers (cCMF), confirming the initial fibers’ defibrillation and increasing the surface area of the adsorbent after interaction with glyphosate. The adsorption test showed that the removal of the herbicide glyphosate from an aqueous medium using cCMF is more efficient at pH 14, obtaining a removal efficiency of 59.21 %. The interaction between the positive charges remaining in the microfibers and the deprotonated glyphosate molecules elucidates the higher removal on basic pH. In this way, the new biosorbent proposed in this work proved to be an alternative to the decontamination of polluted waters with the herbicide glyphosate.

Notes

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.


Corresponding author: Guilherme Dognani, São Paulo State University, School of Technology and Sciences (FCT/UNESP), 19060-080, Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil, e-mail:
Article note: A collection of invited papers based on presentations at the 30th International Carbohydrate Symposium (ICS-30), which was held in Brazil, 10-15 July 2022.

Funding source: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

Award Identifier / Grant number: 001

Funding source: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2014/50869-6

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2020/06577-1

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2021/09773-9

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank FAPESP-Brazil (Sao Paulo Research Foundation) [grant number 2014/50869-6, 2020/06577-1 and 2021/09773-9] and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) [Finance Code 001] for the financial support. We would also like to thank LabMMEV-FCT/UNESP for the SEM images.

  1. Author Contribution: Conceptualization: MVGL, ASG, GRT, GD, AEJ; Methodology: MVGL, ASG, GRT, GD, AEJ; Validation: MVGL, ASG, GRT, GD, AEJ; Formal Analysis: MVGL, ASG, GRT, GD, AEJ; Investigation: MVGL, ASG, GRT, GD, AEJ; Resources: MVGL, GD, AEJ; Writing Original: MVGL, ASG, GRT, GD; Writing Review & Editing: MVGL, ASG, GRT, GD, AEJ; Supervision: GD, AEJ; Funding acquisition: MVGL, GD, AEJ.

References

[1] Nations, U. World population prospects: the 2022 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022), Retrieved November 5, 2022, from, https://population.un.org/wpp/.Suche in Google Scholar

[2] F. Peres, J. C. Moreira. É veneno ou é remédio? Agrotóxicos, saúde e ambiente. É veneno ou é remédio? Editora FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, 20th ed. (2003).10.7476/9788575413173Suche in Google Scholar

[3] F. A. C. Rodrigues, O. L. Weber, S. dos, E. F. G. de C. Dores, M. de N. Klautau-Guimar, R. Tidon, C. K. Grisólia. Pesticidas Rev. Ecotoxicologia e Meio Ambiente 15, 2 (2005), https://doi.org/10.5380/pes.v15i0.4468.Suche in Google Scholar

[4] A. S. Da Silva, F. C. B. Fernandes, J. O. Tognolli, L. Pezza, H. R. Pezza. Spectrochim. Acta Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 79, 1881 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2011.05.081.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] C. V. Waiman, M. J. Avena, M. Garrido, B. Fernández Band, G. P. Zanini. Geoderma 170, 154 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.11.027.Suche in Google Scholar

[6] A. Szekacs, B. Darvas. Forty years with glyphosate. In Herbicides – Properties, Synthesis and Control of Weeds, IntechOpen, Budapest (2012).10.5772/32491Suche in Google Scholar

[7] (IARC), I. A. F. R. O. C. Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Lyon, France, Vol. 112 (2015).Suche in Google Scholar

[8] O. P. de Amarante Junior, T. C. R. dos Santos, N. M. Brito, M. L. Ribeiro. Química Nova 25, 589 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-40422002000400014.Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Y. S. Hu, Y. Q. Zhao, B. Sorohan. Desalination 271, 150 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.12.014.Suche in Google Scholar

[10] M. L. Ribeiro, C. Lourencetti, S. Y. Pereira, M. R. R. de Marchi. Química Nova 30, 688 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-40422007000300031.Suche in Google Scholar

[11] T. Ahmad, M. Rafatullah, A. Ghazali, O. Sulaiman, R. Hashim, A. Ahmad. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part C Environ. Carcinog. Ecotoxicol. Rev. 28, 231 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1080/10590501.2010.525782.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] P. Saritha, C. Aparna, V. Himabindu, Y. Anjaneyulu. J. Hazard. Mater. 149, 609 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.06.111.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] T. Aungpradit, P. Sutthivaiyakit, D. Martens, S. Sutthivaiyakit, A. A. F. Kettrup. J. Hazard. Mater. 146, 204 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.12.007.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] M. Mahalakshmi, B. Arabindoo, M. Palanichamy, V. Murugesan. J. Hazard. Mater. 143, 240 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.09.008.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] M. I. Maldonado, S. Malato, L. A. Pérez-Estrada, W. Gernjak, I. Oller, X. Doménech, J. Peral. J. Hazard. Mater. 138, 363 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.05.058.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] A. Bhatnagar, V. J. P. Vilar, C. M. S. Botelho, R. A. R. Boaventura. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 160, 1 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2010.06.011.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] W. F. da P. Bezerra, G. Dognani, L. N. de Alencar, M. P. S. Parizi, R. F. Boina, F. C. Cabrera, A. E. Job. Matéria (Rio de Janeiro) 27 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-707620220001.1342.Suche in Google Scholar

[18] G. M. Gadd. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 84, 13 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.1999.Suche in Google Scholar

[19] M. Silva, S. P. da do, G. S. C. Raulino, C. B. Vidal, A. C. A. de Lima, R. F. do Nascimento. Rev. DAE 61, 66 (2013), https://doi.org/10.4322/dae.2014.114.Suche in Google Scholar

[20] W. D. M. Souza, J. J. F. Alves, T. M. B. F. Oliveira, D. S. Oliveira. Blucher Chem. Proc. 3, 619 (2015), https://doi.org/10.5151/chenpro-5erq-am2.Suche in Google Scholar

[21] T. F. Citadin, M. A. P. Cechinel. Dessorção de corante Remazol Azul RR de bagaço de uva: recuperação do corante e reuso do biossorvente, Chemical Engineering Term paper - UNESC, Criciúma-SC, Brasil (2018).Suche in Google Scholar

[22] L. V. S. Rodrigues. Avaliação do potencial biossorvente da biomassa de cascas de abacaxi para remoção de agroquímico em matrizes aquosas, Instituto Federal Goiano, Goiania-GO, Brasil (2019).Suche in Google Scholar

[23] I. Larraza, J. Vadillo, A. Santamaria-Echart, A. Tejado, M. Azpeitia, E. Vesga, A. Eceiza. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 173, 109084 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2020.109084.Suche in Google Scholar

[24] J. Xu, Z. Wu, Q. Wu, Y. Kuang. Carbohydr. Polym. 229, 115553 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115553.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] R. I. Baron, S. Coseri. React. Funct. Polym. 157, 104768 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2020.104768.Suche in Google Scholar

[26] V. Rana, S. Malik, G. Joshi, N. K. Rajput, P. K. Gupta. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 170, 793 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.12.165.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] A. Mautner, T. Kobkeatthawin, A. Bismarck. Resour. Efficient Technol. 3, 22 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reffit.2017.01.005.Suche in Google Scholar

[28] H. Sehaqui, A. Mautner, U. Perez de Larraya, N. Pfenninger, P. Tingaut, T. Zimmermann. Carbohydr. Polym. 135, 334 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.08.091.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] S. Veelaert, D. De Wit, K. F. Gotlieb, R. Verhé. Carbohydr. Polym. 33, 153 (1997), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8617(97)00046-5.Suche in Google Scholar

[30] F. Giacomni, M. A. B. Menegazzo, M. G. da Silva, A. B. da Silva, M. A. S. D. de Barros. Rev. Mater. 22, 2–5 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-707620170002.0159.Suche in Google Scholar

[31] D. F. Tzaskos, C. Marcovicz, N. M. P. Dias, N. D. Rosso. Cienc. E Agrotecnol. 36, 399 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542012000400003.Suche in Google Scholar

[32] X. Huang, G. Dognani, P. Hadi, M. Yang, A. E. Job, B. S. Hsiao. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 8, 4734 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06683.Suche in Google Scholar

[33] Q. Q. Wang, J. Y. Zhu, R. Gleisner, T. A. Kuster, U. Baxa, S. E. McNeil. Cellulose 19, 1631 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-012-9745-x.Suche in Google Scholar

[34] J. Sirviö, H. Liimatainen, J. Niinimäki, O. Hormi. Carbohydr. Polym. 86, 260 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.04.054.Suche in Google Scholar

[35] C. G. Otoni, J. S. L. Figueiredo, L. B. Capeletti, M. B. Cardoso, J. S. Bernardes, W. Loh. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2, 1975 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.9b00034.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[36] J. Sirviö, A. Honka, H. Liimatainen, J. Niinimäki, O. Hormi. Carbohydr. Polym. 86, 266 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.04.046.Suche in Google Scholar

[37] R. M. Romano, J. M. de Oliveira, V. M. de Oliveira, I. M. de Oliveira, Y. R. Torres, P. Bargi-Souza, A. J. M. Andrade, M. A. Romano. Front. Endocrinol. 12, 627167 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.627167.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[38] E. Vidal, A. Negro, A. Cassano, C. Zalazar. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 14, 366 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1039/c4pp00248b.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[39] A. Silva Gomes, M. Vitória Guimarães Leal, G. Roefero Tolosa, F. Camargo Cabrera, G. Dognani, A. Eloízo Job. Bioresour. Technol. 380, 129096 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129096.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] R. C. Pereira, P. R. Anizelli, E. Di Mauro, D. F. Valezi, A. C. S. da Costa, C. T. B. V. Zaia, D. A. M. Zaia. Geochem. Trans. 20, 3 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12932-019-0063-1.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central


Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2022-1205).


Received: 2022-12-19
Accepted: 2023-06-02
Published Online: 2023-06-27
Published in Print: 2023-09-26

© 2023 IUPAC & De Gruyter

Heruntergeladen am 13.3.2026 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/pac-2022-1205/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen