| Literature DB >> 30336604 |
Moxi Wang1,2, Li Feng3,4, Xiaowei Fan5, Dongmei Li6, Wenqi Qu7, Shuxian Jiang8, Shaoxiu Li9.
Abstract
In this study, a series of chitosan-basedEntities:
Keywords: bifunctional; chitosan-based flocculant; plasma initiation; sterilization; turbidity removal
Year: 2018 PMID: 30336604 PMCID: PMC6213324 DOI: 10.3390/ma11102009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Scheme 1The synthesis of chitosan-graft-poly(acrylamide-and methacryloyl ethyl trimethyl ammonium chloride) (CTS-g-P(AM-DMC)).
The details of the flocculants used for the flocculation experiment.
| Flocculants a | Grafting Ratio (%) | Intrinsic Viscosity (dL·g−1) |
|---|---|---|
| P(AM-DMC) | / | 6.27 |
| CTS- | 92 | 6.56 |
| CTS- | 173 | 6.13 |
| CTS- | 235 | 6.50 |
| PAC | / | / |
| 1231 | / | / |
a CTS-g-P(AM-DMC): the three kinds of CTS-g-P(AM-DMC) with different grafting ratios were named as CTS-g-P(AM-DMC) 1, CTS-g-P(AM-DMC) 2 and CTS-g-P(AM-DMC) 3, respectively; P(AM-DMC): copolymer of acrylamide (AM) and methacryloyl ethyl trimethyl ammonium chloride (DMC); PAC: polyaluminum chloride (content >30%); 1231: lauryl trimethyl ammonium chloride. The calculation of grafting ratio was illustrated as that in the previous study [27].
Figure 11H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H NMR) spectra of PAM, chitosan (CTS), P(AM-DMC), and CTS-g-P(AM-DMC).
Figure 2Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra of CTS-g-P(AM-DMC), CTS, P(AM-DMC), and the mixture solution.
Figure 3X-ray diffraction spectroscopy (XRD) patterns of CTS, P(AM-DMC), CTS-g-P(AM-DMC), and the mixture solution.
Figure 4Thermogravimetric curves of (a) CTS, (b) P(AM-DMC), and (c) CTS-g-P(AM-DMC).
Figure 5Morphology analysis of (a) CTS, (b) P(AM-DMC), and (c) CTS-g-P(AM-DMC).
Flocculation performance of CTS-g-P(AM-DMC), PAC, and 1231 at different pH.
| pH | Kaolin | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimal Dose (mg/L) | Turbidity Removal Rate (%) | Optimal Dose (mg/L) | Turbidity Removal Rate (%) | Bacterial Removal Rate (%) | ||
| CTS- | 2 | 0.6 | 97.8 | — | — | — |
| 4 | 0.6 | 98.6 | 8 | 94.8 | 92.8 | |
| 7 | 0.8 | 98.5 | 10 | 96.3 | 96.3 | |
| PAC | 2 | 2 | 91.6 | — | — | — |
| 4 | 4 | 97.2 | 20 | 58.1 | 39.6 | |
| 7 | 5 | 97.9 | 23 | 59.8 | 39.4 | |
| 1231 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — |
| 4 | — | — | 8 | 7.4 | 92.1 | |
| 7 | — | — | 10 | 8.5 | 97.8 | |
Figure 6Zeta potential (ZP) vs. pH profiles of CTS-g-P(AM-DMC), kaolin suspension, and Salmonella suspension.
Figure 7Flocculation performance of CTS-g-P(AM-DMC) in the kaolin suspension: (a) Effect of dosage and pH; (b) Effect of graft ratio; (c) Zeta potential of the supernatant as a function of flocculants dosages.
Figure 8Flocculation and sterilization performance of CTS-g-P(AM-DMC) in Salmonella suspension: (a,b) Effect of dosage and pH; (c) Zeta potential of the supernatant as a function of flocculants dosages; (d) Effect of graft ratio.
Figure 9Conductivity of the Salmonella suspension as a function of time.
Figure 10Fluorescent images of live/dead Salmonella: (a,b) Blank control group; (c,d) Treatment with CTS-g-P(AM-DMC).
Figure 11Flocculation and sterilization mechanism of CTS-g-P(AM-DMC).