The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adsorption of Tetracycline and Sulfamethoxazole on Crop Residue-Derived Ashes: Implication for the Relative Importance of Black Carbon to Soil Sorption
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to investigate the key factors and mechanisms of antibiotic adsorption on crop residue-derived black carbon, as well as the relative importance of black carbon to the overall sorption to soil. Batch sorption experiments were performed for two reference antibiotics (sulfamethoxazole and tetracycline) on wheat- and maize-residue-derived black carbon. After removal of the mineral fraction from the raw black carbon by acidification, tetracycline exhibited less enhanced adsorption than sulfamethoxazole, implying stronger complexation of tetracycline on the mineral components. The antibiotic adsorption on the demineralized black carbon was very strong (The measured K(d) was in the order of 10(3)-10(5) L/kg). The adsorbent surface area-normalized adsorption of sulfamethoxazole was higher on the demineralized black carbon than on nonporous graphite due to the micropore-filling effect. The opposite trend observed for bulky tetracycline was attributed to the size-exclusion effect. Owing to the strong surface complexation and/or cation exchange reaction, sorption of tetracycline to Na(+)-exchanged montmorillonite, soil humic acids, and bulk soil was remarkably stronger than sulfamethoxazole. It was estimated that the contribution of black carbon to the overall sorption to bulk soil was important for sulfamethoxazole, but negligible for tetracycline.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory-produced black carbon (biochar)
Zimmerman, A. R. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es903140c · Cited by 1,103
Zhu, D., & Pignatello, J. J. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es0491376 · Cited by 425
Self-citation
Cited by
Peiris, C., Gunatilake, S. R., Mlsna, T. E., Mohan, D., & Vithanage, M. (2017) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.150 · Cited by 604
Zhang, P., Sun, H., Yu, L., & Sun, T. (2013) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.11.046 · Cited by 420
Enhanced sulfamethazine removal by steam-activated invasive plant-derived biochar
Rajapaksha, A. U., Vithanage, M., Ahmad, M., Seo, D.-C., Cho, J.-S., Lee, S.-E., Lee, S. S., & Ok, Y. S. (2015) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.02.046 · Cited by 398
Pyrolysis condition affected sulfamethazine sorption by tea waste biochars
Rajapaksha, A. U., Vithanage, M., Zhang, M., Ahmad, M., Mohan, D., Chang, S. X., & Ok, Y. S. (2014) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.05.029 · Cited by 357
Liu, Q., Zhong, L.-B., Zhao, Q.-B., Frear, C., & Zheng, Y.-M. (2015) · ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · doi:10.1021/acsami.5b04598 · Cited by 316
Metadata
- Authors
- Ji, L., Wan, Y., Zheng, S., & Zhu, D.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2011-06-08
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 5580-5586
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2017855248
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
