Effects of NaOH Activation on Adsorptive Removal of Herbicides by Biochars Prepared from Ground Coffee Residues

In this study, the adsorption of herbicides using ground coffee residue biochars without (GCRB) and with NaOH activation (GCRB-N) was compared to provide deeper insights into their adsorption behaviors and mechanisms. The physicochemical characteristics of GCRB and GCRB-N were analyzed using Brunauer–Emmett–Teller surface area, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray diffraction and the effects of pH, temperature, ionic strength, and humic acids on the adsorption of herbicides were identified. Moreover, the adsorption kinetics and isotherms were studied. The specific surface area and total pore volume of GCRB-N (405.33 m2/g and 0.293 cm3/g) were greater than those of GCRB (3.83 m2/g and 0.014 cm3/g). The GCBR-N could more effectively remove the herbicides (Qe,exp of Alachlor = 122.71 μmol/g, Qe,exp of Diuron = 166.42 μmol/g, and Qe,exp of Simazine = 99.16 μmol/g) than GCRB (Qe,exp of Alachlor = 11.74 μmol/g, Qe,exp of Diuron = 9.95 μmol/g, and Qe,exp of Simazine = 6.53 μmol/g). These results suggested that chemical activation with NaOH might be a promising option to make the GCRB more practical and effective for removing herbicides in the aqueous solutions.


Introduction
The increasing use of herbicides with different action modes (e.g., photosynthesis inhibition, plant growth regulation) to enhance agricultural production can lead to non-point source pollutants of surface water and groundwater through herbicides leaching and runoff from agricultural fields [1][2][3]. Even at very low concentrations (<1 µg/L), the biochemical properties (i.e., bioaccumulation and persistence) of herbicides have posed potential risks to the aquatic ecosystem and human health due to toxicity and carcinogenicity [4]. Several studies of alachlor (ALA), the chloroacetamide class of herbicides, one of the most used preemergence herbicides globally, were conducted due to its serious health effects (e.g., carcinogenicity and reproductivity) for humans than other herbicides [5,6]. Moreover, the previous studies reported that diuron (DIU) effectively governed algal blooms associated with cyanobacteria by inhibiting photosynthesis [3,7]. However, the persistence of DIU in the water posed the prevention of oxygen production in the aquatic ecosystem could severely deplete dissolved oxygen, causing the suffocation of aquatic organisms [8]. Although simazine (SIM), chlorotriazine herbicide, has been extensively used since the 1950s for selective weed control, it can generate mutagenicity, reproductive and immune toxicities on the fish and amphibians due to low biodegradation rate and high ecological (resistivity > 18.2 MΩ cm −1 , Barnstead Nanopure Water System, Lake Balboa, CA, USA) was utilized to make stock solutions of the ALA, DIU, and SIM (concentration of each herbicide = 1 mmol/L). These stocks were stored at 4°C in the dark prior to use. The acetonitrile (C 2 H 3 N) and methanol (CH 3 OH) were obtained from Thermo-Fisher Scientific (HPLC grade, Waltham, MA USA). The physicochemical properties of ALA, DIU, and SIM are presented in Table 1.

Preparation of GCRB and GCRB-N
The detailed preparation procedures of the GCRB for the NaOH activation were the same as those in our previous study [23]. As briefly explained, the preparation procedures of the GCRB for the NaOH activation as follows: ground coffee residues were collected from a local coffee shop in Chuncheon-si (Gangwon Province, Korea), followed by rinsing with DI water and overnight drying in the oven at 105°C. The NaOH activation is mixed with 15 g of the dried ground coffee residues and 4 M NaOH solution (200 mL) under moderate stirring at room temperature (20 ± 0.5°C) for 2 h and then dried at 105 • C in the oven for 12 h. Both the GCRB and GCRB-N were pyrolyzed using a tubular furnace (PyroTech, Namyangju-si, Korea) at 800 • C for 2 h with a linear rise of 10°C/min under N 2 atmosphere (the flow rate = 0.25 L/min). After cooled down to room temperature, the produced GCRB and GCRB-N were rinsed with DI water several times and dried at 105°C in the oven for 12 h. The dried GCRB and GCRB-N were passed through a 100 mesh sieve to keep their uniform sizes and then stored in a desiccator before usage.

Batch Adsorption Experiments
The adsorption isotherms of the herbicides were examined with five different initial concentrations (the concentration of each herbicide = 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 µmol/L) under the controlled conditions (working volume = 20 mL, absorbents dosage = 50 mg/L, agitation speed = 150 rpm, contact time = 24 h, temperature = 25°C, and pH = 7.0). The competitive adsorption kinetics (the concentration of each herbicide = 10 µmol/L) was investigated by varying the contact time (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 h). The effects of pH and ionic strength on the competitive adsorptions of the herbicides (the concentration of each herbicide = 10 µmol/L) were evaluated by adjusting solution pHs (pH = 3.0, 7.0, and 11.0) and ionic strengths (ionic strength = 0.0, 0.025, 0.050, 0.075, and 0.100 M) using HCl and NaOH, and NaCl, respectively. The interferences of humic acids with the adsorptions of the herbicides (the concentration of each herbicide = 10 µmol/L) by the GCRB and GCRB-N were identified by adding 5 mg/L of humic acids. All adsorption experiments were performed in triplicates using a shaking incubator (Vision Scientific, Daejeon-si, Korea). After batch adsorption experiments, the samples were filtered using glass fiber filters (GF/F, nominal pore size = 0.7 µm, Whatman, Clifton, NJ, USA) and stored in a refrigerator at 4 • C before analyses. The diagram of batch adsorption experiments is shown in Figure 1.

Analytical Methods
The specific surface area, the average pore size, and the total pore volume of the GCRB and GCRB-N were evaluated by nitrogen gas (N 2 ) adsorption/desorption isotherms at 77.3 K (ASAP 2020 plus, Micromeritics, GA, USA). The specific surface areas of the GCRB and GCRB-N were measured using the Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) model, and the average pore size and total pore volume were calculated by the Barrett-Joyner-Halenda (BJH) method (the adsorbed quantity of N 2 at P/P 0 = 0.995) [24]. The elemental compositions of the GCRB and GCRB-N were determined using a EuroEA3000 CHNS-O Analyzer (EuroVector S.p.A, Via Tortona, Milan, Italy). The ash contents were analyzed by deducting the carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and nitrogen (N) contents from the total amount of the GCRB and GCRB-N. The atomic ratios of [(O + N)/C] and H/C represented the polarity and the aromaticity of the GCRB and GCRB-N, respectively [25]. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy (FT-IR Frontier Optica, Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) with KBr pellet (biochar:KBr = 1:50, w/w) was used to investigate the functional groups of the GCRB and GCRB-N in the wavenumber range of 400 and 4000 cm −1 . The surface morphologies of GCRB and GCRB-N were observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM; S-4800, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy. The crystal structure of GCRB and GCRB-N was identified using X-ray diffraction (XRD, D/Max-2500, Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan). The concentrations of the three different herbicides in the aqueous solution were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) fitted with an ultraviolet absorbance (UVA) detector (SPD-10AVP, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) and a XDB C18 column (ZORBAX Eclipse ® , 4.6 mm × 150 mm, inner diameter = 5 µm, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) at a constant flow rate of 1.0 mL/min for 15 min. Acetonitrile/0.05 M phosphoric acid (50:50, v/v) at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min were worked as the mobile phase for ALA, DIU, and SIM. The wavelength of the UVA detector was set at 210 nm for the ALA, DIU, and SIM.
The amounts of the adsorbed herbicides on the GCRB and GCRB-N at equilibrium (Q e , µmol/g) were calculated by the following Equation (1): where C 0 (µmol/L) and C e (µmol/L) are the initial concentration and equilibrium concentration of ALA, DIU, and SIM, respectively, V (L) is the volume of the aqueous solution, and M (g) is the amount of absorbents. The removal rate of the herbicides by the GCRB and GCRB-N was calculated by the following Equation (2): The isotherms data were analyzed with the Langmuir and Freundlich models, and the adsorption kinetics were examined with the pseudo first and second order models [26]. The selected two isotherms and kinetic models could adequately explain the adsorption behaviors of herbicides (ALA, DIU, and SIM) on the GCRB and GCRB-N. The Langmuir model was defined as described by Equation (3): where C e (µmol/L) is the concentration of each herbicide at equilibrium, Q max (µmol/g) and K L (L/µmol) associated with the maximum adsorption capacity and the adsorption energy, respectively. The Freundlich model was presented as written by Equation (4): where K F (µmol 1−(1/n) L 1/n /g) and n are constants correspond to the relative maximum adsorption capacity and the dimensionless adsorption intensity, respectively. The pseudo first order might be represented as follows by Equation (5): where Q t , (µmol/g) is the amounts of the adsorbed herbicides on the GCRB and GCRB-N at the predetermined time t, t (h) is the adsorption time (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24 h), and k 1 (1/h) is the rate constant of pseudo first order.
The pseudo second order model might be written as the following Equation (6): where k 2 (g/µmol·h) is the rate constant of pseudo second order.

Bulk Elemental Composition and Functional Groups Analyses
The bulk element constitutions (i.e., C, H, O, and N), ash contents, atomic rations, specific surface area, average pore size, total pore volume, and BET isotherms (i.e., N 2 adsorption/desorption isotherms) for the GCRB and GCRB-N related to the adsorption capacity are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2. The bulk element contents of the GCRB (C = 83.5%, H = 1.8%, O = 3.7%, and N = 3.4%) were relatively greater than those of the GCRB-N (C = 82.9%, H = 1.4%, O = 3.6%, and N = 1.3%) since some organic matter was removed in the NaOH activation procedures [27]. The atomic ratios of H/C, O/C, and (O+N)/C are commonly identified for aromaticity, surface hydrophobicity, and polarity, respectively [28]. These results demonstrated that the aromaticity (H/C = 0.022 of the GCRB and H/C = 0.017 of the GCRB-N) and polarity ((O+N)/C = 0.085 of the GCRB and (O+N)/C = 0.060 of the GCRB-N) of the GCRB were found to increase due to NaOH activation. However, the hydrophobicity of the GCRB-N (O/C = 0.043) was not significantly different compared with that of the GCRB (O/C = 0.044). The specific surface area and the pore volume of the GCRB-N (specific surface area = 405.33 m 2 g −1 and pore volume = 0.293 cm 3 g −1 ) were considerably increased (specific surface area: >105 times higher; pore volume: >21 times higher) compared with that of the GCRB (specific surface area = 3.83 m 2 g −1 and pore volume = 0.014 cm 3 g −1 ) due to the pore distribution change by NaOH [29]. However, the averaged pore size of the GCRB-N (3.05 nm) was significantly smaller than that of the GCRB (5.59 nm). These findings could explain the enhanced porous structures of GCRB-N associated with their adsorption capacities [23]. Thus, the GCRB-N are expected to improve the removal of herbicides from aqueous solutions compared with the GCRB.  The FT-IR spectra of the GCRB and GCRB-N are shown in Figure 3. The IR peaks of the GCRB at 3448 cm −1 , 1616 cm −1 , and 1134 cm −1 are attributed to the OH stretching of alcohols, C=O stretching of carboxylic acids, and C-O-C stretching of ethers, respectively [30,31]. The GCRB-N present IR peaks at 3440-3160 cm −1 and 1650-1450 cm −1 , corresponding to the OH stretching of alcohols and C=O stretching of carboxylic acids, respectively. The high intensities of IR peaks (i.e., OH stretching of alcohols and C=O stretching of carboxylic acids) for the GCRB may explain that the characteristic of relatively hydrophilic surfaces of the GCRB compared with that of GCRB-N.

SEM-EDX and XRD Analyses
The SEM images and the XRD spectra of the GCRB and GCRB-N are shown in Figure 4. Smooth and flat shape structures were found for the GCRB, but the GCRB-N had irregular and porous structures (Figure 4a,b). These observations clearly show that the NaOH activation might change the surface morphological characteristics of the GCRB associated with the herbicide adsorptions [32]. The SEM-EDX results of the GCRB and GCRB-N might be provided evidence that the influence of NaOH activation on the differences in the components of GCRB and GCRB-N. The GCRB-N composed of C (82.72%), O (16.15%), Na (0.80%), and Pt (0.33%), while the GCRB consisted of C (92.87%), O (6.92%), Na (0.04%), and Pt (0.17%). The atomic percentage of Na in the GCRB-N is 20 times greater than that of GCRB. A possible explanation for these findings is that there is a high possibility of Na incorporation on the GCRB surface during NaOH activation. Pt contents on the GCRB and GCRB-N surfaces are caused by the sputter-coating with Pt for the preventing charging effects [33]. The XRD spectra of GCRB and GCRB-N solely present the peaks of amorphous carbons (2θ = 23 • and 43 • ) (Figure 4c,d). These results are demonstrated that XRD might not be sensitive to the crystalline structure changes caused by NaOH activation, and it could be less effective in identifying the surface properties difference in the GCRB and GCRB-N.

Adsorption of Herbicides: Kinetics Studies
The adsorption kinetics of the herbicides by the GCRB and GCRB-N were examined by shaking the mixed solutions for the 24 h ( Figure 5). The adsorption process could be divided two-phase for herbicides using GCRB and GCRB-N: (i) phase I, contact period ≤4 h and (ii) phase II, contact period >4 h. Phase I is the removal rates of the herbicides quickly enlarged as the physical adsorption occurred onto the surfaces of the GCRB and GCRB-N. Phase II is the removal rates of the herbicides slowly improved by the GCRB and GCRB-N since the inner layer complexation of absorbents played a critical role in removing the herbicides [23]. The adsorptions of the herbicides for the GCRB and GCRB-N reached their equilibrium states within 12 h and 16 h, respectively. ALA, DIU, and SIM were not efficiently removed using the GCRB under the adsorption conditions (the removal rate of ALA = 6.0%, the removal rate of DIU = 4.7%, and the removal rate of SIM = 3.1%). Significant increases in the removal rates were found for the herbicides using the GCRB-N compared to the GCRB under the adsorption conditions (the removal rate of ALA = 56.6%, the removal rate of DIU = 80.6%, and the removal rate of SIM = 47.4%). These phenomena may indicate the differences in the physicochemical properties of the GCRB and GCRB-N.  Table 3 presents the kinetic model parameters for the adsorption of the herbicides using the GCRB and GCRB-N. Based on the correlation coefficient values (R 2 ), the pseudosecond-order model (R 2 = 0.995-1.000) better explained the adsorption of the herbicides by the GCRB and GCRB-N than the pseudo first order model (R 2 = 0.916-0.993). The equilibrium adsorption capacities of the herbicides (Q e,exp ) on the GCRB-N were much bigger compared to those of the GCRB (Q e,exp of the GCRB = 6.53-11.74 µmol g −1 , Q e,exp of the GCRB-N = 99.16-166.42 µmol/g). The kinetics of the herbicide adsorptions on the GCRB and GCRB-N followed the pseudo-second-order model rather than the pseudo first order model. Besides, the Q e,exp values of ALA, DIU, and SIM toward the GCRB and GCRB-N were similar to their theoretical adsorption capacities (Q e,cal ) calculated using the pseudo second order equation (adsorption: Q e,cal of the GCRB = 6.85-12.00 µmol/g, Q e,cal of the GCRB-N = 100.01-167.08 µmol/g). These observations elucidate that the adsorption of the herbicides using the GCRB and GCRB-N is critically governed by chemical adsorption [28]. Table 3. Kinetic parameters for the adsorptions of herbicides using the GCRB and GCRB-N (agitation speed = 150 rpm, absorbent dosage = 50 mg/L, initial concentration of each herbicide = 10 µM, pH = 7.0, and temperature = 25°C).

Adsorption Isotherms of Herbicides
The adsorption of the ALA, DIU, and SIM using the GCRB and GCRB-N were investigated with the Langmuir and Freundlich models (Table 4 and Figure 6). For the GCRB, the adsorptions of the herbicides were well matched to the Freundlich model with high R 2 values (Langmuir isotherm: R 2 = 0.885-0.919; Freundlich isotherm R 2 = 0.999). These results show that the herbicides responded to the heterogeneous GCRB surfaces [34]. The adsorptions of herbicides for the GCRB-N were better described by the Langmuir isotherm model (R 2 = 0.999) than the Freundlich isotherm model (R 2 = 0.885-0.982). This is evidence that the monolayer adsorption governed the removal of herbicides toward the homogeneous GCRB-N surfaces during the adsorption proceeding [35].   The adsorption affinities of herbicides to the GCRB and GCRB-N were estimated using the n values and the R L values, respectively. The n values (dimensionless) of the Freundlich model using the GCRB were used to examine the adsorption affinity of the herbicides under the batch experiments: (i) n > 1.0 (favorable), (ii) n = 1.0 (linear), and (iii) n < 1.0 (unfavorable) [36]. The n values of ALA (1.15), DIU(1.10), and SIM (1.11) were favorable. The R L values (RL = 1/(1 + K L C 0 ), (i) R L = 0: irreversible, (ii) 0 < R L < 1: favorable, (iii) R L = 1: linear, and (iv) RL > 1: unfavorable) of the Langmuir model were used to identify the maximum adsorption capacity of herbicides by GCRB-N [33]. The RL values of GCRB-N were in the range of 0.109-0.470 (favorable). These observations supported that the change in the uniformity of the GCRB surface through the NaOH activation could improve the adsorption affinities of the herbicides (multilayer adsorption → monolayer adsorption). Moreover, These results are comparable to the relative maximum adsorption capacity (K F ) calculated using different adsorbents, as shown in Table 5.

Effects of Solution pH on Adsorption of Herbicides
The differences in the removal efficiencies of the herbicides (i.e., ALA, DIU, and SIM) to identify the competitive adsorption of the pristine and alkali-activated GCR biochars as a function of the aqueous solution pH are depicted in Figure 7. The amount of adsorptions for ALA and SIM using the GCRB (pH 3: ALA = 14.12 µmol/g and SIM = 6.40 µmol/g; pH 7: ALA = 12.23 µmol/g and SIM = 6.35 µmol/g; pH 11: ALA = 7.77 µmol/g and SIM = 4.72 µmol/g) and GCRB-N (pH 3: ALA = 129.62 µmol/g and SIM = 108.25 µmol/g; pH 7: ALA = 122.77 µmol/g and SIM = 100.61 µmol/g; pH 11: ALA = 115.99 µmol/g and SIM = 89.38 µmol/g) were decreased in the pH range from 3 to 11. Moreover, the differences in the removal rates of herbicides by the GCRB and GCRB-N were in good agreement with the order of the Log D values of the ALA and SIM (pH 3: ALA (Log D = 3.59) > SIM (Log D = 0.60); pH 7: ALA (Log D = 3.59) > SIM (Log D = 1.78); pH 11: ALA (Log D = 3.59) > SIM (Log D = 1.78)). However, the adsorptions of DIU by the GCRB and GCRB-N were not influenced due to its high pK a value (DIU = 13.18) under the different pH conditions. Furthermore, the amount of adsorptions for DIU using the GCRB (pH 3 = 7.78 µmol/g; pH 7 = 9.50 µmol/g; pH 11 = 10.62 µmol/g) and GCRB-N (pH 3 = 151.71 µmol/g; pH 7 = 158.54 µmol/g; pH 11 = 160.63 µmol/g) were increased. Fontecha-Ca'mara et al. (2007) have demonstrated that AC and DIU are predominated repulsive electrostatic interactions because the AC surface charge and DIU are positively charged at the acidic conditions [40]. In both neutral and alkaline conditions, AC and DIU are non-electrostatic interactions predominated, and the adsorption capacity is increased. These observations could be postulated that the differences in the hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions between herbicides and absorbents at the different pH conditions governed the adsorptions of the herbicides using the GCRB and GCRB-N [23].

Effects of Ionic Strength on Adsorption of Herbicides
The effects of ionic strength on the adsorption of the herbicides by GCRB and GCRB-N were illustrated in Figure 9. The removal rates of herbicides using the GCRB and GCRB-N were gradually increased with increasing ionic strengths (the GCRB: the removal rate of ALA = 3.6% → 6.9%, the removal rate of DIU = 2.0% → 6.3%, the removal rate of SIM = 1.5% → 6.1%; the GCRB-N: the removal rate of ALA = 61.4% → 70.2%, the removal rate of DIU = 81.4% → 87.5%, the removal rate of SIM = 47.0% → 60.3%). These observations could describe that the decreased solubility of the organic compounds with high concentrations of sodium ions might promote the adsorption capacity of the porous carbonaceous absorbents under different ionic strength conditions (salting-out effects) [43,44].

Effects of Humic Acids on Adsorption of Herbicides
The interferences of humic acids on the adsorptions of the herbicides for the GCRB and GCRB-N are compared in Figure 10. The removal rates of herbicides using the GCRB was slightly reduced in the presence of the humic acids (the removal rate without humic acids: ALA = 6.0 ± 0.1%, DIU = 5.0 ± 0.1%, and SIM = 3.2± 0.1%; the removal rate with humic acids: ALA = 5.5 ± 0.1%, DIU = 4.5 ± 0.2%, and SIM = 2.9 ± 0.3%). The removal rates of ALA and SIM using the GCRB-N were considerably reduced due to the competition with humic acids (the removal rate without humic acids: ALA = 61.4 ± 0.2% and SIM = 49.5 ± 0.4%; the removal rate with humic acids: ALA = 57.3 ± 0.2% and SIM = 43.9 ± 0.5%) [35]. However, the removal rates of DIU by the GCRB-N were not significantly affected by the presence of humic acids (the removal rate without humic acids: DIU = 81.9 ± 0.1%; the removal rate with humic acids: DIU = 81.9 ± 0.2%). This result could be explained that DIU was not significantly affected by the humic acids for the GCRB-N. Similar behavior was observed for the outcompeting of the micropollutant adsorption by the biochars at the neutral pH condition in the humic acid presence [23].

Conclusions
This study investigated the effects of the NaOH activation on the physicochemical characteristics of GCRB related to the adsorptions of the herbicides (ALA, DIU, and SIM). The specific surface area and pore volume of GCRB-N presented approximately 106 times and 21 times greater than those of the GCRB. These results were intimately connected to the adsorption capacities of the GCRB and GCRB-N (Q e,exp of the GCRB-N = 99. .71 µmol/g and the GCRB = 6.53-11.74 µmol/g). The pseudo second order kinetics (R 2 = 0.995-0.999) were well matched to the adsorptions of the herbicides using the GCRB and GCRB-N than the pseudo first order kinetics (R 2 = 0.916-0.993), indicating that the chemisorption predominantly governed the adsorptions. The adsorption of the herbicides by the GCRB followed the Freundlich model (R 2 of Langmuir model = 0.885-0.919, R 2 of Freundlich model = 0.999), whereas the Langmuir model was fitted to the adsorption of the GCRB-N (R 2 of Langmuir model = 0.999, R 2 of Freundlich model = 0.885-0.982). The order of the removal rates of the herbicides by the GCRB and GCRB-N at the different pH values was significantly affected by the differences in the hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions between herbicides and absorbents. The removal rates of herbicides using GCRB and GCRB-N were gradually enlarged with increasing temperature. Moreover, the salting-out effects prominent in the existence of high concentrations of sodium ions could enhance the adsorptions of the herbicides for the GCRB and GCRB-N. Although the humic acids might inhibit the adsorption of the herbicides by the GCRB and GCRB-N, the removal rates of the herbicides by the GCRB-N (43.9-81.9%) were higher than those of the GCRB (2.9-5.5%). These findings might conclude that the NaOH activation might be a promising method to enhance the adsorption capacities of GCRB practically applicable for removing herbicides from the water and wastewater treatment process.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ALA
Alachlor C e Concentration of herbicides at equilibrium (µmol/L) C 0 Initial concentrations of herbicides (µmol/L) DIU Diuron GCRB Ground coffee residue biochar GCRB-N NaOH activated ground coffee residue biochar k 1 Pseudo-first-order rate constant (1/h) k 2 Pseudo-second-order rate constant (g/µmol·h) K F Freundlich isotherm capacity factor (µmol 1−(1/n) L 1/n /g) K L The adsorption energy (L/µmol) Q e The quantities of the adsorbed herbicides at equilibrium (µmol/g) Q t The amounts of the adsorbed herbicides at time t (µmol/g) Q e,exp The adsorption capacities of the herbicides at equilibrium (µmol/g) Q max The maximum adsorption capacity (µmol/g) n The adsorption affinity of the herbicides SIM Simazine V Volume of herbicides solution (L)