## 3 Results and Discussion
### Adsorption Tests
#### 3.2.2 Phenolic Compounds Removal
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Parameter** & **U.M.** & **MB** & **EB** & **BB** & **Ph** & **CP** & **BPA** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{SCGs-AC 1} & C\({}_{i}\) & mg/L & 20 & 25 & 100 & 200 & 200 & 25 \\  & C\({}_{f}\) & mg/L & 0.005 & 0.224 & 0.885 & 57 & 5.94 & 10.5 \\  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 5\%) & mg/g & 174.89 & 38.66 & 201.77 & 4711.0 & 3765.5 & 220.97 \\  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 10\%) & mg/g & 174.67 & 35.38 & 117.50 & 4102.6 & 3349.6 & 220.91 \\  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 50\%) & mg/g & 171.35 & 13.48 & 0.329 & 912.40 & 938.55 & 220.04 \\  & Adsorption capacity & mg/g & 179 & 42.1 & 337 & 5371 & 3765 & 222 \\  & Partition coefficient & mg/g/uM & 12455 & 165.55 & 237.72 & 8.87 & 81.53 & 4.82 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{C1-AC 1} & C\({}_{i}\) & mg/L & 20 & 25 & 100 & 200 & 200 & 25 \\  & C\({}_{f}\) & mg/L & 0.020 & 0.058 & 0.005 & 78.3 & 10.4 & 3.10 \\  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 5\%) & mg/g & 275.85 & 147.76 & 228.37 & 2386.3 & 1211.9 & 125.27 \\  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 10\%) & mg/g & 275.45 & 147.09 & 227.01 & 1979.1 & 1131.1 & 125.17 \\  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 50\%) & mg/g & 273.44 & 137.58 & 208.15 & 258.93 & 533.91 & 123.74 \\  & Adsorption capacity & mg/g & 278 & 161 & 256 & 2850 & 1294 & 127 \\  & Partition coefficient & mg/g/uM & 4365.6 & 2433.2 & 31968 & 3.42 & 16.00 & 9.37 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{C2-AC 1} & C\({}_{i}\) & mg/L & 20 & 25 & 100 & 200 & 200 & 25 \\  & C\({}_{f}\) & mg/L & 0.036 & 0.046 & 0.175 & 49.5 & 4.09 & 1.36 \\  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 5\%) & mg/g & 115.43 & 79.05 & 71.86 & 1400.2 & 1059.57 & 312.63 \\ \cline{1-1}  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 10\%) & mg/g & 115.29 & 78.79 & 71.57 & 1282.4 & 1010.2 & 312.61 \\ \cline{1-1}  & q\({}_{e}\) (BT 50\%) & mg/g & 113.20 & 75.06 & 67.44 & 493.11 & 600.50 & 312.30 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Adsorption capacity & mg/g & 118 & 84 & 78 & 1522 & 1109 & 313 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Partition coefficient & mg/g/uM & 1056.8 & 1611.4 & 278.92 & 2.89 & 34.88 & 52.39 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) The q\({}_{e}\) (BT 100%) corresponds to saturation conditions.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Experimental concentrations, breakthrough levels at 5%, 10%, and 50% of adsorption, adsorption capacities at saturation (in mg/g), and partition coefficients. and even better than those described by [PERSON] et al. [64]. The same considerations could not be extended to SCGs-AC with BPA. According to [PERSON] et al. [65], the trend of BPA adsorption capacity is inversely related to the oxygen content of the adsorbents (Table 2). [PERSON] et al. [64] gained 98% of BPA removal with AC from SCGs activated with ZnCl\({}_{2}\), under the same pH and temperature conditions of the reported study, even if he adsorption time was 24 h (3 h in this experiment). Better results could be found in the literature with other adsorbents, as reviewed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [40]. In particular, ultra-high-surface-area porous AC from low cost asphalt seemed to be effective for the removal of both BPA and other endocrine disrupting chemicals from wastewater [66]. Techniques other than adsorption are available for BPA removal, including ozonation [67], membrane filtration [68], plasma [69], and advance oxidation processes [70]. Despite the high efficiency, all these techniques are characterized by high investment and operational costs, as opposed to adsorption processes [71]. The lower removal efficiency of SCGs-AC for BPA could be due to the morphology and to a poor electrostatic interaction established between BPA, which was reported to be in its neutral form at pH below 8 [72] and the partially negatively charged SCGs-AC surface.