4.4 Article

Adsorption-reduction performance of tea waste and rice husk biochars for Cr(VI) elimination from wastewater

Journal

JOURNAL OF SAUDI CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages 799-810

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jscs.2020.07.001

Keywords

Adsorption; Biochar; Chromium; Tea waste

Funding

  1. Higher Education commission, Pakistan [1430/SRGP/RD/HEC/2016]
  2. King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [RSP-2020/180]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the current study tea waste and rice husk biochars were used for the elimination of Cr (VI) from wastewater with the objectives to study the effect of pH (3-10), shaking time (0.016-24 h), sorbent dose (0.1-1.3 g L-1) and initial concentration of Cr(VI) (10-250 mg L-1). The Cr(VI) sorption was studied under various factors in which solution pH played a main role and at pH 5.2, maximum 99.3% and 96.8% Cr(VI) were removed by tea waste biochar (TWB) and rice husk biochar (RHB), respectively. In comparison, 197.5 mg g(-1) and 195.24 mg g(-1) Cr(VI) were sorbed by TWB and RHB, respectively with 120 mg L-1 initial Cr(VI) concentration. In contact time study, after 2 h, equilibrium was achieved for both biochars which indicated that the Cr(VI) elimination from aqueous medium is a fast process. Kinetic and isotherm modeling data showed that pseudo-second order model and Langmuir (monolayer sorption) models provided the best fit for sorption of Cr(VI) onto both biochars. The-OH, COO- and-NH2 functional groups were involved in the sorption of Cr(VI) onto biochars according to FTIR. Biochars produced from both biomass effectively removed Cr(VI) from polluted water, however in comparison sorption capacity of TWB was slightly higher than RHB. It was concluded that TWB and RHB could provide a cost-effective and viable option for elimination of Cr(VI) from wastewater. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available