3.8 Article

Adsorption of methylene blue from aqueous solution using different types of activated carbon

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED WATER ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 370-380

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/23249676.2022.2120918

Keywords

Adsorption; Langmuir; activated carbon; fixed bed

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the ability of four different adsorbents to remove methylene blue from aqueous solution. The results showed that ACPP2 and ACPP3 had better adsorption capacity for MB, and the adsorption process occurred under homogeneous and monolayer control. Additionally, the performance of the breakthrough curves were affected by flow rate, bed height, and initial concentration.
In this study, four types of adsorbents were examined for their ability to remove methylene blue MB from aqueous solution by adsorption in a fixed bed system. The adsorbents used were activated carbon (AC), manufactured activated carbon (ACPP(1)), chemically activated carbon with nitric acid (10% wt) (ACPP(2)), and with nitric acid and H2SO4 (ratio 1:1) (ACPP(3)). 28 experiments were conducted to test the effect of MB concentrations, adsorbent bed depth, and solution flow rate. Langmuir and Freundlich as isotherm models were analyzed by nonlinear regression. For AC and ACPP1 the adsorption occurred under heterogeneous and multilayer surfaces. Conversely, for ACPP2 and ACPP3 adsorbent, homogeneous and monolayer control adsorption of MB on this adsorbent and maximum adsorption capacity was 33.149 and 38.508 mg/g for MB onto ACPP2 and ACPP3, respectively. The effect of the flow rate (132,200 and 250 cc/min), bed height (0.05, 0.1, and 0.15 m), and initial MB concentration (150, 300, and 500 mg/1) on the performance of the breakthrough curves were clarified. The Bohart-Adams and Thomas-BDST models have a better correlation in relation to the analysis of fixed bed data.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available