4.7 Article

Comparison of Amberlite IR 120 and dolomite's performances for removal of heavy metals

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 147, Issue 1-2, Pages 488-496

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.01.037

Keywords

Lead(II); Cadmium(II); ion exchange resin; dolomite; adsorption; conservative technologies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The presence of heavy metals in the environment is major concern due to their toxicity. Contamination of heavy metals in water supplies has steadily increased over the last years as a result of over population and expansion of industrial activities. A strong cation-exchange resin, Amberlite IR 120 and a natural zeolite, dolomite were used for the removal of lead(II) and cadmium(II). The optimum conditions were determined in a batch system as concentration range was between 5 and 100 mg/L, pH range between 1 and 8, contact time between 5 and 90 min, and the amount of adsorbent was from 0. 1 to 1 g. A constant stirring speed, 2000 rpm, was chosen during all of the experiments. The optimum conditions were found to be a concentration of 20 mg/L, pH of 5, contact time of 60 min and 0.5 g of adsorbent. Also, for investigation of exchange equilibria different amounts of ion exchange resin and dolomite were contacted with a fixed volume and concentration of a heavy metal bearing solutions. Sorption data have been interpreted in terms of Langmuir and Freundlich equations. The effect of adsorption temperature on the heavy metals adsorption onto dolomite was investigated at three different temperatures (20, 40 and 60 degrees C). Thermodynamic parameters were calculated. The results obtained show that the Amberlite IR 120 strong cation-exchange resin and dolomite performed well for the removal of these heavy metals. As a low cost adsorbent, dolomite can preferable for removal of heavy metals from wastewaters. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available