4.6 Article

Removal of dyes from wastewater using flyash, a low-cost adsorbent

Journal

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
Volume 41, Issue 15, Pages 3688-3695

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ie010667+

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of low-cost adsorbent has been investigated as a replacement for the current expensive methods of removing dyes from wastewater. As such, fly ash generated in National Thermal Power plant was collected and converted into a low-cost adsorbent. The prepared adsorbent was characterized and used for the removal of dyes from wastewater. Adsorption studies were carried out for different temperatures, particle sizes, pH's, and adsorbent doses. The adsorption of each dye was found to increase with increasing temperature, thereby indicating that the process is endothermic in nature. The removal of each dye was found to be inversely proportional to the size of the fly ash particles, as expected. Both the linear and nonlinear forms of the Langmuir and Freundlich models fitted the adsorption data. The results indicate that the Freundlich adsorption isotherm fitted the data better than the Langmuir adsorption isotherm. Further, the data were better correlated with the nonlinear than the linear form of this equation. Thermodynamic parameters such as the free energies, enthalpies, and entropies of adsorption of the dye-fly ash systems were also evaluated. The negative values of free energy indicate the feasibility and spontaneous nature of the process, and the positive heats of enthalpy suggest the endothermic nature of the process. The adsorptions of crystal violet and basic fuschin follow first-order rate kinetics. In comparison to other low-cost adsorbents, the sorption capacity of the material under investigation is found to be comparable to that of other commercially available adsorbents used for the removal of cationic dyes from wastewater.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available