4.8 Article

Removal of selected metal ions from aqueous solution using modified corncobs

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 2, Pages 133-139

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00007-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to convert corncobs to metal ion adsorbents for wastewater treatment. Ground corncobs were modified with either 0.6 M citric acid (CA) or 1.0 M phosphoric acid (PA) to help improve their natural adsorption capacity. The effect of a combination of wash and modification treatment was tested for corncob adsorption efficiency with five different metal ions (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc) individually or in a mixed solution containing each metal at a 20 mM concentration. Results were compared to those of commercial resins Amberlite IRC-718, Amberlite 200, Duolite GT-73 and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). Modified corncobs showed the same adsorption efficiency as Duolite GT-73 for cadmium, copper, nickel and zinc ions and had greater adsorption than CMC for nickel and zinc ions. For mixed metals, the modified corncobs exhibited the same adsorption efficiency as Duolite GT-73 for cadmium and copper ions and the same or higher adsorption than Amberlite IRC-718 for lead ions. Adsorption capacities of modified samples were compared to those of Amberlite IRC-718, Amberlite 200 and Duolite GT-73. Commercial resins generally had higher adsorption capacities than modified corncobs. However, the adsorption capacity of modified corncobs for copper and lead ions was equivalent to Duolite GT-73, but was lower than for Amberlite IRC-718 or Amberlite 200. Depending on the specific metal ion and the presence or absence of other metal ions, chemically modified corncobs were at least equivalent in adsorption properties to all of the commercial cation exchange resins examined in this study. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available