4.7 Article

Efficiency of removal of cadmium from aqueous solutions by plant leaves and the effects of interaction of combinations of leaves on their removal efficiency

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 87, 期 3, 页码 521-532

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.028

关键词

cadmium; removal; plant leaves; interaction; efficiency; kinetics; aqueous solutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Removal of cadmium from aqueous solutions using 20 species of plant leaves and combinations of these leaves have been studied. Several factors affecting the removal efficiency have been studied. The most efficient types of plant leaves for the removal of cadmium are those of styrax, plum, pomegranate and walnut. The interaction effect of the combined leaf samples on the efficiency of removal of cadmium has been found to be additive in combinations involving styrax plant leaves but seems to be antagonistic in all other combinations. The optimum experimental conditions for removal of cadmium have been found to be at pH 4.1, using high concentrations of naturally dried plant leaves, using ground leaves and to remove cadmium from agitated aqueous solutions. The percentage of metal removed at an initial cadmium concentration of 10 mg/l by the most efficient types of leaves have been found to be 85% for styrax leaves, 85% for plum leaves, 80% for pomegranate leaves, 78% for walnut leaves and 77% for meddler leaves. The presence of foreign ions or complexing agents has been found to reduce the efficiency of removal of cadmium by plant leaves. About 80-85% of the cadmium in charged plant leaves has been released under the influence of changing the pH of the solution, addition of competing ions and the addition of EDTA. The results of removal of cadmium by plant leaves have been found to follow the Freundlich adsorption isotherm, first-order reaction with respect to cadmium and to have intra-pore diffusion as the rate-limiting step. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据