4.7 Article

Removal of direct blue-106 dye from aqueous solution using new activated carbons developed from pomegranate peel: Adsorption equilibrium and kinetics

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 165, 期 1-3, 页码 52-62

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.09.067

关键词

Activated carbon; Direct blue-106 dye; Adsorption; Removal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of cheap, high efficiency and ecofriendly adsorbent has been studied as an alternative source of activated carbon for the removal of dyes from wastewater. This study investigates the use of activated carbons prepared from pomegranate peel for the removal of direct blue dye from aqueous solution. A series of experiments were conducted in a batch system to assess the effect of the system variables, i.e. initial pH, temperature, initial dye concentration adsorbent dosage and contact time. The results showed that the adsorption of direct blue dye was maximal at pH 2, as the amount of adsorbent increased, the percentage of dye removal increased accordingly but it decreased with the increase in initial dye concentration and solution temperature. The adsorption kinetics was found to follow pseudo-second-order rate kinetic model, with a good correlation (R-2 > 0.99) and intra-particle diffusion as one of the rate determining steps. Laingmuir, Freundlich, Temkin, Dubinin-RadushKevich (D-R) and HarkinS-Jura isotherms were used to analyze the equilibrium data at different temperatures. In addition, Various thermodynamic parameters, such as standard Gibbs free energy (Delta G degrees), standard enthalpy (Delta H degrees), standard entropy (Delta S degrees), and the activation energy (E-a) have been calculated. The adsorption process of direct blue dye onto different activated carbons prepared from pomegranate peel was found to be spontaneous and exothermic process. The findings of this investigation suggest that the physical sorption plays a role in controlling the sorption rate. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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