4.6 Article

Adsorption of Reactive Blue 4 dye from water solutions by carbon nanotubes: experiment and theory

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 14, 期 31, 页码 11139-11153

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2cp41475a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-walled and single-walled carbon nanotubes were used as nanoadsorbents for the successful removal of Reactive Blue 4 textile dye from aqueous solutions. The adsorbents were characterised by infrared and Raman spectroscopy, N-2 adsorption/desorption isotherms and scanning and transmission electron microscopy. The effects of pH, shaking time and temperature on adsorption capacity were studied. In the acidic pH region (pH 2.0), the adsorption of the dye was favourable using both adsorbents. The contact time to obtain equilibrium isotherms at 298-323 K was fixed at 4 hours for both adsorbents. The general order kinetic model provided the best fit to the experimental data compared with pseudo-first order and pseudo-second order kinetic adsorption models. For Reactive Blue 4 dye, the equilibrium data (298 to 323 K) were best fitted to the Liu isotherm model. The maximum sorption capacity for adsorption of the dye occurred at 323 K, attaining values of 502.5 and 567.7 mg g(-1) for MWCNT and SWCNT, respectively. Simulated dyehouse effluents were used to check the applicability of the proposed nanoadsorbents for effluent treatment (removal of 99.89% and 99.98%, for MWCNT and SWCNT, respectively). The interaction of Reactive Blue 4 textile dye with single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) was investigated using first principles calculations based on density functional theory. Results from ab initio calculations indicated that Reactive Blue 4 textile dye could be adsorbed on SWCNT through an electrostatic interaction; these results are in agreement with the experimental predictions.

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

4.6
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