4.5 Article

Optimization of adsorption parameters for Fe (III) ions removal from aqueous solutions by transition metal oxide nanocomposite

期刊

GREEN CHEMISTRY LETTERS AND REVIEWS
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 404-413

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17518253.2018.1526329

关键词

Nanocomposite; adsorption; response surface; equilibrium isotherms; kinetics

资金

  1. Golestan University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Manganese oxide nanocomposite (Mn2O3/Mn3O4) was prepared by sol-gel technique and used as an adsorbent. Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FE-SEM) were used to characterize the adsorbent. The response surface methodology (RSM) was employed to evaluate the effects of solution pH, initial Fe (III) ions concentration, adsorbent weight, and contact time on the removal ratio of the Fe (III) ions. A total of 27 adsorption experimental runs were carried out employing the detailed conditions designed based on the Box-Behnken design (BBD). Results showed that the pH of the solution and initial Fe (III) ions concentration were the most significant parameters for Fe (III) ions removal. In process optimization, the maximal value of the removal ratio of Fe (III) was achieved as 95.80%. Moreover, the corresponding optimal parameters of adsorption process were as: contact time=62.5min, initial Fe (III) concentration=50mg/L, adsorbent weight=0.5g, and pH=5. The experimental confirmation tests showed a strong correlation between the predicted and experimental responses (R-2=0.9803). The fitness of equilibrium data to common isotherm equations such as Langmuir, Freundlich, and Temkin were also tested. The sorption isotherm of adsorbent was best described by the Langmuir model. The kinetic data were analyzed using pseudo-first-order, pseudo-second-order, intraparticle diffusion, and Elovich kinetic models. The adsorption kinetics of Fe (III) ions were well fitted with the pseudo-second-order kinetic model. [GRAPHICS]

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

4.5
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