4.5 Article

A study on the biosorption kinetics of Cu (II) and Zn (II) ions from aqueous phase (sulphate medium) using waste sawdust generated from Acacia nilotica wood carpentry

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 615-625

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10646-021-02471-w

关键词

Acacia nilotica; Biosorption; Heavy metals; Isotherm models; Kinetics

资金

  1. Department of Science & Technology-Science and Engineering Research Board (DST-SERB) [YSS/2014/000895]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The natural biosorption capacity of Acacia nilotica sawdust for the removal of copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) heavy metal ions was studied in this research. The process was optimized for factors like pH, contact time, biomass amount, and metal ion concentration. Experimental data analysis indicated that the Freundlich isotherm model showed the best fit for Zn while the Langmuir isotherm model gave a favorable fit for Cu metal ion adsorption. Both metal ions followed pseudo-second-order kinetics during the adsorption process.
In the present study, the natural biosorption capacity of Acacia nilotica sawdust (wood biomass) was studied for the removal of copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) heavy metal ions. The process was optimized for several important factors such as pH, contact time, biomass amount, and metal ion concentration. The maximum biosorption of Zn onto Acacia nilotica sawdust was 66.092% at pH 7.0, contact time 20 min, biomass concentration 0.4 g, and initial Zn concentration 8.4 mg/L. The maximum Cu biosorption to Acacia nilotica sawdust was 66.097% at pH 4, contact time 45 min, biomass 0.8 g, initial metal ion concentration 27 mg/L. The experimental data were analyzed by two different adsorption isotherms i.e. Langmuir and Freundlich models. Based on the regression coefficient the Freundlich isotherm model showed the best fit for Zn whereas Cu metal ion adsorption gave a favorable fit for Langmuir isotherm. Both metal ions followed pseudo-second-order kinetics in the adsorption process using sawdust of Acacia nilotica.

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