4.5 Article

Copper(II) and lead(II) adsorption onto zinc sulfide nanoparticles effects of light, pH, time, temperature, and interferences

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13762-021-03610-w

关键词

Adsorption; Zinc sulfide; Lead; Copper; Metal binding

资金

  1. Robert A. Welch Foundation [BX-0048]
  2. NSF PREM [DMR-2122178]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A ZnS nano-sorbent was prepared via hydrothermal reaction to remove copper(II) and lead(II) ions from aqueous solutions. The study investigated the effects of various factors on the binding capacity of ZnS, showing that pH and light conditions play important roles in the removal efficiency. Additionally, thermodynamic parameters indicated that the binding process for both copper(II) and lead(II) ions was spontaneous or close to equilibrium.
A ZnS nano-sorbent to remove copper(II) and lead(II) ions from aqueous solutions was prepared via a hydrothermal reaction and characterized by X-ray diffraction. The zinc sulfide nanoparticle size was determined to be 7.0 +/- 0.22 nm. The effects of pH, light conditions, time, capacity, and interferences on the zinc sulfide ability to remove copper(II) and lead(II) ions from aqueous solutions were investigated. pH studies showed that pH 5 was the optimal value for zinc sulfide binding both copper(II) and lead(II) ions. Under ambient light, the binding of both ions occurred within the first 5 min. Binding capacities ranged from 116.2 to 243.9 mg/g for copper(II), 39.1 to 147.1 mg/g for lead(II) ions, and 36.1-79.4 mg/g for lead(II) ions in the dark over temperature range from 4 to 45 degrees C. The thermodynamic parameters showed that the binding process for both copper(II) and lead(II) ions was either spontaneous or close to equilibrium. Light conditions were also investigated in the context of cation interference and showed that the presence of hard cations had no effect on the binding of lead(II) ions. On the other hand, the presence of hard cations showed small decrease in the binding of copper(II) ions.

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