4.5 Article

Optimized extraction of Pb (II) and Co (II) with glycolamide mono and di-ionic liquids using response surface methodology

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMOMETRICS
卷 35, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cem.3382

关键词

mono and di-ionic liquids; optimized extraction; response surface methodology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the extraction of lead and cobalt from wastewater using glycolamide based functionalized ionic liquids, and found that factors such as choice of IL, pH value, contact time, and metal ionic concentrations significantly influenced the extraction efficiency. Response surface methodology was used to optimize the extraction efficiency of ILs, and interaction between ILs and Pb (II) and Co (II) was confirmed through FTIR qualitative analysis.
This study investigates the extraction of lead (Pb (II)) and cobalt (Co (II)) from waste water through glycolamide based functionalized ionic liquids (ILs) having imidazolium cations mono (LI) and di (LII) ionics. Four factors that influence the selective extraction of Pb (II) and Co (II) including the choice of IL (LI and LII), pH value (2, 6, and 10), contact time (15, 45, and 75 min), and metal ionic concentrations (50, 150, and 250 ppm) were analyzed. Results from central composite design (CCD) show that all considered four factors significantly influenced (p value <0.001) the Pb (II) and Co (II) extraction. Moreover pH values and contact time significantly influences (p value <0.05) the Pb (II) and Co (II) at both levels of ILs. The response surface methodology is used to optimize the extraction efficiency of these ILs. Moreover, the Pb extraction can be optimized to 96.819% by choosing temperate 84.9 degrees C, pH value 4.448, and metal concentration 92.5 ppm. Similarly, Co extraction can be optimized to 95.754% by choosing temperate 68.40 degrees C, pH value 3.768, and metal concentration 34.70 ppm. Moreover, the interaction between ILs and Pb (II) and Co (II) has been proven via Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) qualitative analysis.

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