4.5 Article

Methylene blue removal using raw and modified biomass Plumeria alba (white frangipani) in batch mode: isotherm, kinetics, and thermodynamic studies

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-022-10597-5

关键词

Acid-treated Plumeria alba leaves; Methylene blue; Isotherm; Kinetic; Adsorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the use of raw and acid-treated frangipani leaf powder as adsorbents for the removal of methylene blue from wastewater. The results show that acid-treated adsorbents have higher adsorption capacity and fit the pseudo-second-order kinetic model. The study concludes that the selected adsorbents are suitable for the removal of methylene blue from wastewater.
Hazardous dyes used in textile industries are considered high-risk pollutants to the environment. The raw as well as acid-treated Plumeria alba (white frangipani) leaf powder (WFLP and SWFLP) were used for the adsorption of methylene blue (MB) that is available in industrial wastewaters following the batch adsorption technique. The characterizations of adsorbents were done by FTIR, SEM, EDX, TGA, and zeta potential parameters. The adsorption was considered for the effects of temperature, initial dye concentration, solution pH, adsorbent dosage, and contact time. The experimental results obtained in the adsorption of MB were examined by nonlinear error functions like chi-square (chi(2)), ARE, and MPSD for three isotherm models: Langmuir, Freundlich, and Temkin. The maximum monolayer adsorption capacity, q(max) (mg/g), was 45.45 mg/g for raw WFLP and 250 mg/g for SWFLP. The adsorbents fitted to the pseudo-second-order kinetic model (R-2 = 0.99) using the experimental data of batch adsorption. The thermodynamic studies explained the spontaneity and nature of adsorption for raw and acid-treated adsorbents. The batch experimental results and characterizations of the adsorbents revealed that the selected adsorbents would be the best adsorbents for the removal of MB from the wastewater solution.

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