4.7 Article

Removal of pararosaniline hydrochloride (basic red 9) from aqueous system with lignocellulose fraction of sugarcane bagasse as adsorbent

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 188, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115573

关键词

Basic red 9; Bio-sorbent; Clean water; Extractive-free sugarcane bagasse; Isotherm; Kinetics

资金

  1. National Taiwan University of Science and Technology [109O210007/109O410307]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 108-2218-E-011-032-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the removal of BR9 from aqueous solution using lignin and holocellulose in extractive-free SCB as a natural and low-cost adsorbent. The adsorption capacity of eSCB for BR9 was found to be high, and eSCB could be reused multiple times.
The removal of pararosaniline hydrochloride (BR9) from an aqueous system using lignin and holocellulose in extractive-free SCB (eSCB) as a natural and low-cost adsorbent was evaluated. Adsorption experiments were carried out at various initial pH (4-8) and initial dye concentrations (10 mg/L to 500 mg/L) and at different temperatures (303-333 K), to assess its uptake rate and equilibrium uptake. The uptake kinetics were fitted with various models, where the Elovich model and a newly proposed multi-mechanistic model were found to best describe the uptake rate and process. Adsorption of BR9 onto eSCB, involved the simultaneous adsorption at different locations of the eSCB matrix. The adsorption capacity of eSCB for BR9 was found to be 48.98 mg/g at 303 K. From thermodynamic analysis, it was inferred that the adsorption process was exothermic (Delta H = -4.04 kJ/mol), and spontaneous (Delta G = -35.40 to 27.5 kJ/mol). Apart from adsorption, the desorption and subsequent reuse of eSCB for BR9 adsorption were also explored and reported for the first time. The use of acidic aqueous ethanol with HCl as the acid helps the removal of BR9 from eSCB. As an adsorbent for BR9, eSCB could be reused at least 4 times.

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

4.7
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