4.3 Article

Comparative study of chitin and chitosan beads for the adsorption of hazardous anionic azo dye Congo Red from wastewater

期刊

DESALINATION AND WATER TREATMENT
卷 57, 期 20, 页码 9247-9262

出版社

DESALINATION PUBL
DOI: 10.1080/19443994.2015.1027959

关键词

Error analysis; Adsorption isotherms; Chitin beads; Kinetics; Chitosan beads; Congo Red

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST)
  2. INSPIRE programme under the Assured Opportunity for Research Careers (AORC) - Department of Science and Technology (DST) [DST/INSPIRE Fellowship/2013/66]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chitin (CH) and chitosan (CTS) beads used and compared for the adsorption of Congo Red (CR), an anionic azo dye, are reported in the present work. Initially, the adsorbents were prepared and characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) analysis. SEM images showed the heterogeneous and porous structure of the beads and FT-IR results confirm the presence of -OH, -NH2, and-NHCOCH3 groups which are responsible for the adsorption of CR. Further, batch studies were conducted to evaluate the adsorption capacity of CH and CTS beads and the effects of the parameters like pH, adsorbate concentration, contact time, and dosage of adsorbents on adsorption were investigated. From the analysis, it was observed that the amount of CR adsorbed on both the adsorbents increases with increasing initial dye concentration and decreasing pH. The adsorption isotherms were analyzed using the Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms. The Langmuir isotherm was the best-fit adsorption isotherm model for the experimental data obtained from the non-linear chi-square statistic test. Further, the pseudo-first-order and second-order kinetic models were used to describe the kinetic data, and the rate constants were evaluated. The dynamical data fit well with the second-order kinetic model. The results indicate that CH and CTS beads could be employed as low-cost material for the adsorption of CR from wastewater.

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

4.3
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