4.4 Article

Application of copper sulfide nanoparticles loaded activated carbon for simultaneous adsorption of ternary dyes: Response surface methodology

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 1108-1118

出版社

KOREAN INSTITUTE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11814-018-0012-1

关键词

Adsorption; Central Composite Design; CuS-NPs-AC; Disulphine Blue; Eosin Yellow; Safranin O

资金

  1. Research Council of the Islamic Azad University of Gachsaran branch, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Copper sulfide nanoparticles were synthesized and loaded on activated carbon (CuS-NPs-AC) for ternary dye removal. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction spectroscopy (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) equipped with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) were used to characterize the synthesized materials. The performance of the materials was subsequently evaluated for simultaneous ultrasound assisted adsorption of Disulphine Blue (DB), Eosin Yellow (EY) and Safranin O (SO) dyes in ternary solution under different conditions that include variation in solution pH, initial concentrations of dyes, sonication time and adsorbent dosage. Response surface methodology (RSM) using central composite design (CCD) was employed to obtain the optimum experimental conditions. The maximum removal efficacies (88.39%, 68.49% and 55.69% for DB, EY and SO, respectively) were found at the optimum conditions: 3.63 min of sonication time, 0.02 g of CuS-NPs-AC, 7.76mg L-1 of DB, 8.89mg L-1 of EY, 9.87mg L-1 of SO and pH 6.5. Very high adsorbent capacities of 198.12, 165.0, 139.58mg g(-1) for DB, EY and SO, respectively, were yielded from Langmuir isotherm as best fitted model. Kinetic study indicated that the pseudo-second-order kinetic model was well fitted to the experimental data of ternary adsorption process. The results of the study display very good adsorption efficiency of the synthesized adsorbent for dye removal with high adsorption capacity under optimum conditions.

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

4.4
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