4.7 Article

Kinetic and thermodynamic modeling for the removal of Direct Red-31 and Direct Orange-26 dyes from aqueous solutions by rice husk

期刊

DESALINATION
卷 272, 期 1-3, 页码 313-322

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.040

关键词

Biosorption; Direct dyes; Thermodynamics; Kinetics; Equilibrium; Rice (Oryza sativa) husk

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study deals with the utilization of an inexpensive agro-industrial waste rice husk for the removal of Direct Red-31 and Direct Orange-26 from aqueous solutions in a batch mode. Experiments were carried out as function of pH, biosorbent dose, particle size of biosorbent, initial dyes concentration, contact time and temperature. The equilibrium biosorption data were analyzed by Langmuir, Freundlich, Temkin, Doubinin-Radushevich (D-R) and Harkins-Jura isotherm models. The results indicated that the Langmuir model provided the best correlation of the experimental data for both dyes. The biosorption kinetic data were modeled using the pseudo-first-order, pseudo-second-order and intra-particle diffusion kinetic equations. It was observed that the pseudo-second-order kinetic equation could explain the biosorption kinetics of dyes on rice husk. Thermodynamic parameters such as enthalpy change (Delta H degrees), entropy change (Delta S degrees) and free energy change (Delta G degrees) were also investigated. Free energy change showed that biosorption of Direct Red-31 and Direct Orange-26 was spontaneous at all studied temperatures (30-70 degrees C). Surface adsorption of both the dyes at specific binding sites was confirmed through and Fourier Transform infrared spectroscopic (FT-IR) analysis. The changes in surface morphology of rice husk before and after adsorption was investigated through scanning electron microscopy (SEM). It was implied that rice husk may be suitable as an adsorbent for removal of direct dyes from aqueous solutions. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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