Evaluation of Raw and Calcined Eggshell for Removal of Cd2+ from Aqueous Solution
3
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The potential use of egg shell and calcined egg shell as adsorbent was evaluated and compared to remove Cd2+ from aqueous solution. The samples were characterized using Thermogravimetry and Differential Thermal Analysis (TG/DTA), Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), X-ray Diffractometer (XRD), Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometer (EDX) and BET Surface Analyzer. The batch-type adsorption experiment was conducted by varying diverse variables such as contact time, pH, initial Cd2+ concentrations and adsorbent dosage. The results showed that, under the initial Cd2+ concentrations ranged from 25 to 200 mg g-1, the removal efficiencies of Cd2+ by egg shell powder (ESP) were decreased steadily from 96.72% to 22.89% with increase in the initial Cd2+ concentration at 2.5 g of dosage and 8 h of contact time. However, on the contrary to this, calcined egg shell powder (CESP) showed removal efficiencies above 99% regardless of initial Cd2+ concentration. The difference in the adsorption behavior of Cd2+ may be explained due to the different pH values of ESP and CESP in solution. Cd2+ seems to be efficiently removed from aqueous solution by using the CESP with a basicity nature of around pH 12. It was also observed that an optimum dosage of ESP and CESP for nearly complete removal of Cd2+ from aqueous solution is approximately 5.0 g and 1.0 g, respectively. Consequently, Cd2+ is more favorably adsorbed on CESP than ESP in the studied conditions. Adsorption data were applied by the pseudo-first-order and pseudo-second-order kinetics models and Freundlich and Langmuir isotherm models, respectively. With regard to adsorption kinetics tests, the pseudo-second-order kinetics was more suitable for ESP and CESP. The adsorption pattern of Cd2+ by ESP was better fitted to Langmuir isotherm model. However, by contrast with ESP, CESP was described by Freundlich isotherm model well.
Abstract
The potential use of egg shell and calcined egg shell as adsorbent was evaluated and compared to remove Cd2+ from aqueous solution. The samples were characterized using Thermogravimetry and Differential Thermal Analysis (TG/DTA), Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), X-ray Diffractometer (XRD), Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometer (EDX) and BET Surface Analyzer. The batch-type adsorption experiment was conducted by varying diverse variables such as contact time, pH, initial Cd2+ concentrations and adsorbent dosage. The results showed that, under the initial Cd2+ concentrations ranged from 25 to 200 mg g-1, the removal efficiencies of Cd2+ by egg shell powder (ESP) were decreased steadily from 96.72% to 22.89% with increase in the initial Cd2+ concentration at 2.5 g of dosage and 8 h of contact time. However, on the contrary to this, calcined egg shell powder (CESP) showed removal efficiencies above 99% regardless of initial Cd2+ concentration. The difference in the adsorption behavior of Cd2+ may be explained due to the different pH values of ESP and CESP in solution. Cd2+ seems to be efficiently removed from aqueous solution by using the CESP with a basicity nature of around pH 12. It was also observed that an optimum dosage of ESP and CESP for nearly complete removal of Cd2+ from aqueous solution is approximately 5.0 g and 1.0 g, respectively. Consequently, Cd2+ is more favorably adsorbed on CESP than ESP in the studied conditions. Adsorption data were applied by the pseudo-first-order and pseudo-second-order kinetics models and Freundlich and Langmuir isotherm models, respectively. With regard to adsorption kinetics tests, the pseudo-second-order kinetics was more suitable for ESP and CESP. The adsorption pattern of Cd2+ by ESP was better fitted to Langmuir isotherm model. However, by contrast with ESP, CESP was described by Freundlich isotherm model well.
참고문헌 (15)
- Ucer, A., , Separation and Purification Techniology, 47, pp.113~ (2006)
- Pettinato, M., , Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 121, pp.57~ (2015)
- Mittal, A., , J. Molecular Liquids, 223, pp.376~ (2016)
- Park, H. J., , J. Environmental Science, 19, pp.1436~ (2007)
- Nieto-Marquez, A., , J. Environmental Chemical Engineering, 5, pp.1060~ (2017)
- Bhatti, I. A., , J. Environmental Chemical Engineering, 5, pp.2740~ (2017)
- Troca-Torrado, C., , Fuel Processing Technology, 92, pp.206~ (2011)
- Karmacharya, M. S., , J. Molocular Liquids, 216, pp.836~ (2016)
- Li, Z., , J. Hazardous Materials, 183, pp.410~ (2010)
- Wang, Y., , J. Hazardous Materials, 172, pp.30~ (2009)
- Salih, S. S., , International J. Biological Macromolecules, 106, pp.602~ (2018)
- Wei, Z., , Bioresource Technology, 100(11), pp.2883~ (2009)
- Oliveirra, D. A., , J. Cleaner Production, 46, pp.42~ (2013)
- Panagiotou, E., , J. Cleaner Production, 178, pp.419~ (2018)
- Pal, P., , International J. Biological Macromolecules, 104, pp.1548~ (2017)