| Literature DB >> 29315270 |
Rong Song1,2, Shengke Yang3,4, Haiyang Xu5, Zongzhou Wang6,7, Yangyang Chen8,9, Yanhua Wang10.
Abstract
The adsorption behavior and mechanism for the uptake of fluoride ions by untreated and desugared reed residues (roots, stems and leaves) were studied through adsorption experiments, elemental analysis, infrared spectroscopy and surface area analysis. The results showed that the adsorption capacity of untreated and desugared reeds followed the order: desugared roots 2136 mg/kg > desugared leaves 1825 mg/kg > desugared stems 1551 mg/kg > untreated roots 191 mg/kg > untreated stems 175 mg/kg > untreated leaves 150 mg/kg, so adsorption capacity of desugared reeds was larger than that of the untreated reeds. The adsorption kinetic of fluoride ions followed a pseudo-first-order model. A Langmuir model could be used to fit the isothermal adsorption process which was a spontaneous endothermic reaction involving mainly physical adsorption. The ΔG for the uptake of fluoride by the desugared reeds was more negative, so the degree of spontaneity was higher than for the use of the untreated reeds. After samples were desugared, the specific surface area and aromaticity of the reed increased, while the polarity and hydrophilicity decreased, which explained the adsorption amount of desugared reed was higher than that of the untreated. This study enriches techniques and methods of removing fluoride ions from water.Entities:
Keywords: adsorption; desugared; fluoride; reed
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29315270 PMCID: PMC5800200 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15010101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Untreated and desugared samples.
Figure 2Adsorption kinetic curves for the uptake of fluoride by reed residues. R-U, S-U, L-U refer to the roots, stems, leaves of the untreated samples, and R-D, S-D, L-D refer to the roots, stems, leaves with desugarization.
Kinetic parameters.
| Samples | Qe, Exp. (mg/kg) | Pseudo-First-Order Model | Pseudo-Second-Order Model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | K1 (1/min) | Qe, cal (mg/kg) | R2 | K2 (kg/mg·min) | Qe, cal (mg/kg) | ||
| R-U | 191.28 | 0.9764 | 0.0254 | 196.02 | 0.9263 | 1.38 × 10−4 | 226.52 |
| S-U | 175.29 | 0.9401 | 0.0170 | 183.88 | 0.8983 | 7.54 × 10−5 | 227.51 |
| L-U | 149.52 | 0.9208 | 0.0242 | 149.81 | 0.9348 | 1.90 × 10−4 | 170.91 |
| R-D | 2135.66 | 0.8932 | 0.0491 | 2108.14 | 0.9537 | 3.33 × 10−5 | 2291.83 |
| S-D | 1551.42 | 0.8668 | 0.0578 | 1530.64 | 0.9310 | 5.67 × 10−5 | 1646.98 |
| L-D | 1824.57 | 0.8318 | 0.0258 | 1840.13 | 0.8377 | 1.75 × 10−5 | 2074.31 |
Figure 3The fitted isothermal adsorption model for the uptake of fluoride ions by reed residues. (a) Langmuir Model; (b) Freundlich Model.
The fitted Parameters of Langmuir model and Freundlich model.
| Samples | Langmuir Model | Freundlich Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qm (mg/kg) | KL (L/mg) | R2 | RL | KF (mg/kg) (L/mg) 1/n | n | R2 | |
| R-U | 3547.04 | 0.0208 | 0.9401 | 0.4375 | 72.37 | 1.07 | 0.9351 |
| S-U | 655.37 | 0.0778 | 0.8418 | 0.4190 | 53.10 | 1.34 | 0.8181 |
| L-U | 668.87 | 0.0691 | 0.8116 | 0.4215 | 47.50 | 1.27 | 0.7867 |
| R-D | 10,859.82 | 0.1018 | 0.9882 | 0.4123 | 1210.72 | 1.50 | 0.9749 |
| S-D | 6404.78 | 0.0886 | 0.9801 | 0.4159 | 622.29 | 1.44 | 0.9695 |
| L-D | 5497.05 | 0.1460 | 0.9917 | 0.4016 | 869.47 | 1.71 | 0.9737 |
Comparative investigation of fluoride adsorption using different absorbents.
| Adsorbent | Isotherm Model | pH | Capacity (mg/g) | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural materials | Natural pumice | F | 6.0 | 4.50 | [ |
| Natural pumice | F | 3.0 | 1.170 | [ | |
| Natural geomaterial limonite (Iron Ore) | L | 7.0 | 0.269 | [ | |
| Kaolinite clay | L | 1.450 | [ | ||
| Montmorillonites | F | 6.0 | 3.365 | [ | |
| Untreated reed root | L | 7.0 | 3.547 | This study | |
| Untreated reed stem | L | 7.0 | 0.655 | This study | |
| Untreated reed leaf | L | 7.0 | 0.669 | This study | |
| Modified materials | Modified pumice with FeCl3 | F | 3.0 | 21.740 | [ |
| Modified pumice with HDTMA | F | 3.0 | 25.000 | [ | |
| Modified magnetite ore with aluminum and lanthanum ions | L | 7.8 | M-Al 1.51 | [ | |
| Modified montmorillonite with Fe(III) | L | 4.5 | 9.696 | [ | |
| Modified chitosan with neodymium | L | 7.0 | 22.380 | [ | |
| Modified zeolite with calcium chloride | F/L | 1.766 | [ | ||
| Desugared reed root | L | 7.0 | 10.860 | This study | |
| Desugared reed stem | L | 7.0 | 6.405 | This study | |
| Desugared reed leaf | L | 7.0 | 5.497 | This study | |
| Synthetic materials | MnCO3 nanowires | L | 7.0 | 11.580 | [ |
| Graphene oxide (GO)-incorporated iron-aluminium mixed oxide | L | 7.0 | 22.900 | [ | |
| Ce-Ti oxides nanoparticles | L | 7.0 | 44.370 | [ | |
| Ce-Ti@Fe3O4 nanoparticles | L | 7.0 | 91.070 | [ | |
Figure 4The fitted Langmuir model of the untreated and desugared (a) roots; (b) stems; (c) leaves at different temperatures.
The fitted parameters of the Langmuir model at different temperatures.
| Samples | Parameters | T (K) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 298 | 308 | 318 | ||
| R-U | Qm (mg/kg) | 3547.04 | 5313.88 | 5076.931 |
| KL (L/mg) | 0.0208 | 0.0169 | 0.0019 | |
| R2 | 0.9401 | 0.9082 | 0.9879 | |
| S-U | Qm (mg/kg) | 655.37 | 648.05 | 1089.40 |
| KL (L/mg) | 0.0778 | 0.1271 | 0.0896 | |
| R2 | 0.8418 | 0.7687 | 0.9161 | |
| L-U | Qm (mg/kg) | 668.87 | 604.28 | 947.65 |
| KL (L/mg) | 0.0691 | 0.1245 | 0.0933 | |
| R2 | 0.8116 | 0.7465 | 0.8317 | |
| R-D | Qm (mg/kg) | 10,859.82 | 9573.71 | 11,775.19 |
| KL (L/mg) | 0.1018 | 0.1976 | 0.1835 | |
| R2 | 0.9882 | 0.9796 | 0.9899 | |
| S-D | Qm (mg/kg) | 6404.78 | 10,470.99 | 10,280.32 |
| KL (L/mg) | 0.0886 | 0.0702 | 0.0957 | |
| R2 | 0.9801 | 0.9832 | 0.9921 | |
| L-D | Qm (mg/kg) | 5497.05 | 6373.20 | 8185.86 |
| KL (L/mg) | 0.1460 | 0.1879 | 0.1771 | |
| R2 | 0.9917 | 0.8436 | 0.9506 | |
The thermodynamic parameters.
| Samples | T (K) | K0 | ΔG (K·mol−1) | ΔH (KJ·mol−1) | ΔS (KJ·mol−1·K−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-U | 298 | 3.9785 | −3.4213 | 4.6010 | 0.0270 |
| 308 | 4.3751 | −3.7794 | |||
| 318 | 4.4680 | −3.9577 | |||
| S-U | 298 | 3.4964 | −3.1013 | 8.7097 | 0.0397 |
| 308 | 3.9921 | −3.5450 | |||
| 318 | 4.3598 | −3.8929 | |||
| L-U | 298 | 3.2021 | −2.8834 | 8.3406 | 0.0378 |
| 308 | 3.7504 | −3.3849 | |||
| 318 | 3.9530 | −3.6339 | |||
| R-D | 298 | 6.9271 | −4.7952 | 3.4746 | 0.0278 |
| 308 | 7.4067 | −5.1275 | |||
| 318 | 7.5623 | −5.3490 | |||
| S-D | 298 | 6.2228 | −4.5295 | 3.6013 | 0.0273 |
| 308 | 6.4882 | −4.7885 | |||
| 318 | 6.8193 | −5.0756 | |||
| L-D | 298 | 6.5464 | −4.6551 | 3.5335 | 0.0275 |
| 308 | 6.9914 | −4.9798 | |||
| 318 | 7.1577 | −5.2036 |
Element composition and atomic ratio.
| Samples | Qe, Exp. (mg/kg) | C (%) | H (%) | O (%) | H/C | (N + O)/C | O/C | Kd (L/kg) | Koc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-U | 191.24 | 42.46 | 6.06 | 44.59 | 1.71 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 63.67 | 149.95 |
| R-D | 2135.66 | 51.49 | 5.46 | 38.28 | 1.27 | 0.57 | 0.56 | 472.43 | 917.52 |
| S-U | 175.29 | 44.93 | 6.12 | 44.88 | 1.63 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 27.15 | 60.43 |
| S-D | 1551.42 | 50.96 | 5.91 | 43.43 | 1.39 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 262.42 | 514.95 |
| L-U | 149.52 | 42.13 | 6.10 | 40.43 | 1.74 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 26.52 | 62.95 |
| L-D | 1824.57 | 50.15 | 6.26 | 39.18 | 1.50 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 258.84 | 516.13 |
Figure 5FTIR spectra of the reed (a) roots and (b) leaves.
Figure 6Adsorption-desorption isotherm.
The surface area, pore area, micropore volume and pore size of the untreated and desugared roots.
| Sample Types | Surface Area (m2/g) | Pore Area (m2/g) | Micropore Volume (cm3/g) | Average Pore Size (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-U | 0.1844 | 2.2274 | 0.0009 | - |
| R-D | 2.6321 | 3.0050 | 0.0013 | 8.8610 |
Figure 7The adsorption mechanism schematic.