| Literature DB >> 33458534 |
Noman Chowdhury1, Chanchal Kumar Roy1, Shakhawat H Firoz1, Tahmina Foyez2, Abu Bin Imran1.
Abstract
A variety of methods for removing heavy metal ions from wasteEntities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33458534 PMCID: PMC7808157 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c05411
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Figure 1FT-IR spectra of poly(AAm-AAc), poly(AAm-AMPS), poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS), and poly(AAm-MEDSA) hydrogels.
Figure 2Swelling behaviors with varying temperatures for (a) poly(AAm-AAc) (1.9/0.1) M, poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.9/0.1) M, poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.9/0.05/0.05) M, and poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.9/0.1) M hydrogels. (b) Poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.6/0.2/0.2) M, and poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.6/0.4) M hydrogels.
Figure 3Swelling behaviors with varying pH for (a) poly(AAm-AAc) (1.9/0.1) M, poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.9/0.1) M, poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.9/0.05/0.05) M, and poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.9/0.1) M hydrogels. (b) Poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.6/0.2/0.2) M, and poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.6/0.4) M hydrogels.
Figure 4Fe3+ removal kinetics of poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.6/0.2/0.2) M, and poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.6/0.4) M hydrogels from aqueous solutions by cyclic voltammetry.
Figure 5Cyclic voltammograms of the HgCl2 solution at a scan rate of 0.1 Vs–1 after equilibrating with a fixed amount of different types of hydrogels for 24 h.
Figure 6Decay of the Cr3+ concentration with time for poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.6/0.2/0.2) M, and poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.6/0.4) M hydrogels by UV–vis spectra analysis.
Figure 7Fitting curves for the adsorption of Fe3+ on different types of hydrogels using (a) pseudo-first-order kinetic model and (b) pseudo-second-order kinetic model.
Figure 8Uniaxial compressive test of different types of poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.6/0.4) M, poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.6/0.2/0.2) M, and poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.6/0.4) M hydrogels. (a) Stress–strain curves, (b) photographs of fragile poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M (without Fe3+), strong poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M (with Fe3+), and fragile poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.6/0.4) M (with Fe3+) hydrogels during compressive tests.
Young’s Modulus, Compressive Strength, and Toughness Values of Poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M, Poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.6/0.4) M, Poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.6/0.2/0.2) M, and Poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.6/0.4) M Hydrogels before and after Adsorption of Fe3+
| Young’s
modulus (MPa) | compressive
strength (MPa) | toughness J/m3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| name of the hydrogel | before | after | before | after | before | after |
| poly(AAm-AAc) (1.6/0.4) M | 1.30 | 10.02 | 27.72 | 70.33 | 0.12 | 3.96 |
| poly(AAm-AMPS) (1.6/0.4) M | 1.54 | 0.59 | 26.24 | 53.56 | 0.011 | 0.71 |
| poly(AAm-AAc-AMPS) (1.6/0.2/0.2) M | 0.86 | 3.77 | 29.22 | 69.74 | 0.09 | 13.07 |
| poly(AAm-MEDSA) (1.6/0.4) M | 0.90 | 0.70 | 26.08 | 42.40 | 0.07 | 0.59 |