| Literature DB >> 35539168 |
Mohammad Shahadat1,2,3, Suzylawati Isamil1.
Abstract
The present review covers the regeneration capacity and adsorption efficiency of different adsorbents for the treatment of industrial dyes to control water pollution. Various techniques and materials have been employed to remove organic pollutants from water; however, adsorption techniques using cost-effective, ecofriendly, clay-supported adsorbents are widely used owing to their simplicity and good efficiency. Among all the natural adsorbents, activated carbon has been found to be the most effective for dye adsorption; however, its use is restricted due to its high regeneration cost. Clays and modified clay-based adsorbents are the most efficient clarifying agents for organic pollutants as compared to activated carbon, organic/inorganic, and composite materials. Regeneration is an important aspect to stimulate the adsorption efficiency of the exhausted/spent adsorbent for water treatment. A number of techniques, including chemical treatment, supercritical extraction, thermal, and photocatalytic and biological degradation, have been developed to regenerate spent or dye-adsorbed clays. This review discusses how these techniques enhance the adsorption and retention potential of spent low-cost adsorbents and reflects on the future perspectives for their use in wastewater treatment. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 35539168 PMCID: PMC9082090 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra04290j
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Published reports on the treatment of industrial dyes using different adsorbents as a percentage of the reports published on this topic per year since 2000.
Adsorption efficiencies of different adsorbents, (a) adsorption efficiency of activated carbon for dye pollutants, (b) adsorption performance of bioadsorbents, (c) adsorption capacities of agriculture and industry wastes, (d) adsorption capacities of zeolites, (e) adsorption capacities of clay-based adsorbents
| Adsorbents | Targeting species | Adsorption capacity (mg g−1) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Granular activated carbon | Acid yellow | 1179.0 |
|
| 133.3 |
| ||
| Cocoa pod husk | Remazol black B | 22.1 |
|
| Activated carbon Filtrasorb 400 | Remazol yellow | 1111.0 |
|
| Commercial activated carbon | Methylene blue | 980.3 |
|
| Peat | 324.0 |
| |
| Wheat straw | 312.5 |
| |
|
| 285.7 |
| |
| Granular activated carbon | 57.47 |
| |
| Rambutan peel | Malachite green | 404.5 |
|
|
| |||
| Chitosan (bead, lobster) | Reactive red 222 | 1037.0 |
|
| Chitosan (flake, crab) | 293.0 | ||
|
| Reactive black 5 | 588.2 |
|
|
| Basic blue 9 | 144.93 |
|
| Activated sludge biomass | 256.41 |
| |
| Crosslinked chitosan bead | Reactive red 2 | 1936.0 |
|
| Yeasts | Remazol blue | 173.1 |
|
|
| |||
| Raw date pits | Methylene blue | 80.29 |
|
| Papaya seeds | 555.55 |
| |
| Fly ash (bagasse) | 6.46 |
| |
| Red mud | 2.49 |
| |
| Orange peel | Methyl orange | 20.5 |
|
| Metal hydroxide sludge | Reactive red 2 | 62.5 |
|
| Reactive red 141 | 56.18 | ||
| Bark | Basic red 2 | 1119.0 |
|
| Teak wood bark | Methylene blue | 914.59 |
|
| Rice husk | Basic red 2 | 838.0 | |
| Cedar sawdust | Methylene blue | 142.36 |
|
| Meranti sawdust | 120.48 |
| |
| Cherry sawdust | 39.84 |
| |
| Red mud | Direct red 28 | 4.05 |
|
|
| |||
| Zeolite | Basic dye | 55.8 |
|
| Methylene blue | 53.1 |
| |
| Reactive yellow 176 | 11.8 |
| |
| Methylene blue | 10.8 |
| |
|
| |||
| Moroccan natural clay | Malachite green | 81.22 |
|
| Methylene blue | 56.25 | ||
| Bentonite | Methylene blue | 1667.0 |
|
| Dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide-modified bentonite | Acid blue 193 | 740.5 |
|
| Montmorillonite | Methylene blue | 289.12 |
|
| Bentonite | Basic red 2 | 274 |
|
| Methylene blue | 151–175 |
| |
| Kaolinite | Malachite green | 52.91 |
|
| Modified montmorillonite | Methyl orange | 24.0 |
|
| Bentonite | Reactive black 5 | 13.07 |
|
Fig. 2Possible orientation of dye molecule: (A) flat with maximum surfaces, (B) aligned along the longer axis, (C) aligned along the shorter axis.
Fig. 3Published reports on the removal of dyes using clay-based adsorbents as a percentage of reports published on this topic per year since 2000.
Fig. 4Cost of adsorbents as reported in the literature.[139,139–141]
Removal efficiency of dyes from clay adsorbents using chemical desorption
| Adsorbent | Adsorbate | Removal efficiency (%) | Solvent | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modified hydrotalcite | Safranine | 85.0 | Acetone |
|
| Organobentonite | Tannin | From 99.7–89.3 | NaOH |
|
| HDTMA-modified montmorillonite | Phenol | — | NaOH |
|
| Clay-papaya seed | Methylene blue | 90.0 | HNO3 |
|
Fig. 5Proposed outline to stimulate regenerated iron- and copper-modified clay from indigo blue by using the photo-Fenton process. This figure has been adapted/reproduced from ref. 152 with permission from Elsevier.
Fig. 6Scheme of a supercritical regeneration setup, including sample holder (a), reactor (b) and (c), oven refrigeration jacket (d), system of pressure regulating valves (e), dosing pump (g), preheater (f). This figure has been adapted/reproduced from ref. 163 with permission from Elsevier.
Dye removal efficiency of clay adsorbents using thermal treatment in the presence of N2 gas
| Adsorbent | Adsorbate | Temperature (oC) | Removal efficiency (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organobentonite | Chlorophenol | 100–350 | 60.0 |
|
| Clay | Oil | 260–760 | 90.0 |
|
| Montmorillonite | BTEX | 150 | 51.28–60.70 |
|
| Modified zeolite | 100 | 77.0–92.0 |
| |
| Modified pillared clay | Phenol | 500 | — |
|
| Zeolite | Methylene blue | 450 | 90.0 |
|
Fig. 7Classification of thermal regeneration methods.
Fig. 8Scheme for the photocatalytic regeneration of dye pollutants using TiO2. This figure has been adapted/reproduced from ref. 179 with permission from Taylor & Francis.
Overview of various regeneration techniques
| Techniques | Affecting parameters (factors) | Advantages | Disadvantages | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical treatment | • Concentration of solvents | ✓ Cost effective | ✓ It can modify or destroy the surface properties of adsorbents |
|
| • Solubility of adsorbates | ||||
| • Charge of adsorbents | ✓ Fast regeneration | ✓ Production of oxidized sludge/wastage | ||
| • Solution pH | ||||
| Supercritical fluid extraction | • Different types of supercritical fluids | ✓ Very short process time | ✓ High pressure |
|
| • Temperature | ||||
| • Pressure | ✓ Applicable mostly on a small scale | |||
| • Pollutant solubility | ||||
| Thermal degradation | • Heating time and temperature of adsorbent | ✓ It is useful for the adsorbents which are loaded with heterogeneous adsorbate | ✓ Requires high temperature |
|
| • Type of adsorbate and adsorbent | ✓ Weight loss after every regeneration cycle |
| ||
| ✓ Release of harmful gases during heating causing air pollution |
| |||
| Photo-assisted activity | • Type of photocatalyst and photosensitizer | ✓ Fast removal of pollutants down to very low concentration | ✓ Generation of by-products |
|
| ✓ Ecofriendly |
| |||
| Biological treatment | • Nature of adsorbent | ✓ Converts the toxic organic pollutant into small ionic toxicants, which helps the adsorbent be regenerated completely | ✓ Only applicable to biodegradable pollutants and not suitable for modified adsorbents |
|
| • Concentration of adsorbate | ✓ Regeneration is very slow |
| ||
| • Types of microorganisms | ✓ Fouling can occur in the pores of adsorbents by microbial activity |
| ||
| • Optimal microbial growth condition |