| Literature DB >> 35631848 |
Giannin Mosoarca1, Simona Popa1, Cosmin Vancea1, Mircea Dan1, Sorina Boran1.
Abstract
In this work, raspberry (Rubus idaeus) leaves were converted to powder and used as a new natural lignocellulosic low-cost adsorbent for methylene blue removal from aqueous solutions. Different techniques (FTIR, SEM, color analysis, and pHPZC determination) were applied for adsorbent characterization. The effects of pH, ionic strength, contact time, adsorbent dose, initial deconcentration, and temperature on adsorption capacity were investigated. Equilibrium, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies have shown that the adsorption is best described by the Sips isotherm and pseudo-second-order kinetic model and that the process is spontaneous, favorable, and endothermic, involving physisorption as the main mechanism. The maximum adsorption capacity was 244.6 (mg g-1) higher compared to other adsorbents based on plant leaves. The Taguchi method and the ANOVA analysis were used to optimize the adsorption conditions. The contact time was the factor with the highest influence on the process, while the temperature had the lowest influence. A desorption study was also performed to determine the possibility of adsorbent regeneration.Entities:
Keywords: Taguchi optimization; adsorption; isotherm; kinetics; lignocellulosic adsorbent; methylene blue
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631848 PMCID: PMC9143437 DOI: 10.3390/polym14101966
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1FTIR spectrum of raspberry leaves powder before and after adsorption.
Figure 2CIEL*a*b* color parameters of the following: a-methylene blue dye; b-raspberry leaves before adsorption process; c-raspberry leaves after adsorption process.
Figure 3SEM images of adsorbent material surface before adsorption (A,B) and after adsorption (C,D) at different magnification.
Figure 4Determination of point of zero charge using the solid addition method.
Figure 5The dependence of adsorption capacity with the dye solution pH, at different ionic strengths.
Figure 6The variation of adsorption capacity with contact time at different doses of adsorbent material (fitted with pseudo-second-order kinetic model).
The kinetic models’ constants and the corresponding error functions.
| Kinetic Model | Parameters | Adsorbent Dose (g L−1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Pseudo-first-order | k1 (min−1) | 0.275 ± 0.035 | 0.279 ± 0.047 | 0.277 ± 0.054 | 0.279 ± 0.051 |
| qe,calc (mg g−1) | 37.48 ± 0.82 | 19.76 ± 0.29 | 13.47 ± 0.31 | 6.95 ± 0.27 | |
| R2 | 0.9901 | 0.9876 | 0.9891 | 0.9876 | |
| χ2 | 0.3429 | 0.2235 | 0.1347 | 0.0786 | |
| SSE | 12.11 | 4.23 | 1.72 | 0.52 | |
| ARE (%) | 13.96 | 14.34 | 14.14 | 14.36 | |
| Pseudo-second-order | k2 (min−1) | 0.013 ± 0.005 | 0.025 ± 0.010 | 0.037 ± 0.011 | 0.071 ± 0.026 |
| qe,calc (g mg−1 min−1) | 39.92 ± 0.89 | 21.07 ± 0.74 | 14.36 ± 0.71 | 7.40 ± 0.32 | |
| R2 | 0.9996 | 0.9986 | 0.9993 | 0.9986 | |
| χ2 | 0.0110 | 0.0251 | 0.0078 | 0.0087 | |
| SSE | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.10 | 0.05 | |
| ARE (%) | 0.50 | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.99 | |
| Elovich | a (g mg−1) | 0.267 ± 0.052 | 0.506 ± 0.061 | 0.741 ± 0.057 | 1.447 ± 0.075 |
| b (mg g−1 min−1) | 2508 ± 153 | 1328 ± 125 | 895 ± 96 | 895 ± 96 | |
| R2 | 0.9969 | 0.9973 | 0.9973 | 0.9974 | |
| χ2 | 0.1336 | 0.0637 | 0.0436 | 0.0227 | |
| SSE | 3.72 | 0.90 | 0.42 | 0.11 | |
| ARE (%) | 12.68 | 12.57 | 12.58 | 12.52 | |
| Avrami | kAV (min−1) | 0.633 ± 0.046 | 0.638 ± 0.057 | 0.635 ± 0.062 | 0.638 ± 0.073 |
| qAV (mg g−1) | 37.48 ± 0.51 | 19.76 ± 0.41 | 13.47 ± 0.45 | 6.95 ± 0.26 | |
| nAV | 0.435 | 0.437 | 0.436 | 0.437 | |
| R2 | 0.9901 | 0.9876 | 0.9891 | 0.9876 | |
| χ2 | 0.3419 | 0.2231 | 0.1344 | 0.0784 | |
| SSE | 12.11 | 4.23 | 1.72 | 0.52 | |
| ARE (%) | 13.96 | 14.34 | 14.14 | 14.34 | |
The adsorption isotherms models constants and the corresponding error functions.
| Isotherm Model | Parameters | Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 278 K | 297 K | 311 K | ||
| Langmuir | KL (L mg−1) | 0.011 ± 0.001 | 0.012 ± 0.001 | 0.013 ± 0.002 |
| qmax (mg g−1) | 186.08 ± 7.25 | 188.96 ± 6.12 | 192.58 ± 6.73 | |
| R2 | 0.9997 | 0.9997 | 0.9997 | |
| χ2 | 0.0321 | 0.0326 | 0.0332 | |
| SSE | 1.18 | 1.21 | 1.26 | |
| ARE (%) | 1.43 | 1.44 | 1.43 | |
| Freundlich | Kf (mg g−1) | 3.54 ± 0.61 | 3.78 ± 0.52 | 4.11 ± 0.71 |
| 1/n | 0.76 ± 0.07 | 0.75 ± 0.05 | 0.76 ± 0.04 | |
| R2 | 0.9988 | 0.9988 | 0.9988 | |
| χ2 | 0.3367 | 0.3419 | 0.3483 | |
| SSE | 5.23 | 5.40 | 5.60 | |
| ARE (%) | 4.74 | 4.74 | 4.74 | |
| Temkin | KT (L mg−1) | 0.291 ± 0.043 | 0.311 ± 0.057 | 0.339 ± 0.052 |
| b (kJ g−1) | 102.22 ± 7.49 | 100.67 ± 5.71 | 98.77 ± 6.18 | |
| R2 | 0.9632 | 0.9632 | 0.9633 | |
| χ2 | 16.41 | 16.67 | 17.00 | |
| SSE | 149.75 | 154.42 | 160.39 | |
| ARE (%) | 57.29 | 57.29 | 58.15 | |
| Sips | Qsat (mg g−1) | 235.5 ± 8.45 | 239.1 ± 6.27 | 244.6 ± 7.64 |
| KS (L mg−1) | 0.010 ± 0.001 | 0.011 ± 0.002 | 0.012 ± 0.002 | |
| n | 0.9326 | 0.9326 | 0.9319 | |
| R2 | 0.9998 | 0.9998 | 0.9998 | |
| χ2 | 0.0242 | 0.0246 | 0.0254 | |
| SSE | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.60 | |
| ARE (%) | 1.42 | 1.42 | 1.43 | |
Figure 7The fitted Sips isotherm curves at different temperatures.
The maximum adsorption capacities for different adsorbent materials based on plant leaves.
| Adsorbent | Maximum Adsorption | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 6.89 | [ | |
| 45.66 | [ | |
| 48.07 | [ | |
| 60.9 | [ | |
| 66.5 | [ | |
| Phoenix tree’s leaves | 80.90 | [ |
| 97.07 | [ | |
| 103.00 | [ | |
| 106.75 | [ | |
| Banana leaves | 109.90 | [ |
| 112.35 | [ | |
| 114.90 | [ | |
| Pine Tree leaves | 126.58 | [ |
| Poplar leaf | 135.40 | [ |
| 145.56 | [ | |
| 149.25 | [ | |
| 185.19 | [ | |
| Gulmohar leaf | 186.24 | [ |
| 188.2 | [ | |
| Miswak leaves | 200 | [ |
| Lotus leaf | 221.7 | [ |
| 238.1 | [ | |
|
|
|
|
| Guava leaf | 295.04 | [ |
| 384.61 | [ | |
| Papaya leaf | 512.55 | [ |
The thermodynamic parameters for the dye adsorption on raspberry leaf powder.
| ΔG0 (kJ mol−1) | ΔH0 (kJ mol−1) | ΔS0 (J mol−1 K−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 278 K | 297 K | 311 K | ||
| −19.27 | −20.68 | −22.03 | 0.38 | 9.70 |
The L27 orthogonal array used in the Taguchi design.
| pH | Ionic Strength (mol L−1) | Time | Adsorbent Dose (g L−1) | Initial Dye Concentration (mg g−1) | Temperature (K) | Dye Removal Efficiency (%) | S/N Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 278 | 49.87 | 33.95 |
| 2 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 100 | 297 | 48.62 | 33.73 |
| 2 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 250 | 311 | 45.12 | 33.08 |
| 2 | 0.1 | 20 | 3 | 20 | 278 | 60.96 | 35.70 |
| 2 | 0.1 | 20 | 3 | 100 | 297 | 59.42 | 35.47 |
| 2 | 0.1 | 20 | 3 | 250 | 311 | 55.15 | 34.83 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 40 | 5 | 20 | 278 | 66.03 | 36.39 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 40 | 5 | 100 | 297 | 64.37 | 36.17 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 40 | 5 | 250 | 311 | 59.74 | 35.52 |
| 6 | 0 | 20 | 5 | 20 | 297 | 79.35 | 37.99 |
| 6 | 0 | 20 | 5 | 100 | 311 | 77.64 | 37.80 |
| 6 | 0 | 20 | 5 | 250 | 278 | 68.30 | 36.68 |
| 6 | 0.1 | 40 | 1 | 20 | 297 | 72.78 | 37.24 |
| 6 | 0.1 | 40 | 1 | 100 | 311 | 71.21 | 37.05 |
| 6 | 0.1 | 40 | 1 | 250 | 278 | 62.65 | 35.93 |
| 6 | 0.2 | 5 | 3 | 20 | 297 | 58.07 | 35.28 |
| 6 | 0.2 | 5 | 3 | 100 | 311 | 56.82 | 35.09 |
| 6 | 0.2 | 5 | 3 | 250 | 278 | 49.99 | 33.97 |
| 10 | 0 | 40 | 3 | 20 | 311 | 89.43 | 39.03 |
| 10 | 0 | 40 | 3 | 100 | 278 | 82.95 | 38.37 |
| 10 | 0 | 40 | 3 | 250 | 297 | 76.70 | 37.69 |
| 10 | 0.1 | 5 | 5 | 20 | 311 | 65.73 | 36.35 |
| 10 | 0.1 | 5 | 5 | 100 | 278 | 60.97 | 35.70 |
| 10 | 0.1 | 5 | 5 | 250 | 297 | 56.37 | 35.02 |
| 10 | 0.2 | 20 | 1 | 20 | 311 | 69.08 | 36.78 |
| 10 | 0.2 | 20 | 1 | 100 | 278 | 64.08 | 36.13 |
| 10 | 0.2 | 20 | 1 | 250 | 297 | 59.25 | 35.45 |
Response table for signal-to-noise S/N ratios (larger is better).
| Level | pH | Ionic | Time | Adsorbent | Initial | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 34.99 | 36.49 | 34.69 | 35.49 | 36.53 | 35.87 |
| 2 | 36.34 | 35.92 | 36.32 | 36.16 | 36.17 | 36.01 |
| 3 | 36.73 | 35.65 | 37.05 | 36.41 | 35.36 | 36.17 |
| Delta | 1.74 | 0.84 | 2.36 | 0.92 | 1.17 | 0.30 |
| Rank | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6 |
| Contribution (%) | 27.10 | 5.92 | 47.26 | 7.35 | 11.65 | 0.73 |
Figure 8Correlation of experimental and predicted dye removal efficiency.
The efficiencies of the used desorbing agents.
| Desorbing Agent | Desorption Efficiencies (%) |
|---|---|
| HCl | 77.63 ± 2.51 |
| Distilled water | 8.08 ± 0.25 |
| NaOH | 36.95 ± 1.78 |