| Literature DB >> 35683864 |
Carlos A Ligarda-Samanez1, David Choque-Quispe2, Henry Palomino-Rincón3, Betsy S Ramos-Pacheco3, Elibet Moscoso-Moscoso1, Mary L Huamán-Carrión1, Diego E Peralta-Guevara2, Mirian E Obregón-Yupanqui3, Jimmy Aroni-Huamán3, Eyner Y Bravo-Franco4, Wilbert Palomino-Rincón5, Germán De la Cruz6.
Abstract
The contamination of water resources by effluents from various industries often contains heavy metals, which cause irreversible damage to the environment and health. The objective was to evaluate different biosorbents from the weed Rumex acetosella to remove metal cations in wastewater. Drying, grinding and sieving of the stems was carried out to obtain the biomass, retaining the fractions of 250 to 500 µm and 500 to 750 µm, which served to obtain the biosorbents in natura (unmodified), acidic, alkaline, and mixed. Proximal analysis, PZC, TOC, removal capacity, influence of pH, functional groups, thermal analysis, structural characteristics, adsorption isotherms, and kinetic study were evaluated. The 250 µm mixed treatment was the one that presented the highest removal percentages, mainly due to the OH, NH, -C-H, COOH, and C-O functional groups achieving the removal of up to 96.14% of lead, 36.30% of zinc, 34.10% of cadmium and 32.50% of arsenic. For contact times of 120 min and an optimum pH of 5.0, a loss of cellulose mass of 59% at 328 °C and a change in the surface of the material were also observed, which allowed for obtaining a topography with greater chelating capacity, and the Langmuir and pseudo-second order models were better fitted to the adsorption data. The new biosorbents could be used in wastewater treatment economically and efficiently.Entities:
Keywords: Rumex acetosella; biosorption; heavy metals; metal removal; modified biomass
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683864 PMCID: PMC9183189 DOI: 10.3390/polym14112191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Experimental flow diagram.
Figure 2Plant material (a) and modified biosorbents from R. acetosella 250 µm (b) and 500 µm (c).
Proximal analysis of R. acetosella (%).
| Part of Plant | Moisture | Protein | Fat | Ash | Fiber | Carbohydrates | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * | |
| Stem | 7.80 ± 0.51 | a | 7.24 ± 0.73 | a | 1.59 ± 0.22 | a | 3.28 ± 0.32 | a | 62.28 ± 0.11 | a | 80.09 ± 0.64 | a |
| Leaf | 7.52 ± 0.43 | a | 9.85 ± 0.32 | b | 2.16 ± 0.41 | a | 5.25 ± 0.35 | b | 58.33 ± 0.61 | b | 80.47 ± 0.43 | a |
| Seeds | 7.39 ± 0.46 | a | 10.45 ± 0.12 | b | 3.90 ± 0.77 | b | 7.41 ± 0.54 | c | 30.85 ± 0.31 | c | 70.85 ± 0.63 | b |
* Evaluated by Tukey test at 95% confidence, different letters indicate significant difference.
Figure 3Point of zero charge in the fractions of 250 and 500 µm.
Total organic carbon (%).
| Treatments | Biosorbent (250 µm) | Biosorbent (500 µm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| * |
| * | |
| T1 | 25.66 ± 1.23 | a | 24.08 ± 1.54 | a |
| T2 | 23.39 ± 0.11 | b | 23.49 ± 1.00 | a |
| T3 | 25.04 ± 0.20 | a | 23.83 ± 0.83 | a |
| T4 | 22.86 ± 0.38 | b | 22.59 ± 0.65 | a |
* Evaluated by Tukey test at 95% confidence, different letters indicate significant difference.
Heavy metal removal (%).
| Biosorbent. | Treatments | As | Cd | Pb | Zn | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * | ||
| 250 µm | T1 | 11.80 ± 1.25 | a | 11.17 ± 1.44 | a | 90.70 ± 1.22 | a | 12.23 ± 1.03 | a |
| T2 | 23.87 ± 2.03 | b | 21.03 ± 3.03 | b | 91.89 ± 0.84 | a | 27.73 ± 2.04 | b | |
| T3 | 30.10 ± 1.33 | c | 29.10 ± 1.63 | c | 92.65 ± 1.02 | a | 34.47 ± 1.01 | c | |
| T4 | 32.50 ± 2.14 | c | 34.10 ± 1.15 | d | 96.14 ± 1.12 | b | 36.30 ± 0.05 | c | |
| 500 µm | T1 | 10.73 ± 0.16 | a | 10.93 ± 0.65 | a | 86.90 ± 0.42 | a | 11.70 ± 0.37 | a |
| T2 | 23.30 ± 0.16 | b | 20.20 ± 0.57 | b | 90.91 ± 0.26 | b | 25.80 ± 0.27 | b | |
| T3 | 23.90 ± 0.65 | b | 23.97 ± 1.24 | c | 91.45 ± 0.31 | b | 26.63 ± 0.37 | c | |
| T4 | 25.97 ± 0.47 | c | 24.47 ± 0.75 | c | 94.38 ± 0.39 | c | 27.30 ± 0.54 | c | |
* Evaluated by Tukey test at 95% confidence, different letters indicate significant difference.
Figure 4Principal component analysis in the removal of heavy metals, metal cations (a) and biosorbents (b).
Figure 5Variation of heavy metal biosorption over time in the fractions of 250 and 500 µm.
Figure 6Influence of pH on the removal of heavy metals for the 250 and 500 µm fractions of the mixed treatment T4.
Parameters of the adsorption isotherms for the T4 biosorbent (250 and 500 µm fractions).
| Biosorbent | Heavy Metal | Langmuir Isotherm | Freundlich Isotherm | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1/ |
|
| ||||
| 250T4 | As | 95.24 | 0.21 | 0.976 | 13.25 | 0.575 | 1.74 | 0.951 |
| Cd | 109.89 | 0.25 | 0.975 | 16.93 | 0.581 | 1.71 | 0.930 | |
| Pb | 156.25 | 0.06 | 0.981 | 8.04 | 0.840 | 1.19 | 0.946 | |
| Zn | 119.05 | 0.23 | 0.955 | 17.96 | 0.591 | 1.69 | 0.907 | |
| 500T4 | As | 97.09 | 0.27 | 0.979 | 15.46 | 0.557 | 1.79 | 0.934 |
| Cd | 112.36 | 0.26 | 0.974 | 17.78 | 0.580 | 1.72 | 0.936 | |
| Pb | 140.85 | 0.09 | 0.964 | 9.92 | 0.783 | 1.19 | 0.956 | |
| Zn | 117.65 | 0.26 | 0.957 | 19.06 | 0.575 | 1.74 | 0.915 | |
where: 250T4, mixed treatment in the 250 µm fraction; 500T4, mixed treatment in the 500 µm fraction.
Figure 7Langmuir adsorption isotherms (a) and pseudo-second order model (b), for T4 (250 and 500 µm).
Parameters of the adsorption kinetic models for the biosorbent T4 (250 and 500 µm fractions).
| Biosorbent | Heavy Metal | Pseudo First Order | Pseudo Second Order | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| 250T4 | As | 6.17 | 0.0122 | 0.873 | 23.47 | 0.282 | 0.998 |
| Cd | 5.96 | 0.0133 | 0.886 | 22.12 | 0.273 | 0.998 | |
| Pb | 14.11 | 0.0149 | 0.966 | 17.24 | 0.038 | 0.986 | |
| Zn | 6.68 | 0.0105 | 0.849 | 21.93 | 0.242 | 0.996 | |
| 500T4 | As | 5.47 | 0.0179 | 0.929 | 23.36 | 0.325 | 0.999 |
| Cd | 5.52 | 0.0172 | 0.923 | 22.42 | 0.305 | 0.999 | |
| Pb | 13.97 | 0.0158 | 0.985 | 17.33 | 0.040 | 0.988 | |
| Zn | 6.04 | 0.0128 | 0.880 | 22.17 | 0.270 | 0.998 | |
where: 250T4, mixed treatment in the 250 µm fraction; 500T4, mixed treatment in the 500 µm fraction.
Figure 8FTIR infrared spectra of the 250 and 500 µm fractions, before (a) and after (b) the biosorption process.
Figure 9TG and DTG curves of the biosorbents obtained from the fractions of 250 and 500 µm.
Figure 10Geometry of the obtained biosorbents (white bars indicate 250 and 500 µm).
Measurements of the modified biosorbents obtained.
| Treatments | Biosorbents of the Fraction of 250 µm | Biosorbents of the Fraction of 500 µm | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length (µm) | Diameter (µm) | L/D | Length (µm) | Diameter (µm) | L/D | |
| T1 | 340.03 ± 58.65 | 69.11 ± 8.02 | 4.99 ± 1.04 | 750.01 ± 33.42 | 152.74 ± 7.26 | 4.92 ± 0.34 |
| T2 | 256.38 ± 57.21 | 38.21 ± 8.17 | 6.79 ± 1.25 | 464.48 ± 61.65 | 84.18 ± 19.99 | 5.76 ± 1.29 |
| T3 | 267.11 ± 61.20 | 54.90 ± 10.18 | 4.96 ± 1.16 | 685.67 ± 81.29 | 105.23 ± 18.97 | 6.63 ± 1.30 |
| T4 | 194.83 ± 38.20 | 31.72 ± 8.42 | 6.38 ± 1.47 | 405.64 ± 57.36 | 74.82 ± 9.18 | 5.50 ± 1.18 |
where: L/D, aspect ratio of the biosorbents obtained.