4.6 Article

Evaluation for Simultaneous Removal of Anionic and Cationic Dyes onto Maple Leaf-Derived Biochar Using Response Surface Methodology

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app10092982

关键词

biochar; methylene blue; congo red; response surface methodology; maple leaf

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2019R1I1A1A01054638, NRF-2015M1A5A1037196, NRF-2019M3E6A1103979, 2017R1D1A1B03030766]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapid development in the printing and dying industry produces large amounts of wastewater, and its discharge in the environment causes pollution. Keeping in view the carcinogenic and mutagenic properties of various dyes, it is important to treat dyed wastewater. Maple leaf biochars were produced at different pyrolysis temperatures, i.e., 350 degrees C, 550 degrees C, and 750 degrees C, characterized for physicochemical properties and used for the removal of cationic (methylene blue (MB)) and anionic dye (congo red (CR)). Response surface methodology (RSM) using three variables, i.e., pH (4, 7, and 10), pyrolysis temperature (350 degrees C, 550 degrees C, and 750 degrees C), and adsorption temperature (20 degrees C, 30 degrees C, and 40 degrees C), was designed to find the optimum condition for dyes removal. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis showed an increase in CaCO3 crystallinity and a decrease in MgCO3 crystallinity with the increase of pyrolysis temperature. RSM design results showed that maple biochar showed maximum adsorption capacity for cationic dye at higher pH (9-10) and for anionic dye at pH 4-6, respectively. Under the selected condition of pH 7 and an adsorption temperature of 30 degrees C, biochar MB550 was able to remove MB and CR by 68% and 74%, respectively, from dye mixtures. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analyses showed that MB550 was able to remove both dyes simultaneously from the aqueous mixtures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据