4.7 Article

Equilibrium, kinetic, and thermodynamic biosorption of Pb(II), Cr(III), and Cd(II) ions by dead anaerobic biomass from synthetic wastewater

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-012-0854-8

关键词

Biosorption; Dead anaerobic biomass; Isotherms; Heavy metals; FT-IR; Pore diffusion coefficient

资金

  1. Ministry of Oil, Petroleum Development and Research Center, Baghdad, Iraq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heavy metals are toxic pollutants released into the environment as a result of different industrial activities. Biosorption of heavy metals from aqueous solutions is a new technology for the treatment of industrial wastewater. The aim of the present research is to highlight the basic biosorption theory to heavy metal removal. Heterogeneous cultures mostly dried anaerobic bacteria, yeast (fungi), and protozoa were used as low-cost material to remove metallic cations Pb(II), Cr(III), and Cd(II) from synthetic wastewater. Competitive biosorption of these metals was studied. The main biosorption mechanisms were complexation and physical adsorption onto natural active functional groups. It is observed that biosorption of these metals was a surface process. The main functional groups involved in these processes were hydroxyl (-OH) and carboxylic groups (C=O) with 37, 52, and 31 and 21, 14, and 34 % removal of Pb(II), Cr(III), and Cd(II), respectively. Langmuir was the best model for a single system. While extended Langmuir was the best model for binary and ternary metal systems. The maximum uptake capacities were 54.92, 34.78, and 29.99 mg/g and pore diffusion coefficients were 7.23, 3.15, and 2.76 x 10(-11) m(2)/s for Pb(II), Cr(III), and Cd(II), respectively. Optimum pH was found to be 4. Pseudo-second-order was the best model to predict the kinetic process. Biosorption process was exothermic and physical in nature. Pb(II) offers the strongest component that is able to displace Cr(III) and Cd(II) from their sites, while Cd(II) ions are the weakest adsorbed component.

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

4.7
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