Journal of the Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회지)

Korean Chemical Society (대한화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Raw and Calcined Eggshell for Removal of Cd2+ from Aqueous Solution

  • Kim, Youngjung (Center for Instrumental Analysis, Andong National University) ;
  • Yoo, Yerim (Department of Applied Chemistry, Andong National University) ;
  • Kim, Min Gyeong (Department of Applied Chemistry, Andong National University) ;
  • Choi, Jong-Ha (Department of Applied Chemistry, Andong National University) ;
  • Ryoo, Keon Sang (Department of Applied Chemistry, Andong National University)
  • Received : 2020.04.15
  • Accepted : 2020.06.28
  • Published : 2020.09.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The potential use of egg shell and calcined egg shell as adsorbent was evaluated and compared to remove Cd2+ from aqueous solution. The samples were characterized using Thermogravimetry and Differential Thermal Analysis (TG/DTA), Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), X-ray Diffractometer (XRD), Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometer (EDX) and BET Surface Analyzer. The batch-type adsorption experiment was conducted by varying diverse variables such as contact time, pH, initial Cd2+ concentrations and adsorbent dosage. The results showed that, under the initial Cd2+ concentrations ranged from 25 to 200 mg g-1, the removal efficiencies of Cd2+ by egg shell powder (ESP) were decreased steadily from 96.72% to 22.89% with increase in the initial Cd2+ concentration at 2.5 g of dosage and 8 h of contact time. However, on the contrary to this, calcined egg shell powder (CESP) showed removal efficiencies above 99% regardless of initial Cd2+ concentration. The difference in the adsorption behavior of Cd2+ may be explained due to the different pH values of ESP and CESP in solution. Cd2+ seems to be efficiently removed from aqueous solution by using the CESP with a basicity nature of around pH 12. It was also observed that an optimum dosage of ESP and CESP for nearly complete removal of Cd2+ from aqueous solution is approximately 5.0 g and 1.0 g, respectively. Consequently, Cd2+ is more favorably adsorbed on CESP than ESP in the studied conditions. Adsorption data were applied by the pseudo-first-order and pseudo-second-order kinetics models and Freundlich and Langmuir isotherm models, respectively. With regard to adsorption kinetics tests, the pseudo-second-order kinetics was more suitable for ESP and CESP. The adsorption pattern of Cd2+ by ESP was better fitted to Langmuir isotherm model. However, by contrast with ESP, CESP was described by Freundlich isotherm model well.

Keywords

References

  1. Ucer, A.; Uyanik, A.; Aygun, S. F. Separation and Purification Techniology 2006, 47, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2005.06.012
  2. Pettinato, M.; Chakraborty, S.; Arafat, H. A.; Calabro, V. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2015, 121, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.05.046
  3. Mittal, A.; Teotia, M.; Soni, R. K.; Mittal, J. J. Molecular Liquids 2016, 223, 376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2016.08.065
  4. Park, H. J.; Jeong, S. W.; Yang, J. K.; Kim, B. K.; Lee, S. M. J. Environmental Science 2007, 19, 1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(07)60234-4
  5. Nieto-Marquez, A.; Pinedo-Flores, A.; Picasso, G.; Atanes, E.; Kou, R. S. J. Environmental Chemical Engineering 2017, 5, 1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.01.034
  6. Bhatti, I. A.; Ahmad, N.; Iqbal, N.; Zahid, M.; Iqbal, M. J. Environmental Chemical Engineering 2017, 5, 2740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.04.051
  7. Troca-Torrado, C.; Alexandre-Franco, M.; Fernandez-Gonzalez, C.; Alfaro-Dominguez, M.; Gomez-Serrano, V. Fuel Processing Technology 2011, 92, 206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.03.007
  8. Karmacharya, M. S.; Gupta, V. K.; Tyagi, I.; Agarwal, S.; Jha, V. K. J. Molocular Liquids 2016, 216, 836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2016.02.025
  9. Li, Z.; Katsumi, T.; Imaizumi, S.; Tang, X.; Inui, T. J. Hazardous Materials 2010, 183, 410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.040
  10. Wang, Y.; Tang, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhan, L.; Li, Z.; Tang, Q. J. Hazardous Materials 2009, 172, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.06.121
  11. Salih, S. S.; Ghosh, T. K. International J. Biological Macromolecules 2018, 106, 602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.053
  12. Wei, Z.; Xu, C.; Li, B. Bioresource Technology 2009, 100(11), 2883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.039
  13. Oliveirra, D. A.; Benelli, P.; Amante, E. R. J. Cleaner Production 2013, 46, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.045
  14. Panagiotou, E.; Kafa, N.; Koutsokeras, L.; Kouis, P.; Nikolaou, P.; Constantinides, G.; Vyrides, I. J. Cleaner Production 2018, 178, 419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.014
  15. Pal, P.; Pal, A. International J. Biological Macromolecules 2017, 104, 1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.02.042