SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Chemistry and Technology / 2026 / Volume: 3 Issue: 1

Optimization, isotherm and kinetics studies of azo dye adsorption on eggshell membrane

Ayşe Dinçer(MANISA CELAL BAYAR UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-6158-1775
Mervecan Sevildik(MANISA CELAL BAYAR UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-6883-8748
Tülin Aydemir(MANISA CELAL BAYAR UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2968-4456
Pages
—
Publication Date
2019-06-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Moreover, the structural characterization of the ESM was performed by FTIR and SEM analysis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Eggshell membrane (ESM) was used as an adsorbent for adsorption of reactive red 195 (RR195) and reactive black 5 (RB5) dyes from aqueous solutions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Adsorption of the dyes was pH dependent highly, and the maximum adsorption of RR195 and RB5 occurred at pH 3.0 and 2.0, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, the structural characterization of the ESM was performed by FTIR and SEM analysis.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Eggshell membrane · reactive red 195 · reactive black 5

Abstract

Eggshell membrane (ESM) was used as an adsorbent for adsorption of reactive red 195 (RR195) and reactive black 5 (RB5) dyes from aqueous solutions. The experimental conditions were optimized via batch system experiments for maximum azo dyes removal. Adsorption of the dyes was pH dependent highly, and the maximum adsorption of RR195 and RB5 occurred at pH 3.0 and 2.0, respectively. For both dyes, the adsorption process was seen to be obeyed pseudo-second order kinetic and the Langmuir isotherm models. Maximum adsorption capacities (Q max ) of ESM for RR195 dye and RB5 were found as 76.9 and 333.33 mg g -1 , respectively. The thermodynamic parameters were calculated and the adsorption of the dyes was found to be as exothermic and spontaneous . Moreover, the structural characterization of the ESM was performed by FTIR and SEM analysis.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dinçer, A., Sevildik, M., Aydemir, T. (2019). Optimization, isotherm and kinetics studies of azo dye adsorption on eggshell membrane. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology, Volume: 3 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.538736

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Hassaan, M.A.; El Nemr, A. Am. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 1 (3), 64-67.
  2. Benkhaya, S.; El Harfi, S.; El Harfi, A. Appl. J. Envir. Eng. Sci. 2017, 3 (3), 311-320.
  3. Singh, P.K.; Singh. R.L. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 5 (2), 108-126.
  4. El-Naggar, M.E.; Radwan, E.K; El-Wakeel, S.T.; Kafafy, H.; Gad-Allah, T.A.; El-Kalliny, A.S.; Shaheen, T.I. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 113, 248-258.
  5. Mahmoud, M.E.; Nabil, G.M.; El-Mallah, N.M.; Bassiouny, H.I.; Kumar, S.; Abdel-Fattah, T.M. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2016, 37, 156-167.
  6. Kamranifar, M.; Khodadadi, M.; Samiei, V.; Dehdashti, B.; Sepehr, M.N.; Rafati, L.; Nasseh, N.; J. Mol. Liq. 2018, 255, 572-577.
  7. Karadağ, D.; Turan, M.; Akgul, E.; Tok, S.; Faki, A. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2007, 52, 1615-1620.
  8. Nawahwi, M.Z.; Ibrahim, Z.; Yahya, A. J. Bioremed. Biodeg. 2013, 4, 1-7.
  9. Jager, D.; Kupka, D.; Vaclavikova, M.; Ivanicova, L.; Gallios. G. Chemosphere 2018, 190, 405-416.
  10. Al-Degs, Y.S.; El-Barghouthi, M.I.; El-Sheikh, A.H.; Walker, G.M. Dyes Pigments 2007, 77 (1), 1-8.
  11. Ghaedi, M.; Sadeghian, B.; Pebdani, A.A; Sahraei, R.; Daneshfar, A.; Duran, C. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 187, 133-141.
  12. Aljeboree, A.M.; Alshirifi, A.N.; Alkaim, A.F. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, S3381-S3393.
  13. Arami, M.; Limaee, N.Y.; Mahmoodi, N.M. Chemosphere. 2006, 65, 1999-2008.
  14. Belessi, V.; Romanos. G.; Boukos, N.; Lambropouloud, D.; Trapalis, C. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 170, 836-844.
  15. Yi, F.; Guo, Z.X.; Zhang, L.X.; Yu, J.; Li, Q. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 4591-4599.
  16. Tsai, W.T.; Yang, J.M.; Lai, C.W.; Cheng, Y.H.; Lin, C.C.; Yeh, C.W. Bioresource Technol. 2006, 97, 488-493.
  17. Abdel-Khalek, M.A.; Abdel Rahman, M.K.; Francis, A.A. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 319-327.
  18. Xin, Y.; Li, C.; Liu, J.; Liu, J.; Liu, Y.; He, W.; Gao, Y. R. Soc. Open sci. 2018, 5, 180532.
  19. Karan, S.K.; Maiti, S.; Paria, S.; Maitra, A.; Si, S.K.; Kim, J.K; Khatua, B.B. Mater. Today 2018, 9, 114-125.
  20. Hussien, M.A.; El-Bindary, A.A.; El-Sonbati, A.Z.; Shoair, A.F.; El-Boz, R.A. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2016, 7 (11), 4214-4225.
  21. Munagapati, V.S.; Yarramuthi, V.; Kim, Y.; Lee, K.M.; Kim. D.S. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 148, 601-607.
  22. Aksu. Z.; Dönmez, G. Chemosphere 2003, 50, 1075-1083.
  23. Paşka, O.; Ianoş, R.; Pãcurariu, C.; Brãdeanu, A. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 69, 1234-1240.
  24. Mohebali, S.; Bastani, D.; Shayesteh, H. J. Mol. Struct. 2019, 1176, 181-193.
  25. Dotto, G.L.; Lima, E.C.; Pinto, L.A. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 103, 123-130.
  26. Zhou, L.; Jin, J.; Liu, Z.; Liang, X.; Shang, C. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 1045-1052.
  27. Zhou, Z.; Lin, S.; Yue, T.; Lee, T. J. Food Eng. 2014, 126, 133-141.
  28. Li, H.; Huang, G.; An. C.; Hu, J.; Yang, S. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 15923-15931.
  29. Chiou, M.S.; Li, H.Y. J. Hazard. Mater. 2002, 93, 233-248.
  30. Sun, D.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Liu, X. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 181, 335-342.
  31. Özcan, A.; Öncü, E.M.; Özcan, A.S. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 129, 1-3.
  32. Nawi, M.A.; Sabar, S.; Jawad, A.H.; Sheilatina, Wan Ngah W.S. Biochem. Eng. J. 2010, 49, 317-325.
  33. Kyzas, G.Z.; Travlou. N.A.; Kalogirou, O.; Deliyanni, E.A. Materials 2013, 6, 1360-1376.
  34. Adane, B.; Siraj, K.; Meka, N. Green Chem. Lett. Rev. 2015, 8 (3-4), 1-12.
  35. Foo, K.Y.; Hameed, B.H. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 156, 2-10.
  36. Chang, M.; Shih, Y. J. Environ. Manage. 2018, 224, 235–242.
  37. Xue Z, Zhao S, Zhao Z, Li, P.; Gao, J. J. Mater. Sci. 2016, 51, 4928-4941.
  38. Chen A, Li Y, Yu Y, Li, Y.; Xia, K.; Wang, Y.; Li, S. J. Mater. Sci. 2016, 51, 7016-7028.