Advertisement

Reaction Kinetics, Mechanisms and Catalysis

, Volume 128, Issue 2, pp 571–586 | Cite as

A modification of the Langmuir rate equation for diffusion-controlled adsorption kinetics

  • Stefano SalvestriniEmail author
Article
  • 110 Downloads

Abstract

It is widely agreed that the classical Langmuir rate equation cannot be applied for describing the kinetics of adsorption processes whose rate is controlled by diffusive transport phenomena. To overcome this limit, we propose a modification of the Langmuir rate equation, referred to as Diffusion-Controlled Langmuir Kinetics (DCLK), assuming that the macroscopic forward rate of adsorption is inversely related to the square root of time. We tested the DCLK model on experimental adsorption kinetic data. The results indicate that the DCLK model describes the kinetic data better than the traditional pseudo-second order model. Consistently with the intraparticle adsorption/diffusion theory, the adsorption amount predicted by the DCLK model proportionally increases with the square root of time at the beginning of the process. The effect of temperature on the adsorption rate and the relative role played by kinetics and thermodynamics are discussed.

Keywords

Adsorption Diffusion Diffusion-controlled adsorption kinetics Langmuir kinetics Adsorption kinetics Pseudo-second order model 

Notes

Supplementary material

11144_2019_1684_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hlady V, Buijs J (1996) Protein adsorption on solid surfaces. Curr Opin Biotechnol 7:72–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-1669(96)80098-X CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lord MS, Foss M, Besenbacher F (2010) Influence of nanoscale surface topography on protein adsorption and cellular response. Nano Today 5:66–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2010.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pelaz B, Del Pino P, Maffre P, Hartmann R, Gallego M, Rivera-Fernández S, De La Fuente JM, Nienhaus GU, Parak WJ (2015) Surface functionalization of nanoparticles with polyethylene glycol: effects on protein adsorption and cellular uptake. ACS Nano 9:6996–7008.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5b01326 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakanishi K, Sakiyama T, Imamura K (2001) On the adsorption of proteins on solid surfaces, a common but very complicated phenomenon. J Biosci Bioeng 91:233–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1723(01)80127-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Enayatpour B, Rajabi M, Yari M, Reza Mirkhan SM, Najafi F, Moradi O, Bharti AK, Agarwal S, Gupta VK (2017) Adsorption/desorption study of proteins onto multi-walled carbon nanotubes and amino multi-walled carbon nanotubes surfaces as adsorbents. J Mol Liq 231:566–571.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2017.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salvestrini S, Canzano S, Iovino P, Leone V, Capasso S (2014) Modelling the biphasic sorption of simazine, imidacloprid, and boscalid in water/soil systems. J Environ Sci Health B 49:578–590.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2014.911575 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boivin A, Cherrier R, Schiavon M (2005) A comparison of five pesticides adsorption and desorption processes in thirteen contrasting field soils. Chemosphere 61:668–676.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.03.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bajeer MA, Nizamani SM, Sherazi STH, Bhanger MI (2012) Adsorption and Leaching potential of imidacloprid pesticide through alluvial soil. Am J Anal Chem 3:604–611.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ajac.2012.38079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kodešová R, Kočárek M, Kodeš V, Drábek O, Kozák J, Hejtmánková K (2011) Pesticide adsorption in relation to soil properties and soil type distribution in regional scale. J Hazard Mater 186:540–550.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.11.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iovino P, Leone V, Salvestrini S, Capasso S (2015) Sorption of non-ionic organic pollutants onto immobilized humic acid. Desalin Water Treat 56:55–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.934732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Argun ME, Dursun S, Ozdemir C, Karatas M (2007) Heavy metal adsorption by modified oak sawdust: thermodynamics and kinetics. J Hazard Mater 141:77–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.06.095 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li Y, Song N, Wang K (2019) Preparation and characterization of a novel graphene/biochar composite and its application as an adsorbent for Cd removal from aqueous solution. Korean J Chem Eng 36:678–687.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-019-0240-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li M, Messele SA, Boluk Y, El-Din MG (2019) Isolated cellulose nanofibers for Cu (II) and Zn (II) removal: performance and mechanisms. Carbohyd Polym 221:231–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.05.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Han L, Yan J, Qian L, Zhang W, Chen M (2019) Multifunctional Pd/Fe-biochar composites for the complete removal of trichlorobenzene and its degradation products. J Environ Manag 245:238–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li J, Li B, Huang H, Lv X, Zhao N, Guo G, Zhang D (2019) Removal of phosphate from aqueous solution by dolomite-modified biochar derived from urban dewatered sewage. Sci Total Environ 687:460–469.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.400 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen S, Qin C, Wang T, Chen F, Li X, Hou H, Zhou M (2019) Study on the adsorption of dyestuffs with different properties by sludge-rice husk biochar: adsorption capacity, isotherm, kinetic, thermodynamics and mechanism. J Mol Liq 285:62–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2019.04.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bergaoui M, Nakhli A, Benguerba Y, Khalfaoui M, Erto A, Soetaredjo FE, Ismadji S, Ernst B (2018) Novel insights into the adsorption mechanism of methylene blue onto organo-bentonite: adsorption isotherms modeling and molecular simulation. J Mol Liq 272:697–707.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2018.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghoreishian SM, Raju GSR, Pavitra E, Kwak CH, Han Y, Huh YS (2019) Ultrasound-assisted heterogeneous degradation of tetracycline over flower-like rGO/CdWO4 hierarchical structures as robust solar-light-responsive photocatalysts: optimization, kinetics, and mechanism. Appl Surf Sci 489:110–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.05.299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salvestrini S (2013) Diuron herbicide degradation catalyzed by low molecular weight humic acid-like compounds. Environ Chem Lett 213:359–363.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-013-0415-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu X, Chen W, Zong S, Ren X, Liu D (2019) Atrazine degradation using Fe3O4-sepiolite catalyzed persulfate: Reactivity, mechanism and stability. J Hazard Mater 377:62–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.05.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cranck J (1975) The mathematics of diffusion. Claredon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boyd GE, Adamson AW, Myers LS (1947) The exchange adsorption of ions from aqueous solutions by organic zeolites. II. Kinetics. J Am Chem Soc 69:2836–2848.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01203a066 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Viegas RMC, Campinas M, Costa H, Rosa MJ (2014) How do the HSDM and Boyd’s model compare for estimating intraparticle diffusion coefficients in adsorption processes. Adsorption 20:737–746.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10450-014-9617-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hui CW, Chen B, McKay G (2003) Pore-surface diffusion model for batch adsorption processes. Langmuir 19:4188–4196.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la026624v CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weber WJ, Morris JC (1964) Kinetics of adsorption on carbon from solution. J Sanit Eng Div 89:31–59Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plazinski W, Rudzinski W (2009) Kinetics of adsorption at solid/Solution interfaces controlled by intraparticle diffusion: a theoretical analysis. J Phys Chem C 113:12495–12501.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp902914z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haerifar M, Azizian S (2013) Mixed surface reaction and diffusion-controlled kinetic model for adsorption at the solid/solution interface. J Phys Chem C 117:8310–8317.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp401571m CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herrera-Hernández EC, Aguilar-Madera CG, Ocampo-Perez R, Espinosa-Paredes G, Núñez-López M (2019) Fractal continuum model for the adsorption-diffusion process. Chem Eng Sci 197:98–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2018.11.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fenti A, Salvestrini S (2018) Analytical solution of the Langmuir-based linear driving force model and its application to the adsorption kinetics of boscalid onto granular activated carbon. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 125:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-018-1435-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ho YS, McKay G (1999) Pseudo-second order model for sorption processes. Process Biochem 34:451–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-9592(98)00112-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simonin JP (2016) On the comparison of pseudo-first order and pseudo-second order rate laws in the modeling of adsorption kinetics. Chem Eng J 300:254–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.04.079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Plazinski W, Dziuba J, Rudzinski W (2013) Modeling of sorption kinetics: the pseudo-second order equation and the sorbate intraparticle diffusivity. Adsorption 19:1055–1064.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10450-013-9529-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Canzano S, Iovino P, Leone V, Salvestrini S, Capasso S (2012) Use and misuse of sorption kinetic data: a common mistake that should be avoided. Adsorpt Sci Technol 30:217–225.  https://doi.org/10.1260/0263-6174.30.3.217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang J (2019) Physical insights into kinetic models of adsorption. Sep Purif Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miyake Y, Ishida H, Tanaka S, Kolev SD (2013) Theoretical analysis of the pseudo-second order kinetic model of adsorption. Application to the adsorption of Ag(I) to mesoporous silica microspheres functionalized with thiol groups. Chem Eng J 218:350–357.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marczewski AW (2010) Analysis of kinetic langmuir model. Part I: integrated kinetic langmuir equation (IKL): a new complete analytical solution of the langmuir rate equation. Langmuir 26:15229–15238.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la1010049 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Salvestrini S (2018) Analysis of the Langmuir rate equation in its differential and integrated form for adsorption processes and a comparison with the pseudo first and pseudo second order models. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 123:455–472.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-017-1295-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Langmuir I (1918) The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum. J Am Chem Soc 40:1361–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja02242a004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Haworth A (1990) A review of the modelling of sorption from aqueous solution. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 32:43–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8686(90)80011-N CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Swenson H, Stadie NP (2019) Langmuir’s theory of adsorption: a centennial review. Langmuir 35:5409–5426.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b00154 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hibbert DB, Gooding JJ, Erokhin P (2002) Kinetics of irreversible adsorption with diffusion: application to biomolecule immobilization. Langmuir 18:1770–1776.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la015567n CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Holten R, Larsbo M, Jarvis N, Stenrød M, Almvik M, Eklo OM (2019) Leaching of five pesticides of contrasting mobility through frozen and unfrozen soil. Vadose Zone J.  https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.11.0201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Salvestrini S, Vanore P, Iovino P, Leone V, Capasso S (2015) Adsorption of simazine and boscalid onto acid-activated natural clinoptilolite. Environ Eng Manag J 14:1705–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Salerno J, Bennett CJ, Holman E, Gillis PL, Sibley PK, Prosser RS (2018) Sensitivity of multiple life stages of 2 freshwater mussel species (Unionidae) to various pesticides detected in Ontario (Canada) surface waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 37:2871–2880.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4248 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee S, Karplus M (1987) Kinetics of diffusion-influenced bimolecular reactions in solution. I. General formalism and relaxation kinetics of fast reversible reactions. J Chem Phys 86:1883–1903.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.452140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rohwer JM, Hofmeyr JHS (2010) Kinetic and thermodynamic aspects of enzyme control and regulation. J Phys Chem B 114:16280–16289.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp108412s CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Periasamy N, Doraiswamy S, Venkataraman B, Fleming GR (1988) Diffusion controlled reactions: experimental verification of the time-dependent rate equation. J Chem Phys 89:4799–4806.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.455673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rahn JR, Hallock RB (1995) Antibody binding to antigen-coated substrates studied with surface plasmon oscillations. Langmuir 11:650–654.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la00002a049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Waite TR (1960) Bimolecular reaction rates in solids and liquids. J Chem Phys 32:21–23.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1700904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ilkovič D (1934) Polarographic studies with the dropping mercury kathode. Part XLIV. The dependence of limiting currents on the diffusion constant, on the rate of dropping and on the size of drops. Collect Czechoslov Chem Commun 6:498–513.  https://doi.org/10.1135/cccc19340498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miyazaki CM, Mishra R, Kinahan DJ, Ferreira M, Ducrée J (2017) Polyethylene imine/graphene oxide layer-by-layer surface functionalization for significantly improved limit of detection and binding kinetics of immunoassays on acrylate surfaces. Colloids Surf B 158:167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.06.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shen L, Chen Z (2007) Critical review of the impact of tortuosity on diffusion. Chem Eng Sci 62:3748–3755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2007.03.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Abdelaziz OY, Hulteberg CP (2017) Physicochemical characterisation of technical lignins for their potential valorisation. Waste Biomass Valorization 8:859–869.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9643-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Salvestrini S, Vanore P, Bogush A, Mayadevi S, Campos LC (2017) Sorption of metaldehyde using granular activated carbon. J Water Reuse Desalin 7:280–287.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2016.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental, Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences and TechnologiesUniversità degli Studi Della Campania Luigi VanvitelliCasertaItaly
  2. 2.Environmental Technologies srl, University Spin-offCasertaItaly

Personalised recommendations