Advertisement

Sustainable Water Resources Management

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 1627–1639 | Cite as

Optimization study of adsorption parameters for removal of Cr(VI) using Magnolia leaf biomass by response surface methodology

  • Naba Kumar MondalEmail author
  • Angela Samanta
  • Palas RoyEmail author
  • Biswajit Das
Original Article

Abstract

The removal of chromium (Cr) using waste biomass is one of the most important issues throughout the world. In the present study, Magnolia leaf, a forest waste, is employed as novel and available adsorbent to abate Cr(VI) from simulated solution through batch study. The effects of operating variables on biosorption were analyzed using a multi-step response surface methodology (RSM). The optimum biosorption conditions were determined at the initial Cr(VI) concentration of 40.0 mg L−1, pH of 2.0, contact time 45.0 min and dose of 0.5 g. At optimum conditions, the biosorption capacity of Magnolia leaf for Cr(VI) was found to be 3.96 mg g−1 that reflects the removal of 98.8%. The obtained data matched with the pseudo-second-order rate (R2 = 0.987) expression and fitted the Langmuir isotherm (R2 = 0.999) very well. The thermodynamic parameters such as ΔH°, ΔS° and ΔG° for the Cr(VI) biosorption were calculated at six different temperatures. The surface characteristics and the existence of chromium of the biomass, before and after biosorption, were studied through scanning electron micrographs–energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM–EDX) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis. The present results indicate that Magnolia leaf is a suitable low-cost bio-material to remove Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions.

Keywords

Magnolia leaf Biosorption Cr(VI) removal Isotherm Optimization Response surface methodology 

Abbreviations

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

BBD

Box–Behnken design

EDTA

Ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid

FTIR

Fourier transform infrared

MLP

Magnolia leaf powder

RSM

Response surface methodology

SEM

Scanning electron micrographs

Notes

Acknowledgements

P. Roy is grateful to UGC(ERO), Government of India, for financial support under Minor Research Project scheme [F.No.PSW–010/014-15(ERO)]. The authors take the opportunity to express deep sense of gratitude to editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments, which helped us to enrich the research work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declared that they have no conflict of interest to publish this paper.

References

  1. Ahalya N, Kanamadi RD, Ramachandra TV (2010) Removal of hexavalent chromium using coffee husk. Int J Environ Pollut 43((1/2/3)):106–116Google Scholar
  2. Ahmady-Asbchin S, Safari M, Varposhti M (2015) Biosorption optimization of Cr(VI) using response surface methodology and thermodynamics modeling onto Azolla filiculoides. Sep Sci Technol 50(4):554–563Google Scholar
  3. Alaerts GJ, Jitjaturant V, Kelderman P (1989) Use of coconut shell based activated carbon for chromium(VI) removal. Water Sci Technol 21(12):1701–1704Google Scholar
  4. Albadarin AB, Mangwandi C, Al-Muhtaseb AH, Walker GM, Allen SJ, Ahmad MNM (2012) Kinetic and thermodynamics of chromium ions adsorption onto low-cost dolomite adsorbent. Chem Eng J 179:193–202Google Scholar
  5. Albadarina AB, Al-Muhtaseb AH, Al-laqtah NA, Walker GM, Allen SJ, Ahmad MNM (2011) Biosorption of toxic chromium from aqueous phase by lignin: mechanism, effect of other metal ions and salts. Chem Eng J 169(1–3):20–30Google Scholar
  6. Anayurt RA, Sari A, Tuzen M (2009) Equilibrium, thermodynamic and kinetic studies on biosorption of Pb(II) and Cd(II) from aqueous solution by macrofungus (Lactarius scrobiculatus) biomass. Chem Eng J 151(1–3):255–261Google Scholar
  7. Ang XW, Sethu VS, Andresen JM, Sivakumar M (2013) Copper(II) ion removal from aqueous solutions using biosorption technology: thermodynamic and SEM–EDX studies. Clean Techn Environ Policy 15(2):401–407Google Scholar
  8. Baig JA, Kazi TG, Shah AQ, Kandhro GA, Afridi HI, Khan S, Kolachi NF (2010) Biosorption studies on powder of stem of Acacia nilotica: removal of arsenic from surface water. J Hazard Mater 178(1–3):941–948Google Scholar
  9. Chattoraj S, Mondal NK, Das B, Roy P, Sadhukhan B (2014) Biosorption of carbaryl from aqueous solution onto Pistia stratiotes biomass. Appl Water Sci 4(1):79–88Google Scholar
  10. Chaudhuri M, Azizan NKB (2012) Adsorptive removal of chromium(VI) from aqueous solution by an agricultural waste–based activated carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut 223(4):1765–1771Google Scholar
  11. Choudhary S, Goyal V, Singh S (2015) Removal of copper(II) and chromium(VI) from aqueous solution using sorghum roots (S. bicolor): a kinetic and thermodynamic study. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17(4):1039–1051Google Scholar
  12. Chowdhury S, Chakraborty S, Saha PD (2013) Response surface optimization of a dynamic dye adsorption process: a case study of crystal violet adsorption onto NaOH-modified rice husk. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(3):1698–1705Google Scholar
  13. Cimino G, Passerini A, Toscano G (2000) Removal of toxic cations and Cr(VI) from aqueous solution by hazelnut shell. Water Res 34(11):2955–2962Google Scholar
  14. Das B, Mondal NK, Roy P, Chattaraj S (2013a) Equilibrium, kinetic and thermodynamic study on chromium(VI) removal from aqueous solution using Pistia stratiotes biomass. Chem Sci Trans 2(1):85–104Google Scholar
  15. Das B, Mondal NK, Roy P, Chattoraj S (2013b) Application of response surface methodology for hexavalent chromium adsorption onto alluvial soil of Indian origin. Int J Environ Pollut Solut 1(2):72–87Google Scholar
  16. Das B, Mondal NK, Bhaumik R, Roy P (2014) Insight into adsorption equilibrium, kinetics and thermodynamics of lead onto alluvial soil. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11(4):1101–1114Google Scholar
  17. Demirbas E, Kobya M, Senturk E, Ozklan T (2004) Adsorption kinetics for the removal of chromium(VI) from aqueous solutions on the activated carbons prepared from agricultural wastes. Water SA 30(4):533–540Google Scholar
  18. Donmez G, Aksu Z (2002) Removal of chromium(VI) from saline wastewaters by Dunaliella species. Process Biochem 38(5):751–762Google Scholar
  19. Gholami F, Mahvi AH, Omrani GA, Nazmara S, Ghasri A (2006) Removal of chromium(VI) from aqueous solution by Ulmus leaves. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng 3(2):97–102Google Scholar
  20. Gnanasambandam R, Proctor A (2008) Determination of pectin degree of esterification by diffuse reflectance fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Food Chem 68(3):327–332Google Scholar
  21. Jain M, Garg VK, Kadirvelu K (2010) Equilibrium and kinetic studies for sequestration of Cr(VI) from simulated wastewater using sunflower waste biomass. J Hazard Mater 171(1–3):328–334Google Scholar
  22. Jing X, Cao Y, Zhang X, Wang D, Wu X, Xu H (2011) Biosorption of Cr(VI) from simulated wastewater using a cationic surfactant modified spent mushroom. Desalination 269(1–3):120–127Google Scholar
  23. Johnstone GH (1955) Asiatic Magnolias in cultivation, 1st edn. The Royal Horticultural Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Kazemi MO, Jahanshahi M, Peyravi M (2018) Hexavalent chromium removal by multilayer membrane assisted by photocatalytic couple nanoparticle from both permeate and retentate. J Hazard Mater.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.09.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiran B, Kaushik A, Kaushik CP (2007) Response surface methodological approach for optimizing removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solution using immobilized cyanobacterium. Chem Eng J 126(2–3):147–153Google Scholar
  26. Kobya M (2004) Removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions by adsorption onto hazelnut shell activated carbon: kinetic and equilibrium studies. Bioresour Technol 91(3):317–321Google Scholar
  27. Koyuncu M (2012) Adsorption of Cr(VI) from textile waste water by using natural bentonite. IIOABJ 3(3):1–4Google Scholar
  28. Kumar MPS, Phanikumar BR (2013) Response surface modelling of Cr6+ adsorption from aqueous solution by neem bark powder: Box–Behnken experimental approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(3):1327–1343Google Scholar
  29. Li H, Dong X, da Silva E, DeOliveira LM, Chen Y, Ma LQ (2017) Mechanism of metal sorption by biochars: Biochar characteristics and modifications. Chemosphere 178:466–478Google Scholar
  30. Lyu H, Tang J, Huang Y, Gai L, Zeng EY, Liber K, Goug Y (2017) Removal of hexavalent chromium from aqueous solutions by a novel biochar supported nanoscale iron sulfide composite. Chem Eng J 322:516–524Google Scholar
  31. Mohan D, Singh KP, Singh VK (2005) Removal of hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution using low–cost activated carbon derived from agricultural waste materials and activated carbon fabric cloth. Ind Eng Chem Res 44(4):1027–1042Google Scholar
  32. Mohanty K, Jha M, Meikap BC, Biswas MN (2005) Removal of chromium(VI) from dilute aqueous solutions by activated carbon developed from Terminalia arjuna nuts activated with zinc chloride. Chem Eng Sci 60(11):3049–3059Google Scholar
  33. Mona S, Kaushik A, Kaushik CP (2011) Biosorption of chromium(VI) by spent cyanobacterial biomass from a hydrogen fermentor using Box-Behnken model. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 65(4):656–663Google Scholar
  34. Mondal NK, Bhaumik R, Datta JK (2015) Removal of fluoride by aluminum impregnated coconut fiber from synthetic fluoride solution and natural water. Alex Eng J 54(4):1273–1284Google Scholar
  35. Mondal NK, Samanta A, Dutta S, Chattoraj S (2017) Optimization of Cr(VI) biosorption onto Aspergillus niger using 3-level Box-Behnken design: equilibrium, kinetic, thermodynamic and regeneration studies. J Genetic Eng Biotechnol 15:151–160Google Scholar
  36. Parlayici S, Eskizeybek V, Avcı A, Pehlivan E (2015) Removal of chromium(VI) using activated carbon–supported–functionalized carbon nanotubes. J Nanostruct Chem 5(3):255–263Google Scholar
  37. Rai MK, Shahi G, Meena V, Meena R, Chakraborty S, Singh RS, Rai BN (2016) Removal of hexavalent Cr(VI) using activated carbon prepared from mango kernel activated with H3PO4. Resour Effic Technol 2:563–570Google Scholar
  38. Roy P, Mondal NK, Das K (2014) Modeling of the adsorptive removal of arsenic: a statistical approach. J Environ Chem Eng 2(1):585–597Google Scholar
  39. Roy P, Dey U, Chattoraj S, Mukhopadhyay D, Mondal NK (2015) Modeling of the adsorptive removal of arsenic(III) using plant biomass: a bioremedial approach. Appl Water Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-015-0339-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sadhukhan B, Mondal NK, Chattoraj S (2014) Biosorptive removal of cationic dye from aqueous system: a response surface methodological approach. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16(6):1015–1025Google Scholar
  41. Sahan T, Ozturk D (2014) Investigation of Pb(II) adsorption onto pumice samples: application of optimization method based on fractional factorial design and response surface methodology. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(5):819–831Google Scholar
  42. Samuel MS, Abigail MEA, Ramalingam C (2015) Biosorption of Cr(VI) by Ceratocystis paradoxa MSR2 using isotherm modelling, kinetic study and optimization of batch parameters using response surface methodology. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0118999.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sarin V, Pant KK (2006) Removal of chromium from industrial waste by using eucalyptus bark. Bioresour Technol 97(1):15–20Google Scholar
  44. Srividya K, Mohanty K (2009) Biosorption of hexavalent chromium from aqueous solutions by Catla catla scales: equilibrium and kinetics studies. Chem Eng J 155:666–673Google Scholar
  45. Swarnakar V, Agrawal N, Tomar R (2011) Sorption of Cr(VI) & As(V) on HDTMA –modified zeolites. Int J Sci Eng Res 2(5):1–9Google Scholar
  46. Wang YT, Shen H (1995) Bacterial reduction of hexavalent chromium. J Ind Microbiol 14(2):159–163Google Scholar
  47. Wang XS, Chen LF, Li FY, Chen KL, Wan WY, Tang YJ (2010) Removal of Cr(VI) with wheat–residue derived black carbon: reaction mechanism and adsorption performance. J Hazard Mater 175(1–3):816–822Google Scholar
  48. WHO (1993) Guidelines for drinking–water quality, 2nd edn. Switzerland, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  49. Yun YS, Park D, Park JM, Volesky B (2001) Biosorption of trivalent chromium on the brown seaweed biomass. Environ Sci Technol 35(21):4353–4358Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Environmental ScienceThe University of BurdwanBurdwanIndia
  2. 2.Department of Biological ScienceBITS Pilani KK Birla University (Goa Campus)GoaIndia
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, B.N. Mahavidyalaya (Itachuna)The University of BurdwanBurdwanIndia
  4. 4.Department of Chemistry, Kalna College (Kalna)The University of BurdwanBurdwanIndia

Personalised recommendations