Application of novel hybrid bioadsorbent, tannin/chitosan/sericite, for the removal of Pb(II) toxic ion from aqueous solution

Assessment of the adsorption kinetics, equilibrium, and thermodynamic for Pb(II) removal using a low‐cost hybrid biowaste adsorbent, eggshell/coffee ground/sericite

“…Several bands were observed at 3,000–3,500 cm −1 , representing bonded‐O–H groups (Georgescu, Nardou, Zichil, & Nistor, ). The CES exhibited more peaks than the eggshell, sericite, and coffee grounds, with strong vibrations within a range of 400–900 cm −1 , corresponding to N‐containing bioligands, and 950–1,150 cm −1 , indicating stretching (Choi & Yu, ). In particular, the CES contained a wide and broad peak for carboxylic groups in the range of 1,300–1,600 cm −1 , C–O stretching and C = O carbonyl groups from 1,650–1,780 cm −1 (Choi et al, ), and CH stretching at 2,750–2,960 cm −1 (Chen, Zhu, Wang, Feng, & Yan, ).…”

“…To investigate the effect of temperature on the adsorption of Pb(II) on CES, the experimental conditions were as follows: temperature of 15–40°C, Pb(II) concentration of 50 mg/L, and pH of 7, and the experimental results are presented in Table and showed in Figure a,b. The energy change, Δ G o , is a measure of useful work in chemical reactions between the adsorbate and adsorbent (Singh et al, ) and is a state function that describes the direction of the change process for a certain chemical reaction (Choi & Yu, ). Δ G ° is negative for processes in which the change occurs spontaneously (Babu et al, ; Nag et al, ).…”

“…Cost is an important parameter for the selection of an adsorbent (Choi & Yu, ). The adsorption of heavy metals using waste not only reduces waste disposal costs, but also has great significance in terms of resource recycling.…”

“…Chemical and physical treatments for lead removal have disadvantages, such as high installation, operation, and reagent costs and energy consumption, incomplete heavy metal removal, the production of toxic sludge, and the disposal secondarily generated waste (Singh et al, ). In contrast, heavy metal removal processes using biological adsorption techniques have the advantages of low operating costs and heavy metal recovery, the ability to reuse the biodegradable absorbents, and can minimize the volume of sludge to be treated (Choi & Yu, ). However, bio‐adsorption has the disadvantages of a low adsorption efficiency and long processing time (Yu & Choi, ).…”

“…Recently, many researchers have studied methods to remove heavy metals from aqueous solutions using biomaterials and wastes (Chen, Shah, Shi, & Chiang, ; Khatoon, Uddin, & Rao, ; Lee & Choi, ; Singh et al, ). Among the various methods, adsorption is very economical because it has a high treatment efficiency, short processing time, low sludge production, and ability to reuse the adsorbent (Anastopoulos, Karamesouti, Mitropoulos, & Kyzas, ; Choi & Yu, ; Islam et al, ). However, adsorption using biowaste is not as easily applied to wastewater treatment processes in practice as physical and chemical processes (Ahmad et al, ; Anastopoulos et al, ).…”