Scholarlink

<p>Chromium (III) contamination in water sources presents a serious environmental challenge, necessitating efficient and affordable remediation methods. This study investigates the adsorption potential of banana peel (ABP)- and orange peel (AOP)-derived adsorbents, along with their natural counterparts, raw orange peel (ROP) and raw banana peel (RBP), for chromium (III) removal from aqueous solutions and tannery wastewater. Batch experiments were conducted to evaluate the impact of adsorbent dosage (2–12&#xa0;g/L for ABP and 5–40&#xa0;g/L for AOP), contact time (15–150&#xa0;min for ABP and 30–120&#xa0;min for AOP), and pH (2–8 for all adsorbents). The study achieved maximum removal efficiency of 92.5% for ABP (6&#xa0;g/L, pH 5, 90&#xa0;min) and 96% for AOP (8&#xa0;g/L, pH 2.8, 60&#xa0;min). Adsorption kinetics followed a pseudo-second-order model, indicating chemisorption, and were best described by the Freundlich isotherm, suggesting multilayer adsorption. FTIR and TGA analyses confirmed structural and thermal modifications that enhanced adsorption capacity. These findings highlight the potential of ABP and AOP as sustainable, low-cost alternatives for chromium (III) removal, with AOP demonstrating superior performance due to its optimized surface properties and two-step carbonization process.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Development adsorbents derived from waste peels in chromium (III) removal: a comparative study

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月13日

查看全文
  • Barista Chakma,
  • Adib H. Chisty,
  • Ishtiaq Ahmed Jawad

摘要

Chromium (III) contamination in water sources presents a serious environmental challenge, necessitating efficient and affordable remediation methods. This study investigates the adsorption potential of banana peel (ABP)- and orange peel (AOP)-derived adsorbents, along with their natural counterparts, raw orange peel (ROP) and raw banana peel (RBP), for chromium (III) removal from aqueous solutions and tannery wastewater. Batch experiments were conducted to evaluate the impact of adsorbent dosage (2–12 g/L for ABP and 5–40 g/L for AOP), contact time (15–150 min for ABP and 30–120 min for AOP), and pH (2–8 for all adsorbents). The study achieved maximum removal efficiency of 92.5% for ABP (6 g/L, pH 5, 90 min) and 96% for AOP (8 g/L, pH 2.8, 60 min). Adsorption kinetics followed a pseudo-second-order model, indicating chemisorption, and were best described by the Freundlich isotherm, suggesting multilayer adsorption. FTIR and TGA analyses confirmed structural and thermal modifications that enhanced adsorption capacity. These findings highlight the potential of ABP and AOP as sustainable, low-cost alternatives for chromium (III) removal, with AOP demonstrating superior performance due to its optimized surface properties and two-step carbonization process.