Removal of copper (II) from aqueous solution by modified agricultural waste materials

 

B. K. Uphade*, A. G. Gadhave and R. B. Gaikar

Research Center, Department of Chemistry, Padmashri Vikhe Patil College, Pravaranagar, A/P- Loni (Kd),

Tal-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar, 413713, India

*Corresponding Author E-mail: bk_uphade@rediffmail.com

 

ABSTRACT:

The agricultural waste materials of Glycine max was modified using activating agents such as phosphoric acid. The modified material agricultural waste was used for the removal of copper from aqueous solution. The influence of copper (II) concentration, pH, adsorbent dose and contact time on the removal of copper from aqueous solution was investigated. The experimental data were fitted well by Freundlich isotherm and Langmuir isotherm. The modified agricultural waste has greater potential for copper removal due to cheaper nature and higher uptake. The present study showed that modified agricultural waste materials were capable of removing copper ions from industrial wastewater samples.

 

KEYWORDS: Modified agricultural waste, Adsorption, Copper etc.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Heavy metals causes toxic effect on the environment, adsorption is the process which is used for the removal of heavy metals from waste water. Different process like fertilizer industries, metal plating facilities, paper industries, pigment manufacturing, mining operations and batteries manufacturing plants1-5 introduces heavy metals into the environment. The heavy metals tend to accumulate in living organism due to which they cause numerous diseases.  Therefore to remove such heavy metals has become essential in order to increase the quality of water.

 

According to WHO the permissible concentration of copper in drinking water is 0.2 mg/l6. Copper ion is used as essential element for the animals, humans and plants7. Copper deficiency can cause several metabolic problems in human beings8, 9. The drinking water contains high amounts of copper ion10. Copper also used in industries as good corrosion resistance, high recyclability, high electrical and thermal conductivity11. Copper in high amount causes headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, nausea, liver and kidney failure, vomiting and diarrhea, hemolytic anemia and death12. The high amount copper also damage freshwater and marine organisms such as fish and mollusks13. Therefore, it is necessary to remove an excess amount of copper.

 

Several methods have been used for the removal of copper from aqueous waste streams, such as adsorption on activated charcoal14, chemical precipitation15, biosorption on marine algae16, ion exchange on zeolites17, flotation18, ion exchange on chelating resins19, chitosan20, shells of lentil, wheat and rice21, biomass adsorbent22, ferric/limestone treatment23, calcium alginate immobilized kaolin24, electrocoagulation25, orange peel, sawdust and bagasse26, lignite27, wood fly ash28, tree fern29, coconut husk30, nylon 631, cross linked chitosan-g-acrylonitrile copolymer32, modified magnetic chitosan33, modified loquat leaves34, sour orange residue35, cotton boll36 and jute fibres37.

 

The modified glycine max was used for the removal of oxalic acid and acetic acid38. The aim of this research was to investigate the use of agricultural waste glycine max in the removal of copper ions from aqueous solution. India has produced 9.8 million metric tons glycine max in 2014 and at 5th position in the world39. The agricultural waste glycine max is a low cost adsorbent easily available in India. The study involved the examination of experimental conditions such as pH of the solution, contact time, concentration of copper ion and adsorbent loading on the removal of copper. The Freundlich and Langmuir adsorption isotherms were used to investigate the adsorption process.

 

EXPERIMENTAL:

Materials and methods

The activated charcoal was prepared by carbonizing the weighed stalks of Glycine max. The dry glycine max leaves were crushed and activated using 2 % H3PO4 solution and kept for 24 hr. Then crushed materials was filtered through Whatman paper and washed with 2N HCl.  The crushed solid materials have been dry at room temperature and heated at 120oC for 10 hrs in heating oven. The solid charcoal obtained was calcinized at 400oC for 2 hrs. The activated charcoal thus prepared was passed through sieves to get particles of uniform size (53 micron).

 

Procedure

Batch adsorption experiments were carried out by shaking 1 g of each adsorbent with 100 ml of the copper (II) solution of 100 mg/L concentration at room temperature. The adsorbent was removed by centrifugation. The amount of copper in the centrifugate was analyzed colorimetric technique by calibration method.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

i) Effect of pH:

The pH of the solution is an important parameter in the adsorption phenomena, so effect of pH on the adsorption of copper has been studied by varying it in the range of 2-10 (Figure 1). The maximum removal of copper was observed at pH 5.0. Copper ions get precipitated at pH above than 5.0 as Cu (OH)2.

 

ii) Effect of contact time:

The removal of copper ion as increased with increase in contact time before equilibrium is reached. The result shows that the removal of copper ion as increased from 31 % to 94 % with contact time variation from 20 to 120 minutes (Figure 2). The removal of copper remains constant above 120 minutes, it shows that the optimum contact time for the removal of maximum copper was 120 minutes.

 

iii) Effect of initial concentration of copper (II):

The removal of copper (II) from aqueous solution depends on initial concentration of copper ions. The maximum removal of copper ion was observed at lower concentration (20 mg/L). As concentration of copper ion increases the removal of copper ion was decreases (Figure 3).

 

iv) Effect of adsorbent dose:

To study the effect of amount of adsorbent on the removal of copper ion, the volume of metal solution was kept constant. The removal of copper ion increases with increase in amount of adsorbent dose due to greater availability of the exchangeable sites or surface area. The maximum removal of copper (II) was observed at 1 gm/50 ml of aqueous solution (Figure 4).

 

Figure: 1

 

Figure: 2

 

Figure: 3

 

v) Adsorption isotherm:

The Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms were used in present study. The Langmuir isotherm and Freundlich isotherm has fitted for the removal of copper (II) ion using Glycine max activated adsorbent. The RL values lies between 0 and 1, the related adsorption process is favorable40. The RL value in this study was 0.645 which indicates that the adsorption process is favorable (Figure 5).

 

Figure: 4

 

a) Langmuir adsorption isotherm

 

b) Freundlich adsorption isotherm

Figure: 5

 

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The activated charcoal was the most efficient adsorbent for the removal of copper.

2. The optimum pH value for copper removal was found to be 5.0.

3. The contact time of 120 minute was sufficient to remove copper.

4. The maximum removal at initial concentration of 20 mg/L was achieved.

5. The Langmuir isotherm and Freundlich isotherm has fitted for the removal of copper (II) ion.

6. The method was successfully applicable for the removal of copper from waste water.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The authors are thankful to Principal, P. V. P College, Pravaranagr for providing necessary laboratory facilities.

 

REFERENCES:

1.               Olayinka K O, Oyedeji O A and Oyeyiola O A, Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3 (10); 2009:286.

2.               Ahluwalia S S and Goyal D, Biresour. Technol. 98; 2007: 2243.

3.               Ku Y and Jung I L, Water Res. 35 (1); 2001: 135.

4.               Olayinka K O, Alo B I and Adu T, J. Applied Sci. 7 (16); 2007: 2307.

5.               Dalang F, Buffle J and Haerdi W, Environ. Sci. Technol. 18 (3); 19884:134.

6.               World Health Organization. Copper in drinking water, guidelines for drinking water quality, 2010.

7.               Kumar M, Singh S and Mahajan R K, Environ. Monit. Assess. 112 (1); 2006: 283.

8.               Gay D and Maher W, Water Res. 37 (9); 2003: 2173.

9.               Teker M, Imamoglu M and Saltabas O, Turk J. Chem. 23; 1999: 185.

10.            Pontius W F. Water quality and treatment, 4th Ed, New York, McGraw-Hill. 1990

11.            Saha P, Datta S and Sanyal S K, Indian Sci. Cruiser. 22 (3); 2008: 50.

12.            Titi O A and Bello O S, J. Biotechnol. Biomater. 5; 2015: 177.

13.            Van Genderen E J, Ryan A C, Tomasso J R and Klaine S J, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24 (2); 2005: 408.

14.            Monser L and Adhoum N, Sep. Purif. Technol. 26; 2002: 137.

15.            Spearot R M and Peck J V, Environ. Prog. 3(2); 1984: 124.

16.            Kaewsarn P, Chemosphere. 47 (10); 2002:1081.

17.            Panayotova M I, Waste Manage. 21 (7); 2001: 671.

18.            Matis K A, Lazaridis N K, Zouboulis A I, Gallios G P and Mavrov V, J. Membra. Sci. 247; 2005: 29.

19.            Koivula R, Lehto J, Pajo L, Gale T and Leinonen H, Hydrometallurgy. 56 (1); 2000: 93.

20.            Wan Ngah W S, Endud C S and Mayanar R, Reac. Funct. Polym. 50 (2); 2002: 181.

21.            Aydin H, Bulut Y and Yerlikaya C, J. Environ. Manage. 87 (1); 2008: 37.

22.            Bilal M, Shah J A, Ashfaq T, Gardazi S M H, Tahir A A, Pervez A, Haroon H and Mahmood Q, J. Hazard. Mater. 263 (2); 2013: 322.

23.            Kang C D, Sim S J, Cho Y S and Kim W S, Korean J. Chem. Eng. 20 (3); 2003: 482.

24.            Li Y, Xia B, Zhao Q, Liu F, Zhang P, Du Q, Wang D, Li D, Wang Z and Xia Y, J. Environ. Sci (China). 23 (3); 2011: 404.

25.            Dermentzis K, Christoforidis A and Valsamidou E, Int. J. Environ. Sci. 1 (5); 2011: 697.

26.            Habib A, Islam N, Islam A and Shafiqul Alam A M, Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Chem. 8 (1-2); 2007: 21.

27.            Ho Y S, Water Res. 37 (10); 2003: 2323.

28.            Lucaci D, Visa M and Duta A, Rev. Roum. Chim. 56 (10-11); 2011: 1067.

29.            Chen W J and Cheng X G, J. Minjiang University. 23 (2); 2002: 72.

30.            Abdulrasaq O O and Basiru O G, Afr. J. Environ. Technol. 4 (6); 2010: 382.

31.            Prakash N, Sudha P N and Renganathan N G, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 19 (7); 2012: 2930.

32.            Ramya P, Sankar P, Anbalagan S and Sudha P N, Int. J. Environ. Sci. 1(6); 2011:1323.

33.            Zhu Y, Hu J and Wang J, J. Hazard. Mater. 221-222; 2012: 155.

34.            Awwad A M and Salem N M, J. Chem. Eng. Mat. Sci. 3 (1); 2012: 7.

35.            Khormaei M, Nasernejad B, Edrisi M and Eslamzadeh T, J. Hazard. Mater. 149 (2); 2007: 269.

36.            Ozsoy H D and Kumbur H, J. Hazard. Mater. 136 (3); 2006: 911.

37.            Shukla S R and Pai R S, Bioresour. Technol. 96 (13); 2005: 1430.

38.            Uphade B K, Shelke S S, Aher H R and Kuchekar S R, Int. J. Chem. Sci. 6 (3); 2008: 1399.

39.            UN Food and Agriculture Organization Report. 2014.

40.            Erdem B, Ozcan A, Gok O and Ozcan S A, J. Hazard. Mater. 163 (1); 2009: 418.

 

 

 

 

Received on 07.05.2016         Modified on 28.06.2016

Accepted on 21.07.2016         © AJRC All right reserved

Asian J. Research Chem. 2016; 9(9): 409-412.

DOI: 10.5958/0974-4150.2016.00061.4