PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Sustainability & Circularity NOW 2025; 02: a26302599
DOI: 10.1055/a-2630-2599
Original Article

Methyl Blue Dye Adsorption Using Activated Eggshell: Kinetics, Isotherm, and Phytotoxicity Analysis

Autoren

  • Al Shariar Hasan

    1   Chemistry Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh

  • Sagar Kumar Dutta 

    1   Chemistry Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh

  • Abul Bashar

    1   Chemistry Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh

  • Palash Kumar Dhar

    1   Chemistry Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh

  • Rezaul Haque

    1   Chemistry Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh
Weitere Informationen
  Lizenzen und Reprints Alle Artikel dieser Rubrik


Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Aesthetic and health concerns have been raised about removing color from wastewater. Industrial activity is a major source of water contamination. Dyes can be hazardous, carcinogenic, and mutagenic to wildlife, plants, and humans. Consequently, it is essential to process wastewater prior to its release into the environment. Fabrics, leather tanning, paper, plastics, and printing all employ synthetic dyes like methyl blue (MB). MB is one of the triphenylmethane acid dyes and anionic dyes. In this investigation, refuse eggshell powder was carbonized and subsequently activated with lemon juice extract as an activating agent. The activated carbon eggshell (ACE) that was prepared was subjected to Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and zero point charge (ZPC). The adsorption rate was significantly influenced by several parameters, including pH, adsorbent dosage, initial concentration, contact time, and temperature. Additionally, isotherm models (including Langmuir, Freundlich, Temkin, and Dubinin–Radushkevich (D–R) isotherm models), kinetic models (including pseudo-first-order, pseudo-second-order, Elovich, intraparticle diffusion, and liquid-film diffusion models), and phytotoxicity studies were investigated. The optimum adsorption was achieved at a pH of 2, adsorbent dosage of 1.0 g, contact time of 70 min, and initial (MB) dye concentration of 40 mg/L. The maximal (MB) dye removal efficiency was initiated at 98.94%. This adsorbent (ACE) is expected to be well received as a more cost-effective alternative to other adsorbents.

Keywords

Eggshell - Adsorption - Methyl blue - Kinetics - Isotherm - Phytotoxicity

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 11. März 2025

Angenommen nach Revision: 06. Juni 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. Juli 2025

© 2025. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Al Shariar Hasan, Sagar Kumar Dutta, Abul Bashar, Palash Kumar Dhar, Rezaul Haque. Methyl Blue Dye Adsorption Using Activated Eggshell: Kinetics, Isotherm, and Phytotoxicity Analysis. Sustainability & Circularity NOW 2025; 02: a26302599.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2630-2599
 

  • References

  • 1 Dawood S, Sen TK, Phan C. Water Air Soil Pollut 2014; 225 (01) 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Raina S, Roy A, Bharadvaja N. Environ Nanotechnol Monitor Manage 2020; 13: 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dhar PK, Saha P, Hasan MK, Amin MK, Haque MR. Cleaner Eng Technol 2021; 3: 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Meenakumari M, Philip D. Spectrochim Acta, Part A 2015; 135: 632-638
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Doltade SB, Yadav YJ, Jadhav NL. South Afr J Chem Eng 2022; 40: 100-106
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Azam K, Raza R, Shezad N. et al. J Environ Chem Eng 2020; 8 (05) 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Rashid Al-Mamun M, Hossain KT, Mondal S, Afroza Khatun M, Shahinoor Islam M, Zaved Hossain Khan DM. South Afr J Chem Eng 2022; 40: 113-125
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Yagub MT, Sen TK, Afroze S, Ang HM. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2014; 209: 172-184
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ali NS, Jabbar NM, Alardhi SM, Majdi HS, Albayati TM. Heliyon 2022; 8 (08) 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Chowdhury MF, Khandaker S, Sarker F, Islam A, Rahman MT, Awual MR. J Mol Liq 2020; 318: 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kubra KT, Salman MS, Znad H, Hasan MN. Efficient encapsulation of toxic dye from wastewater using biodegradable polymeric adsorbent. J Mol Liq 2021; 329: 115541
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Aragaw TA, Alene AN. Emerg Contam 2022; 8: 59-74
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Zen S, El Berrichi FZ. Desalin Water Treat 2016; 57 (13) 6024-6032
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Ravulapalli S, Ravindhranath K. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2019; 16 (12) 7837-7848
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ledakowicz S, Pázdzior K. Molecules 2021; 26 (04) 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Al-Jaaf HJ, Ali NS, Alardhi SM, Albayati TM. Desalin Water Treat 2022; 245: 226-237
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Robinson T, Mcmullan G, Marchant R, Nigam P. Remediation of dyes in textile effluent: a critical review on current treatment technologies with a proposed alternative. n.d.
  • 18 Yao Y, Xu F, Chen M, Xu Z, Zhu Z. Bioresour Technol 2010; 101 (09) 3040-3046
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Dutta SK, Amin MK, Ahmed J, Elias M, Mahiuddin M. South Afr J Chem Eng 2022; 40: 195-208
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Darweesh MA, Elgendy MY, Ayad MI, Ahmed AMM, Elsayed NMK, Hammad WA. South Afr J Chem Eng 2022; 40: 10-20
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Demirbas A. J Hazard Mater 2009; 167 (01) –03 1-9
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Brishti RS, Kundu R, Habib MA, Ara MH. Results Chem 2023; 5: 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Crini G. Bioresour Technol 2006; 97 (09) 1061-1085
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 24 El-Nemr MA, Yılmaz M, Ragab S, Hassaan MA, El Nemr A. Sci Rep 2023; 13 (01) 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 25 El-Nemr MA, Yilmaz M, Ragab S, Hassaan MA, Nemr AE. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 4268
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Annane K, Lemlikchi W, Tingry S. Biomass Convers Biorefin 2023; 13 (07) 6163-6174
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Ahmad A, Jini D, Aravind M. et al. Arab J Chem 2020; 13 (12) 8717-8722
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Borhade AV, Kale AS. Appl Water Sci 2017; 7 (08) 4255-4268
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Borhade AV, Tope DR, Uphade BK. E-J Chem n.d. 9: 1 http://www.ejchem.net
  • 30 Huang W, Pan S, Yu Q, Liu X, Liu Y, Liu R. J Inorg Organometall Polym Mater 2019; 29 (05) 1755-1766
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Liu R, Lv P, Fu H, Lu R, Wu X, Lu Y. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2017; 17 (07) 4755-4762
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Zhang L, Zhang Y, Yang L, Jiang X, Yang Q. Desalin Water Treat 2015; 54 (08) 2259-2269
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Yang L, Zhang Y, Liu X. et al. Chem Eng J 2014; 246: 88-96
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Kasirajan R, Bekele A, Girma E. South Afr J Chem Eng 2022; 40: 209-229
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Torit J, Phihusut D. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2019; 26 (33) 34101-34109
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Gergely G, Wéber F, Lukács I. et al. Ceram Int 2010; 36 (02) 803-806
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Kundu R, Biswas C, Ahmed J, Naime J, Ara MH. J Chem Health Risks 2020; 10 (04) 243-252
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Borhade AV, Kale AS. Appl Water Sci 2017; 7 (08) 4255-4268
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Tsai WT, Yang JM, Lai CW, Cheng YH, Lin CC, Yeh CW. Bioresour Technol 2006; 97 (03) 488-493
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Ojha AK, Bulasara VK. Environ Prog Sustainable Energy 2015; 34 (02) 461-470
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Rohim R, Ahmad R, Ibrahim N, Hamidin N, Zulzikrami C, Abidin A. Adv Environ Biol 2014; 8 (22) 1 http://www.aensiweb.com/AEB/
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Mim J, Sultana MS, Dhar PK, Hasan MK, Dutta SK. RSC Adv 2024; 14 (35) 25409-25424
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Ahmad A, Jini D, Aravind M. et al. Arab J Chem 2020; 13 (12) 8717-8722
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Ali MH, Dutta SK, Sultana MS, Habib A, Dhar PK. Int J Biol Macromol 2024; 280: 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Mosabberul Haque M, Rahman A, Shafiul Islam Shahin M. et al. Results Chem 2024; 7: 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Chen S, Zhang J, Zhang C, Yue Q, Li Y, Li C. Desalination 2010; 252 (01) –03 149-156
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Uddin MT, Rahman MA, Rukanuzzaman M, Islam MA. Appl Water Sci 2017; 7 (06) 2831-2842
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Arami M, Limaee NY, Mahmoodi NM, Tabrizi NS. J Colloid Interface Sci 2005; 288 (02) 371-376
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 49 Isaac CPJ, Sivakumar A. Desalin Water Treat 2013; 51 (40) –42 7700-7709
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 50 Ma Q, Shen F, Lu X, Bao W, Ma H. Desalin Water Treat 2013; 51 (19) –21 3700-3709
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Benjelloun M, Miyah Y, Akdemir Evrendilek G, Zerrouq F, Lairini S. Arab J Chem 2021; 14 (04) 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 52 Habiba U, Siddique TA, Li Lee JJ, Joo TC, Ang BC, Afifi AM. Carbohydr Polym 2018; 191: 79-85
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 53 Ghaedi M, Biyareh MN, Kokhdan SN. et al. Mater Sci Eng C 2012; 32 (04) 725-734
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 54 Yu F, Wu Y, Ma J, Zhang C. J Environ Sci 2013; 25 (01) 195-203
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 55 Onyango MS, Kojima Y, Aoyi O, Bernardo EC, Matsuda H. J Colloid Interface Sci 2004; 279 (02) 341-350
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 56 Yu F, Wu Y, Ma J, Zhang C. J Environ Sci 2013; 25 (01) 195-203
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 57 Salleh MAM, Mahmoud DK, Karim WAWA, Idris A. Desalination 2011; 280 (01) –03 1-13
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 58 Dada AO. IOSR J Appl Chem 2012; 3 (01) 38-45
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 59 Salam MA, El-Shishtawy RM, Obaid AY. J Ind Eng Chem 2014; 20 (05) 3559-3567
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 60 Akansha K, Chakraborty D, Sachan SG. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 2019; 18: 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 61 Berradi M, Hsissou R, Khudhair M. et al. Heliyon 2019; 5 (11) 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 62 Rahman M, Rayhan M, Chowdhury M, Mohiuddin K, Chowdhury M. Fundam Appl Agric 2018; 4 (01) 480
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 63 Rajan MR. J Pollut Effects Control 2015; 3 (02) 1
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 64 Rana S, Kumar K. Int J BioSci Technol 2017; 10 (08) 1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331318861
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 65 Tripathi S, Singh K, Singh A, Mishra A, Chandra R. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2022; 19 (03) 2025-2038
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 66 Cifci Deniz Izlen, Meric Sureyya. Advances in Environmental Research 5 (01) Technopress Mar 2016; 37-50
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 67 Cifci Deniz Izlen, Nesli Aydın. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 104 (19) 2024; 7441-7456
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 68 Saber-Samandari Samaneh. et al. Journal of environmental management 2014; 146: 481-490
    Suche in Google Scholar