Effects of pH, carbonate, calcium ion and humic acid concentrations, temperature, and uranium concentration on the adsorption of uranium on the CTAB-modified montmorillonite

  • Junjie Hui
  • Youqun Wang
  • Yuhui Liu
  • Xiaohong Cao
  • Zhibin Zhang
  • Ying DaiEmail author
  • Yunhai LiuEmail author


With the aim of gathering uranium from ground aquatic environment in which uranium mainly occurs in negative species, the montmorillonite (MT) intercalated with cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) was fabricated. X-ray diffraction and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy were utilized to prove the entrance of CTAB into MT. Adsorption of uranium onto CTAB-MT was studied with respect to effect of pH, carbonate, calcium, humic acid, contact time, initial uranium concentration, and temperature. The adsorption negatively depended on pH, carbonate and calcium ion and humic acid concentrations. CTAB-MT had a higher uranium adsorption ability. The maximum monolayer uranium adsorption amount of CTAB-MT calculated by well fitted Langmuir model was determined as 213.31 mg g−1, preceding 82.17 mg g−1 of MT. The adsorption kinetics was well fitted by pseudo-second-order model. The uptake mechanism involved ion exchange and electrostatic attraction. The adsorption was endothermic and spontaneous. The results demonstrated CTAB-MT was promising to separate uranium from ground water.


Uranium Montmorillonite Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide Adsorption Ground water 



The present work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11605027, 21866003, 21866004). The China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2016M600981) and the Project of Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education (Grant No. GJJ160535).


  1. 1.
    Poumadère M, Bertoldo R, Samadi J (2011) Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. Clim Change 2(5):712–727Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bleise A, Danesi PR, Burkart W (2003) Properties, use and health effects of depleted uranium (DU): a general overview. J Environ Radioact 64(2):93–112Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yin L, Song S, Wang X, Niu F, Ma R, Yu S, Wen T, Chen Y, Hayat T, Alsaedi A, Wang X (2018) Rationally designed core–shell and yolk-shell magnetic titanate nanosheets for efficient U(VI) adsorption performance. Environ Pollut 238:725–738Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Song S, Zhang S, Huang S, Zhang R, Yin L, Hu Y, Wen T, Zhuang L, Hu B, Wang X (2019) A novel multi-shelled Fe3O4@MnOx hollow microspheres for immobilizing U(VI) and Eu(III). Chem Eng J 355:697–709Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yao W, Wang X, Liang Y, Yu S, Gu P, Sun Y, Xu C, Chen J, Hayat T, Alsaedi A, Wang X (2018) Synthesis of novel flower-like layered double oxides/carbon dots nanocomposites for U(VI) and 241Am(III) efficient removal: batch and EXAFS studies. Chem Eng J 332:775–786Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duan S, Xu X, Liu X, Wang Y, Hayat T, Alsaedi A, Meng Y, Li J (2018) Highly enhanced adsorption performance of U(VI) by non-thermal plasma modified magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles. J Colloid Interface Sci 513:92–103Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang Y, Liu X, Huang Y, Hayat T, Alsaedi A, Li J (2017) Interaction mechanisms of U(VI) and graphene oxide from the perspective of particle size distribution. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 311(1):209–217Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu X, Xu X, Sun J, Alsaedi A, Hayat T, Li J, Wang X (2018) Insight into the impact of interaction between attapulgite and graphene oxide on the adsorption of U(VI). Chem Eng J 343:217–224Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pavel LV, Gavrilescu M (2008) Overview of ex situ decontamination techniques for soil cleanup. Environ Eng Manag J 7(6):815–834Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Della C, Belgiorno V, Meriç S (2007) Overview of in situ applicable nitrate removal processes. Desalination 204(1):46–62Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gillham RW, O’Hannesin SF (1994) Enhanced degradation of halogenated aliphatics by zero-valent iron. Groundwater 32(6):958–967Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu Y, Phenrat T, Lowry GV (2007) Effect of TCE concentration and dissolved groundwater solutes on nzvi-promoted tce dechlorination and H2 evolution. Environ Sci Technol 41(22):7881–7887Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rundle RE (1958) The chemistry of the actinide elements. J Am Chem Soc 80(20):5579Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aml K, Keller K, Fmm M (1999) A model for metal adsorption on montmorillonite. J Colloid Interface Sci 210(1):43–54Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akpomie KG, Dawodu FA, Eze SI, Asegbeloyin JN, Ani JU (2018) Heavy metal remediation from automobile effluent by thermally treated montmorillonite-rice husk composite. Trans R Soc S Afr 73(3):254–263Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zehhaf A, Benyoucef A, Berenguer R, Quijada C, Taleb S, Morallon E (2012) Lead ion adsorption from aqueous solutions in modified Algerian montmorillonites. J Therm Anal Calorim 110(3):1069–1077Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang SQ, Hou WG (2008) Adsorption behavior of Pb(II) on montmorillonite. Colloids Surf A 320(1):92–97Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pablo L, Chávez ML, Abatal M (2011) Adsorption of heavy metals in acid to alkaline environments by montmorillonite and Ca-montmorillonite. Chem Eng J 171(3):1276–1286Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Swartzen-Allen SL, Matijevic E (1974) Surface and colloid chemistry of clays. Chem Rev 74(3):385–400Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xue W, He H, Zhu J, Yuan P (2007) FTIR investigation of CTAB-Al-montmorillonite complexes. Spectrochim Acta Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 67(3):1030–1036Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gammoudi S, Frini-Srasra N, Srasra E (2013) Preparation, characterization of organosmectites and fluoride ion removal. Int J Miner Process 125:10–17Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chitrakar R, Makita Y, Sonoda A, Hirotsu T (2011) Adsorption of trace levels of bromate from aqueous solution by organo-montmorillonite. Appl Clay Sci 51(3):375–379Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu Y, Cao X, Hua R, Wang Y, Liu Y, Pang C, Wang Y (2010) Selective adsorption of uranyl ion on ion-imprinted chitosan/PVA cross-linked hydrogel. Hydrometallurgy 104(2):150–155Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang L, Wang A (2008) Adsorption properties of Congo Red from aqueous solution onto surfactant-modified montmorillonite. J Hazard Mater 160(1):173–180Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilson J, Cuadros J, Cressey G (2004) An in situ time-resolved XRD–PSD investigation into na-montmorillonite interlayer and particle rearrangement during dehydration. Clays Clay Miner 52(2):180–191Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu P, Wu W, Li S, Xing N, Zhu N, Li P, Wu J, Yang C, Dang Z (2009) Removal of Cd2+ from aqueous solution by adsorption using Fe-montmorillonite. J Hazard Mater 169(1):824–830Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rehab A, Salahuddin N (2005) Nanocomposite materials based on polyurethane intercalated into montmorillonite clay. Mater Sci Eng A 399(1):368–376Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khenifi A, Bouberka Z, Sekrane F, Kameche M, Derriche Z (2007) Adsorption study of an industrial dye by an organic clay. Adsorption 13(2):149–158Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Qu X, Wirsén A, Albertsson A-C (1999) Structural change and swelling mechanism of pH-sensitive hydrogels based on chitosan and d, l-lactic acid. J Appl Polym Sci 74(13):3186–3192Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aytas S, Yurtlu M, Donat R (2009) Adsorption characteristic of U(VI) ion onto thermally activated bentonite. J Hazard Mater 172(2):667–674Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shen J, Schäfer A (2014) Removal of fluoride and uranium by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis: a review. Chemosphere 117:679–691Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Langmuir D (1978) Uranium solution-mineral equilibria at low temperatures with applications to sedimentary ore deposits. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 42(6, Part A):547–569Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lenhart JJ, Honeyman BD (1999) Uranium(VI) sorption to hematite in the presence of humic acid. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 63(19):2891–2901Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Singer DM, Chatman SM, Ilton ES, Rosso KM, Banfield JF, Waychunas GA (2012) Identification of simultaneous U(VI) sorption complexes and U(IV) nanoprecipitates on the magnetite (111) surface. Environ Sci Technol 46(7):3811–3820Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhao D, Wang X, Yang S, Guo Z, Sheng G (2012) Impact of water quality parameters on the sorption of U(VI) onto hematite. J Environ Radioact 103(1):20–29Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Otto WH, Britten DJ, Larive CK (2003) NMR diffusion analysis of surfactant–humic substance interactions. J Colloid Interface Sci 261(2):508–513Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wong YC, Szeto YS, Cheung WH, McKay G (2004) Pseudo-first-order kinetic studies of the sorption of acid dyes onto chitosan. J Appl Polym Sci 92(3):1633–1645Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ho YS, McKay G (1999) Pseudo-second order model for sorption processes. Process Biochem 34(5):451–465Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anirudhan TS, Rijith S, Tharun AR (2010) Adsorptive removal of thorium(IV) from aqueous solutions using poly(methacrylic acid)-grafted chitosan/bentonite composite matrix: process design and equilibrium studies. Colloids Surf A 368(1):13–22Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lan Q, Bassi AS, Zhu J-X, Margaritis A (2001) A modified Langmuir model for the prediction of the effects of ionic strength on the equilibrium characteristics of protein adsorption onto ion exchange/affinity adsorbents. Chem Eng J 81(1):179–186Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ng C, Losso JN, Marshall WE, Rao RM (2002) Freundlich adsorption isotherms of agricultural by-product-based powdered activated carbons in a geosmin–water system. Biores Technol 85(2):131–135Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zou W, Zhao L, Han R (2009) Removal of uranium(VI) by fixed bed ion-exchange column using natural zeolite coated with manganese oxide. Chin J Chem Eng 17(4):585–593Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tran HH, Roddick FA, O’Donnell JA (1999) Comparison of chromatography and desiccant silica gels for the adsorption of metal ions-I. Adsorption and kinetics. Water Res 33(13):2992–3000Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mellah A, Chegrouche S, Barkat M (2006) The removal of uranium(VI) from aqueous solutions onto activated carbon: kinetic and thermodynamic investigations. J Colloid Interface Sci 296(2):434–441Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Husnain SM, Kim HJ, Um W, Chang YY, Chang YS (2017) Superparamagnetic adsorbent based on phosphonate grafted mesoporous carbon for uranium removal. Ind Eng Chem Res 56(35):9821–9830Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jung Y, Kim S, Park S-J, Kim JM (2008) Preparation of functionalized nanoporous carbons for uranium loading. Colloids Surf A 313–314:292–295Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shuibo X, Chun Z, Xinghuo Z, Jing Y, Xiaojian Z, Jingsong W (2009) Removal of uranium(VI) from aqueous solution by adsorption of hematite. J Environ Radioact 100(2):162–166Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cai H, Lin X, Qin Y, Luo X (2017) Hydrothermal synthesis of carbon microsphere from glucose at low temperature and its adsorption property of uranium(VI). J Radioanal Nucl Chem 311(1):695–706Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Abbasizadeh S, Keshtkar AR, Mousavian MA (2013) Preparation of a novel electrospun polyvinyl alcohol/titanium oxide nanofiber adsorbent modified with mercapto groups for uranium(VI) and thorium(IV) removal from aqueous solution. Chem Eng J 220:161–171Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tan L, Liu Q, Jing X, Liu J, Song D, Hu S, Liu L, Wang J (2015) Removal of uranium(VI) ions from aqueous solution by magnetic cobalt ferrite/multiwalled carbon nanotubes composites. Chem Eng J 273:307–315Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Resources and EnvironmentEast China University of TechnologyNanchangChina
  2. 2.School of Chemistry, Biological and Materials SciencesEast China University of TechnologyNanchangChina
  3. 3.School of Nuclear Science and EngineeringEast China University of TechnologyNanchangChina

Personalised recommendations