Advertisement

SN Applied Sciences

, 1:1183 | Cite as

Immobilization of modified zeolite on polyethylene surface: characterization and its application toward phosphate removal and microalgae growth

  • Zakyeh AkramiEmail author
  • Susan Norouzi
  • Mojtaba BagherzadehEmail author
Research Article
  • 78 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. 1. Chemistry (general)

Abstract

Herein, firstly zeolite was modified with Na+ and Fe3+ ions and then immobilized on polyethylene surface to construction of modified zeolite coated surface (MZCS). The prepared MZCS was characterized by using XRD, ATR–FTIR, SEM and EDXA techniques and its ability toward phosphate removal was examined and compared with unmodified zeolite coated surface (ZCS). Affecting parameters on phosphate removal were investigated and our results showed the ZCS and MZCS achieved to 32.4% and 70.6% phosphate removal ability after 2 h, for 25.0 ppm phosphate at pH 7.0, respectively. The phosphate adsorption results very well fitted in the Langmuir isotherm model for both the ZCS and MZCS. The maximum adsorption capacity as 6.317 and 7.097 mg/g was observed for the ZCS and MZCS, respectively. Finally, the application of the ZCS and the MZCS for phosphate removal from wastewater and its effect on microalgae growth was tested in two media with three replications. Observed results were presented and discussed here.

Keywords

Modified surface Phosphate adsorption Wastewater Coated surface 

1 Introduction

Zeolite, boiling stone [1], is crystalline aluminosilicate with a tetrahedral framework. The structural composition of zeolite results micro-pores and cavities dimensions ranging from 0.3 to 2.0 nm [2, 3]. The molecular sieve, resulting from the high void volumes of zeolite, only allows molecules of a certain size (equal to, or less than the pore size) to pass through entry channels, whereas molecules larger than the pore size are excluded [4]. It provides the possibility of using zeolite in collecting and determining different species [5]. Replacing silicons by aluminum in a tectosilicate framework of zeolite, resulting a negative charge in the zeolite framework and consequently lead to bond alkaline or alkaline earth metals to its external surface of zeolite, electrostatically [6, 7, 8]. For example, adsorption of cations like Cu2+ [9], Fe3+ [10], Co2+ [11], and As3+ [12], are reported in recent years.

Unlike the adsorption of cations, due to the exciting negative charge on the aluminosilicate framework of zeolite, the efficiency of anions adsorption is low. Therefore, in order to adsorb them, the zeolite surface must be modified by appropriate modifiers. Many investigations have been conducted on improve efficiency of separation and adsorption of anions by using different modifiers. This efforts can be divided to three groups: (1) treatment by acids or bases [13, 14, 15, 16], (2) modification by surfactants such as; tetramethylammonium [17, 18], cetyltrimethylammonium [19, 20], hexadecyltrimethylammonium [21, 22, 23, 24, 25], octadecyldimethylbenzyl ammonium [19, 26, 27], n-cetylpyridiminium [28] and polyhexamethylen-guanidine [29], and (3) modification by metal ions such as Fe3+ [30]. For example, Hebuda-Stanic et al. [31] modified zeolite with Fe3+ ions and investigated its ability in arsenic.

However, due to easy modification, ion exchange ability, molecular sieve property, low cost, and high purity of zeolite its applications in catalysis [10], medicinal [32], industrial [33], chemical sensing [9, 34], air separation [35], and removal of heavy metals [36] are more increased. One of the most important applications of zeolites is removal of pollutants from the water and wastewater [37]. The presence of different contaminants such as heavy metal ions [38], organic compounds [39, 40] and inorganic anions [41] in wastewater led to several types of health problems for the aquatic ecosystem. Inorganic anions contain several metalloids [24, 42], metal anions [43, 44] and several acid ions such as phosphate [45, 46] are present in large volume in the wastewaters.

In this study, the natural zeolite as a low-cost adsorbent was modified and coated to the polyethylene surface. Ability of the modified polyethylene, in phosphate removal from aqueous solution was studied and several techniques are used to trace the events occurred at the surface. The equilibrium studies were carried out and finally applicability of the surface was tested in reducing the algae growth rate in wastewater. Observed results analyzed and discussed here.

2 Experimental section

2.1 Reagents

Natural Clinoptilolite zeolite was obtained from a mine Semnan Province I.R. Iran. All chemicals were of analytical grade, obtained from Merck® company from Germany and used as supplied without further purification. A stock solution of phosphate (100.0 ppm) was made by the dissolution of 0.0358 g KH2PO4 in 250 mL of double-distilled water. Dilute solutions of phosphate (25.0, 50.0 and 75.0 ppm) were prepared just before use from a stock solution. All glassware was cleaned with dilute nitric acid (10%) and rinsed several times with milli-Q ultrapure water before experiments.

2.2 Apparatus

The concentration of phosphate in the solution was determined spectrophotometrically at 400 nm by 2550 spectrophotometer, Shimadzu after an equilibrium time. A PerkinElmer 65 spectrometer was used for attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) investigations and the spectra were obtained in the wave-number range of 400–4000 cm−1. A Philips pw 1800 instrument was used for X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements and the spectra were performed at a voltage of 60 kV and a current of 400 mA. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images and energy dispersive X-ray diffraction (EDX) were taken by XL30 Philips the Netherlands. An inverted microscope (Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbH, Germany) coupled a digital camera was used to take images of cultured cells and the number of algae in images was counted by Neubauer chamber (0.0025 mm2, 0.100 mm Tiefe depth).

2.3 Modification of polyethylene surface by zeolites

Firstly, 1 g of natural zeolite was lightly ground and washed with deionized water and dried in the oven at 250 °C for 6 h. To prepare modified zeolite, it was pretreatment with 1.0 M NaCl to obtain Na-form zeolite for 24 h at room temperature followed by washing with deionized water until neutral pH and drying at 200 ± 2 °C. Na-form zeolite was placed in 100 mL 0.01 M FeCl3 solution for 3 days at room temperature. Modified zeolite was separated by filtration, washed with deionized water and dried at room temperature. Then, the modified zeolite was dispersed in 2.5 mL tetrahydrofuran and 2.5 mL of styrene and a thin layer of this suspension was coated on polyethylene cube (1 × 1 × 5 cm) surface allowed to dry in the air for about 30 min to prepare MZCS. In the preparation of the ZCS, zeolite was used instead of modified zeolite. The schematic of the surface is represented in Scheme 1.
Scheme 1

Schematic of the ZMCS and its application in phosphate adsorption

2.4 Phosphate adsorption on the surface

Accumulation of phosphate was performed by immersion of the MZCS in 50 mL 25.0 ppm phosphate solution, pH 7.0 using the bath equilibration technique for 2 h at 500 rpm and 25 ± 1 °C. After accumulation, the MZCS was removed, the phosphate concentration in solution was analyzed with the vanadomolybdo phosphoric acid colorimetric method [47, 48]. For comparison, all experiments were performed by the ZCS. Phosphate adsorption efficiency from solution on the ZCS and the MZCS was calculated according to Eq. 1:
$${\text{Phosphate}}\,{\text{adsorption}}\,\% = ({\text{C}}_{{\text{i}}} - {\text{C}}_{{\text{f}}} ) \times 100/{\text{C}}_{{\text{i}}}$$
(1)
where Ci and Cf are the blank and final concentration of phosphate in the solution (mg/g) after adsorption, respectively.

2.5 Wastewater algae growth experiments

The wastewater samples obtained from Isfahan Shahin-Shahr treatment plant and were selected as a culture medium. Three culture mediums were maintained under the same physiological conditions (temperature: 25 ± 1 °C, photoperiod: 16:8 and lightly intensity: 2500 ft-c). After 30 days, the number of algae cells per mL of wastewater was counted using a microscope and Neubauer chamber [49].

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Characterization of modified zeolite by X-ray diffraction analysis

In order to confirm modification of zeolite, the XRD analysis was taken. According to the XRD pattern (Fig. 1) it can be seen that the used zeolite and modified zeolite in this study were mainly composed of Clinoptilolite, Cristobalite and Gypsum. Calcite, Montmorillonite and Quartz were also found to be low in the zeolite and modified zeolite. As shown in Scheme 1, by modifying the zeolite, Na(I) ion, cationic radius as 95 pm [50], enters into the zeolite framework. By placing Na-form zeolite in a solution containing Fe(III), Na(I) ions replaced by Fe(III) ions (cationic radius as 60 pm) [50] that causes to increasing the cavity size of zeolite [51]. As shown in Fig. 1, the zeolite structure was not changed during the modification and the peak positions for modified zeolite (Fig. 1b) is the same with zeolite (Fig. 1a). Although modification of zeolite by the Na(I) and the Fe(III) ions does not affect the overall structure, but changing the channel size of the zeolite affect on its selectivity. The crystalline structure of modified zeolite is less than zeolite that it can be confirmed by fewer peak heights in the modified zeolite XRD spectrum than zeolite (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

XRD spectra of the a zeolite and b modified zeolite

3.2 Effect of parameters on phosphate adsorption on the ZCS and the MZCS

Effect of contact time on phosphate adsorption at various initial phosphate concentrations (25.0, 50.0, 75.0 and 100.0 ppm) from solution on the ZCS and the MZCS was investigated (Fig. 2). Results were shown in all phosphate concentrations more than 60% adsorption was achieved in the initial times for both the ZCS and the MZCS. In the initial time, phosphate can be adsorbed on the inner surfaces of deep pores by diffusion into the sorbent matrix through meso- and micro-pores [52]. Adsorption efficiency was reached a maximum value of 32.4% after 150 min for the ZCS and 70.6% after 120 min for the MZCS at the same conditions. One of the main reasons for reducing the maximum adsorption time on the MZCS compared with the ZCS can be attributed to the presence of Na(I) and Fe(III) ions in modified zeolite at the MZCS. By placing these ions in the zeolite framework, it was created an electrostatic field on the inner surface of the zeolite [51] and was increased adsorption capacity and reduced maximum adsorption time of phosphate ion on the MZCS. According to Fig. 2 adsorption efficiency was reduced with an increase in initial phosphate concentration, therefore 25.0 ppm was chosen for other experiments. Adsorption efficiency of the MZCS decreased by increasing phosphate concentration. This phenomenon may be due to this fact that in low phosphate concentration the adsorbent site on the surface is high and by increasing the phosphate concentration this active cites filled and a repulsive force due to adsorbed phosphate ions expansion on the surface.
Fig. 2

Effect of phosphate concentration and contact time on phosphate adsorption on the a ZCS and b MZCS

The pH of collecting solution can influence on the surface properties of the adsorbent [53] and therefore strongly affects the mechanism of adsorption on the surface [54]. The point of zero charge (pHPZC) was determined using the pH drift method and measuring pH where the zeolite and modified zeolite behave as a neutral species. The pHPZC was found to be 7.0 for both zeolite and modified zeolite (Fig. 3, Insets). Adsorption phosphate on the ZCS and MZCS at different pH were also investigated to determine the optimum pH. For this object, the ZCS and the MZCS were incubated in separate 25.0 ppm phosphate solution at different pH, then each surface was removed after 120 min and phosphate adsorption of the solution was determined by UV–visible spectrophotometer (Fig. 3). The results were shown that at acidic pH lower than 4.0, phosphate adsorption was come down due to the dealumination of the zeolite at ZCS and MZCS take place and these were lost crystallinity [55]. When the pH increased to 4.0–7.0, changes in the crystallinity was not observed and therefore in this range of pH, the percentage of adsorption for both the ZCS and the MZCS was maximal. Similarly, higher adsorption percentage in this region on zeolite was reported by Nemr et al. [56] and Xiong et al. [57]. In pH above than 7.0, there was competition between OH and phosphate ions in adsorption on the ZCS and the MZCS and according to pHPZC, repulsion interaction between zeolite and phosphate which led to decrease in phosphate adsorption on both surfaces.
Fig. 3

Effect of collection solution pH on adsorption of phosphate on the (a) ZCS and (b) MZCS. Insets show the pHPZC curves of zeolite and modified zeolite

3.3 ATR-FTIR analysis

Figure 4 shows the ATR-FTIR spectra for the ZCS and the MZCS. The adsorption band around 1068 cm−1 is attributed to Si–O vibration [58], that the intensity of this band is decreased in the MZCS compared to that in the ZCS. This is due to the introduction of Fe(III) into the zeolite aluminosilicate framework. The peak at 795 cm−1 corresponds to the stretching vibration of Al–O–Si [59]. A band observed at 469 cm−1 corresponds to Si–O–Si stretching [58, 59] and the bands around 3424, 2854 and 1637 cm−1 are attributed to O–H stretching vibration [59, 60]. The peaks assigned to Fe–O and Fe–O–Fe stretching of Fe-zeolite could not be identified which may be due to the characteristic stretching frequency of silicates [61].
Fig. 4

ATR-FTIR spectra of the (a) ZCS and (b) MZCS

3.4 SEM and EDX analysis

To evaluate the possibility and comparison of phosphate adsorption by zeolite and modified zeolite, the morphology of zeolite placed zeolite in 25.0 ppm phosphate solution (zeolite-phosphate) and placed modified zeolite in 25.0 ppm phosphate solution (modified zeolite-phosphate) were examined with SEM and EDX (Fig. 5). The SEM images and EDX spectra were supported that phosphate adsorption on zeolite and especially modified zeolite. The white bulky gatherings and P peak in the SEM images and EDX spectra of zeolite-phosphate and modified zeolite-phosphate (Fig. 5B-1, C-1, B-2 and C-2) were demonstrated that phosphate ion was been adsorbed on zeolite and modified zeolite. The higher amount and intensity of that in Fig. 5C-1 and C-2 were confirmed modified zeolite was being successful in adsorbing phosphate ion than zeolite (Fig. 5B-1 and B-2).
Fig. 5

SEM image and EDX spectra of the A-1 and A-2 zeolite, B-1 and B-2 zeolite-phosphate, C-1 and C-2 modified zeolite-phosphate. The yellow rectangles show bulky gatherings of phosphate ions

3.5 Adsorption isotherm of phosphate on the ZCS and the MZCS

To describe the adsorption phosphate isotherm on the ZCS and the MZCS, Langmuir [62, 63, 64] and Freundlich [65, 66, 67] models were applied and the experimental data were fitted by both models. The values of the correlation coefficient (R2) of linear plots of both models were considered as an evaluation of the best fit [68, 69]. Isotherm parameters are reported in Table 1. The values of R2 of the Langmuir model were found to be better than that of the Freundlich model for both the ZCS and the MZCS. Table 1 shows the values of n for both the ZCS and the MZCS are longer than 1 that indicates the adsorption of phosphate at both surfaces is favorable [70, 71]. Compliance experimental data of phosphate adsorption with Langmuir model was suggested that phosphate was adsorbed as a monolayer on both the ZCS and the MZCS [72] and these have equal energy location which each phosphate ion is allocated only to one location, so the distribution of active sites is likely to be adsorbed uniformly and it establishes the strong electrostatic sorbent-adsorbent attraction [73].
Table 1

Equilibrium model equations and parameters of the adsorption models fitted to the experimental phosphate adsorption

Surface

Equation

R2

qmax (mg/g)

b (L/mg)

Langmuir model

ZCS

\(\frac{1}{\text{qe}} = \, 0.158 + 0.723\frac{1}{\text{Ce}}\)

0.953

6.317

0.219

MZCS

\(\frac{1}{\text{qe}} = 0.141 + 0.441\frac{1}{\text{Ce}}\)

0.9724

7.097

0.319

Surface

Equation

R2

n

Kf (mg/g)

Freundlich moldel

ZCS

lnqe = 0.379 + 0.421 lnCe

0.898

2.372

1.460

MZCS

Lnqe = 0.556 + 0.393 lnCe

0.877

2.546

1.743

Langmuir equation: \(\frac{\text{Ce}}{\rm{qe}} = \frac{\text{Ce}}{\rm{qmax}} + \frac{1}{\text{bqmax}}\), qe = (Ci − Ce)V/m, qe: amount of adsorbed phosphate per unit mass of adsorbent (zeolite or modified zeolite) at equilibrium (mg/g), Ci: initial concentration of phosphate in solution (mg/L), Ce: phosphate concentration at equilibrium (mg/L), V: volume of phosphate solution (L) taken, m: mass of adsorbent used (g), qmax: maximum adsorption capacity (mg/g), b: Langmuir adsorption constant (L/mg)

Freundlich equation: qe = KfC e (1/n) , Kf: capacity of adsorption (mg/g), n: intensity of adsorption

3.6 Application for wastewater treatment

The ability of the ZCS and the MZCS for phosphate adsorption and its effect on the growth rate of algae from Isfahan Shahin-Shahr treatment plant wastewater (pH 6.8 and containing 30.0 ppm phosphate) was investigated. The ZCS and MZCS were immersed in 50 mL of wastewater and maintained under suitable physiological conditions (Sect. 2.5). For comparison, 50 mL of wastewater was kept under the same physiological condition. After 30 days, the surfaces were removed from solutions, and the growth of algae in wastewater was investigated. Algae were imaged in three culture media: (a) wastewater, (b) wastewater containing the ZCS and (c) wastewater containing the MZCS (Fig. 6). The number of algae cells per mL of wastewater was counted in each of the three culture media (Table 2). The algae investigating showed that the observed algae were likely to be Chlorella. The results of one-way ANOVA with a 95% confidence level showed significant differences between B and C with A culture medium (P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between B with C culture medium (P > 0.05). According to Fig. 6a and Table 2, the wastewater culture medium has the highest algae content due to the nutrient content of phosphate needed for the growth of microorganisms. By placing the ZCS and the MZCS in the wastewater, due to the adsorption of phosphate ions by them, the growth of algae is reduced (Fig. 6b, c and Table 2). Considering that any micro-algae requires a certain amount of phosphate, these results indicate that the ZCS and the MZCS can deliver phosphate in wastewater below the limit for algae growth.
Fig. 6

The Algae growth rate image in a wastewater, b wastewater containing the ZCS and c wastewater containing the MZSC

Table 2

Algae cell number in culture medium (A) wastewater, (B) wastewater containing the ZCS and (C) wastewater containing the MZCS

Culture medium

A

B

C

Algae cell number × 103 (cell/mL)

3430.7 ± 10.3

93.4 ± 5.6

13.2 ± 1.8

4 Conclusion

The selective and suitable surfaces were developed based on zeolite and modified zeolite and examined for adsorption of phosphate in aqueous solution. The capability of the surfaces for adsorption of phosphate was established by XRD, SEM–EDX, ATR–FTIR and UV–visible. The Langmuir isotherm gave the best fit to equilibrium experimental data. The merit of the method of modification includes simple fabrication, low cost, good adsorption efficiency, easy to use, no need for electrical and mechanical power. The validity of the method and applicability of the surface were successfully tested by the removal of phosphate and reducing the algae growth rate in treatment plant wastewater.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is based on a research project in the collection Behin Ab Zendeh Rood knowledge enterprise, Iran’s National Elites Foundation and water and Sewage Company of Isfahan. The authors have gratefully acknowledged their contributions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberti A, Armbruster T, Artioli G, Colella C, Galli E, Grice JD, Liebau F, Minato H, Nickel EH, Passaglia E (1997) Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: report of the subcommittee on zeolites of the international mineralogical association, commission on new minerals and mineral names. Can Mineral 35:1571–1606Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischer M (2015) Structure and bonding of water molecules in zeolite hosts: benchmarking plane-wave DFT against crystal structure data. Zeitschrift für Kristallographie-Crystalline Materials 230(5):325–336Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castaldi P, Santona L, Enzo S, Melis P (2008) Sorption processes and XRD analysis of a natural zeolite exchanged with Pb2 + , Cd2 + and Zn2 + cations. J Hazard Mater 156(1–3):428–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Byrappa K, Yoshimura M (2001) Hydrothermal synthesis and growth of zeolites in handbook of hydrothermal technology. In: University of Mysore Manasagangotri Mysore, India and Tokyo Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nitzsche R, Groengroeft A, Kraume M (2019) Separation of lignin from beech wood hydrolysate using polymeric resins and zeolites–Determination and application of adsorption isotherms. Sep Purif Technol 209:491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armbruster T, Gunter ME (2001) Crystal structures of natural zeolites. Rev Mineral Geochem 45(1):1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farkaš A, Rožić M, Barbarić-Mikočević Ž (2005) Ammonium exchange in leakage waters of waste dumps using natural zeolite from the Krapina region, Croatia. J Hazard Mater 117(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Widiastuti N, Wu H, Ang HM, Zhang D (2011) Removal of ammonium from greywater using natural zeolite. Desalination 277(1–3):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mazloum-Ardakani M, Akrami Z, Kazemian H, Zare HR (2009) Preconcentration and electroanalysis of copper at zeolite modified carbon paste electrode. Int J Electrochem Sci 4(2):308–319Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ardakani MM, Akrami Z, Kazemian H, Zare H (2006) Electrocatalytic characteristics of uric acid oxidation at graphite–zeolite-modified electrode doped with iron (III). J Electroanal Chem 586(1):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ardakani MM, Akrami Z, Kazemian H, Zare HR (2008) Accumulation and voltammetric determination of cobalt at zeolite-modified electrodes. J Anal Chem 63(2):184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doušová B, Grygar T, Martaus A, Fuitová L, Koloušek D, Machovič V (2006) Sorption of AsV on aluminosilicates treated with FeII nanoparticles. J Colloid Interface Sci 302(2):424–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurama H, Zimmer A, Reschetilowski W (2002) Chemical modification effect on the sorption capacities of natural clinoptilolite. Chem Eng Technol 25(3):301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cakicioglu-Ozkan F, Ulku S (2005) The effect of HCl treatment on water vapor adsorption characteristics of clinoptilolite rich natural zeolite. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 77(1):47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng X-W, Zhong Y, Wang J, Guo J, Huang Q, Long Y-C (2005) Studies on modification and structural ultra-stabilization of natural STI zeolite. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 83(1–3):233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Christidis G, Moraetis D, Keheyan E, Akhalbedashvili L, Kekelidze N, Gevorkyan R, Yeritsyan H, Sargsyan H (2003) Chemical and thermal modification of natural HEU-type zeolitic materials from Armenia, Georgia and Greece. Appl Clay Sci 24(1–2):79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bouffard SC, Duff SJ (2000) Uptake of dehydroabietic acid using organically-tailored zeolites. Water Res 34(9):2469–2476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sullivan E, Carey J, Bowman R (1998) Thermodynamics of cationic surfactant sorption onto natural clinoptilolite. J Colloid Interface Sci 206(2):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karadag D, Akgul E, Tok S, Erturk F, Kaya MA, Turan M (2007) Basic and reactive dye removal using natural and modified zeolites. J Chem Eng Data 52(6):2436–2441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karadag D, Turan M, Akgul E, Tok S, Faki A (2007) Adsorption equilibrium and kinetics of reactive black 5 and reactive red 239 in aqueous solution onto surfactant-modified zeolite. J Chem Eng Data 52(5):1615–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benkli Y, Can M, Turan M, Celik M (2005) Modification of organo-zeolite surface for the removal of reactive azo dyes in fixed-bed reactors. Water Res 39(2–3):487–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bowman RS (2003) Applications of surfactant-modified zeolites to environmental remediation. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 61(1–3):43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cortés-Martínez R, Martínez-Miranda V, Solache-Ríos M, García-Sosa I (2004) Evaluation of natural and surfactant-modified zeolites in the removal of cadmium from aqueous solutions. Sep Sci Technol 39(11):2711–2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haggerty GM, Bowman RS (1994) Sorption of chromate and other inorganic anions by organo-zeolite. Environ Sci Technol 28(3):452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuleyin A (2007) Removal of phenol and 4-chlorophenol by surfactant-modified natural zeolite. J Hazard Mater 144(1–2):307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daković A, Tomašević-Čanović M, Rottinghaus G, Dondur V, Mašić Z (2003) Adsorption of ochratoxin A on octadecyldimethyl benzyl ammonium exchanged-clinoptilolite-heulandite tuff. Colloids Surf B 30(1–2):157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Daković A, Tomašević-Čanović M, Rottinghaus GE, Matijašević S, Sekulić Ž (2007) Fumonisin B1 adsorption to octadecyldimethylbenzyl ammonium-modified clinoptilolite-rich zeolitic tuff. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 105(3):285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghiaci M, Abbaspur A, Kia R, Seyedeyn-Azad F (2004) Equilibrium isotherm studies for the sorption of benzene, toluene, and phenol onto organo-zeolites and as-synthesized MCM-41. Sep Purif Technol 40(3):217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Misaelides P, Zamboulis D, Sarridis P, Warchoł J, Godelitsas A (2008) Chromium (VI) uptake by polyhexamethylene-guanidine-modified natural zeolitic materials. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 108(1–3):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eljamal O, Shubair T, Tahara A, Sugihara Y, Matsunaga N (2019) Iron based nanoparticles-zeolite composites for the removal of cesium from aqueous solutions. J Mol Liq 277:613–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Habuda-Stanić M, Kuleš M, Kalajdžić B, Romić Ž (2007) Quality of groundwater in eastern Croatia. The problem of arsenic pollution. Desalination 210(1–3):157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Le SD, Nishimura S, Ebitani K (2019) Direct esterification of succinic acid with phenol using zeolite beta catalyst. Catal Commun 122:20–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hashemi MSH, Eslami F, Karimzadeh R (2019) Organic contaminants removal from industrial wastewater by CTAB treated synthetic zeolite Y. J Environ Manag 233:785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ribeiro LEB, de Alcântara GP, Andrade CMG, Fruett F (2015) Analysis of the planar electrode morphology applied to zeolite based chemical sensors. Sens Transducers 193(10):80Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kosinov N, Gascon J, Kapteijn F, Hensen EJ (2016) Recent developments in zeolite membranes for gas separation. J Membr Sci 499:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ackley MW, Rege SU, Saxena H (2003) Application of natural zeolites in the purification and separation of gases. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 61(1–3):25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gao Q, Xu J, Bu X-H (2018) Recent advances about metal–organic frameworks in the removal of pollutants from wastewater. Coord Chem Rev 378:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huang Y, Zeng X, Guo L, Lan J, Zhang L, Cao D (2018) Heavy metal ion removal of wastewater by zeolite-imidazolate frameworks. Sep Purif Technol 194:462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kasperczyk D, Urbaniec K, Barbusinski K, Rene ER, Colmenares-Quintero RF (2019) Application of a compact trickle-bed bioreactor for the removal of odor and volatile organic compounds emitted from a wastewater treatment plant. J Environ Manage 236:413–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huang Y, Luo M, Xu Z, Zhang D, Li L (2019) Catalytic ozonation of organic contaminants in petrochemical wastewater with iron-nickel foam as catalyst. Sep Purif Technol 211:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang S, Wang J (2018) Radiation-induced degradation of sulfamethoxazole in the presence of various inorganic anions. Chem Eng J 351:688–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cordoves AP, Valdés MG, Fernández JT, Luis GP, García-Calzón J, García MD (2008) Characterization of the binding site affinity distribution of a surfactant-modified clinoptilolite. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 109(1–3):38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Samatya S, Yüksel Ü, Yüksel M, Kabay N (2007) Removal of fluoride from water by metal ions (Al3+, La3+ and ZrO2+) loaded natural zeolite. Sep Sci Technol 42(9):2033–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Faghihian H (2004) Removal of cyanide from liquid wastes by modified clinoptilolite. Int J Environ Pollut 22(6):732–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Huang H, Zhang P, Yang L, Zhang D, Guo G, Liu J (2017) A pilot-scale investigation on the recovery of zinc and phosphate from phosphating wastewater by step precipitation and crystallization. Chem Eng J 317:640–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jing L, Xuejiang W, Jian W, Yuan L, Siqing X, Jianfu Z (2019) Simultaneous recovery of microalgae, ammonium and phosphate from simulated wastewater by MgO modified diatomite. Chem Eng J 363:802–811Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xi L, Shou D, Wang F (2015) Electrodeposition of monodispersed Cu nanoparticles on poly-p-aminobenzene sulfonic acid functionalized glassy carbon electrode and the electrocatalytic reduction toward H2O2. J Electroanal Chem 747:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Epps E (1950) Photometric determination of available phosphorus pentoxide in fertilizers. Anal Chem 22(8):1062–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Banerjee S, Hew WE, Khatoon H, Shariff M, Yusoff FM (2011) Growth and proximate composition of tropical marine Chaetoceros calcitrans and Nannochloropsis oculata cultured outdoors and under laboratory conditions. Afr J Biotech 10(8):1375–1383Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mortimer C (1983) Chemistry, 6th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont CalifzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Delkash M, Bakhshayesh BE, Kazemian H (2015) Using zeolitic adsorbents to cleanup special wastewater streams: a review. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 214:224–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhu M-X, Ding K-Y, Xu S-H, Jiang X (2009) Adsorption of phosphate on hydroxyaluminum-and hydroxyiron-montmorillonite complexes. J Hazard Mater 165(1–3):645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rooyanian S, Bagherzadeh M, Akrami Z, Golikand A (2018) A simple route to surface functionalization of graphene nanosheets by benzoic acid and its application toward Pb (ii) sensing. New J Chem 42(21):17371–17378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ajouyed O, Hurel C, Ammari M, Allal LB, Marmier N (2010) Sorption of Cr(VI) onto natural iron and aluminum (oxy) hydroxides: effects of pH, ionic strength and initial concentration. J Hazard Mater 174(1–3):616–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hernandez-Beltran N, Olguin M, Rosas-Aburto A (2008) Effect of acid phosphate media on the stability of clinoptilolite-rich tuff. J Incl Phenom Macrocycl Chem 61(1–2):93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    El Nemr A, Abdelwahab O, El-Sikaily A, Khaled A (2009) Removal of direct blue-86 from aqueous solution by new activated carbon developed from orange peel. J Hazard Mater 161(1):102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Xiong X-J, Meng X-J, Zheng T-L (2010) Biosorption of CI Direct Blue 199 from aqueous solution by nonviable Aspergillus niger. J Hazard Mater 175(1–3):241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Xin X, Si W, Yao Z, Feng R, Du B, Yan L, Wei Q (2011) Adsorption of benzoic acid from aqueous solution by three kinds of modified bentonites. J Colloid Interface Sci 359(2):499–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ortiz AV (2016) Desenvolvimento de processo de obtenção de nanopartículas de sílica a partir de resíduo de fonte renovável e incorporação em polímero termoplástico para a fabricação de nanocompósito. Universidade de São PauloGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Putra EK, Pranowo R, Sunarso J, Indraswati N, Ismadji S (2009) Performance of activated carbon and bentonite for adsorption of amoxicillin from wastewater: mechanisms, isotherms and kinetics. Water Res 43(9):2419–2430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chen J, Zhu L (2009) Comparative study of catalytic activity of different Fe-pillared bentonites in the presence of UV light and H2O2. Sep Purif Technol 67(3):282–288MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chen H, Zhao J (2009) Adsorption study for removal of Congo red anionic dye using organo-attapulgite. Adsorption 15(4):381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Li L, Liu F, Jing X, Ling P, Li A (2011) Displacement mechanism of binary competitive adsorption for aqueous divalent metal ions onto a novel IDA-chelating resin: isotherm and kinetic modeling. Water Res 45(3):1177–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gupta VK, Rastogi A, Nayak A (2010) Adsorption studies on the removal of hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution using a low cost fertilizer industry waste material. J Colloid Interface Sci 342(1):135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gupta V, Gupta B, Rastogi A, Agarwal S, Nayak A (2011) A comparative investigation on adsorption performances of mesoporous activated carbon prepared from waste rubber tire and activated carbon for a hazardous azo dye—Acid Blue 113. J Hazard Mater 186(1):891–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Escudero C, Poch J, Villaescusa I (2013) Modelling of breakthrough curves of single and binary mixtures of Cu (II), Cd (II), Ni (II) and Pb(II) sorption onto grape stalks waste. Chem Eng J 217:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Triantafyllidis KS, Peleka EN, Komvokis VG, Mavros PP (2010) Iron-modified hydrotalcite-like materials as highly efficient phosphate sorbents. J Colloid Interface Sci 342(2):427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bouberka Z, Khenifi A, Sekrane F, Bettahar N, Derriche Z (2008) Removal of 2, 4-DCP from wastewater by CTAB/bentonite using one-step and two-step methods: a comparative study. Chem Eng J 136:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gupta V, Carrott P, Ribeiro Carrott M (2009) Suhas: low-cost adsorbents: growing approach to wastewater treatment—a review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 39(10):783–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gedik K, Imamoglu I (2008) Removal of cadmium from aqueous solutions using clinoptilolite: influence of pretreatment and regeneration. J Hazard Mater 155(1–2):385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ma J, Qi J, Yao C, Cui B, Zhang T, Li D (2012) A novel bentonite-based adsorbent for anionic pollutant removal from water. Chem Eng J 200:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Xiong J, Mahmood Q (2010) Adsorptive removal of phosphate from aqueous media by peat. Desalination 259(1–3):59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ouadjenia-Marouf F, Marouf R, Schott J, Yahiaoui A (2013) Removal of Cu (II), Cd (II) and Cr(III) ions from aqueous solution by dam silt. Arabian Journal of Chemistry 6(4):401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ChemistryFarhangian UniversityTehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  2. 2.Department of GeologyFarhangian UniversityTehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  3. 3.Reactor and Nuclear Safety SchoolNuclear Science and Technology Research InstituteIsfahanIslamic Republic of Iran

Personalised recommendations