3.1 Characterization of IL@mAC
To evaluate the purity and crystalline nature of IL@mAC, XRD spectrum of IL@mAC was taken (Fig. 1a) and compared with the reference XRD spectrum (Card No. 926 − 91) from the Joint Powder Diffraction Standards Committee (JCPDS). The XRD pattern of the synthesized IL@mAC is in good agreement with the standard Fe3O4, indicating that the magnetic core is stable during functionalization. The magnetic properties of IL@mAC were calculated using a VSM hysteresis loop as shown in Fig. 1b. These magnetic properties of IL@mAC, comprising saturation magnetization (MS; illustrates the material magnetization carried at a higher applied value of an external magnetic field H), remnant magnetization (Mr; this determines the residual magnetization after removing external magnetic field), and coercivity (Hc; this calculates the reverse field, which is required for magnetization to reach zero after saturation) are estimated to be 35.3 emu/g, 0.38 emu/g, and 20.71 G, respectively. Hence, the low Hc value of IL@mAC validates that the prepared material contains super-magnetic properties.
The SEM micrographs of IL@mAC are shown in Fig. 2a, b. The morphology of IL@mAC shows a rough and porous surface. This perforated nature of the developed sample let more opportunity to adsorb pollutants from an aqueous media. Moreover, Fig. 2 also confirms that the surface layer of mAC has been covered by IL, which in turn, makes the surface smoother. The EDX analysis of the IL@mAC is shown in Fig. 2c, which was performed before TCy adsorption. In Fig. 2c, results show the elemental composition of prepared IL@mAC, eventually confirming the composition (C, O, Ca, Fe). The EDX results strongly revealed that IL@mAC formation using complete precursors with no impurity in the sample.
The N2-adsorption/desorption isotherm of IL@mAC was evaluated at 77 K to identify the pore structure and surface area and shown in Fig. 3b. Before measurement, the water humidity was removed by heating under vacuum at 423 K. The isotherm of IL@mAC obeys type I. The Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area (SABET; m2.g− 1), pore sizes (D; nm), and pore volume (Vtotal; cm3.g− 1) of IL@mAC are found to be 220.39 m2.g− 1, 8.36 nm, and 14.097 cm3·g− 1 respectively. Therefore, the large surface area and large Vtotal are two of the factors involved in adsorption efficiency that confirm the high and efficient adsorption removal ability of IL@mAC for TCy. It can be assumed that the modification of mAC with IL is responsible for increased surface area and decrease pore size of IL@mAC, which enhances the adsorption capability of AC resulting in efficient adsorption of TCy. Other factors responsible for high and efficient adsorption capacity of IL@mAC are discussed in Sect. 3.4.
To prove that the IL was bonded to the mAC, the FTIR spectrum of as-synthesized IL@mAC was taken as shown in Fig. 3a. The peak at 3527 cm− 1 is related to the -OH group. The characteristic peak of Fe-O bond is observed at 580 cm− 1. Frequencies ranging from 2600 cm− 1 to 3000 cm− 1 are assigned to the C–H symmetric and asymmetric stretching vibrations and at 2683 cm− 1 the peak can be associated to the C ≡ N stretching vibration. The peak at 1640 cm− 1 is assigned to the vibration of heteroaromatic C-H bond and the C-N vibration is appeared at 1570 cm− 1. The peak of the FTIR spectrum at 1689 cm− 1 indicates that it is associated to the amide group’s tensile band. So, this peak proves that the IL adheres to the surface of the mAC covalently by forming an amide bond.
The ZPC describes the pH whereupon the adsorbent surface bears no charge due to the absence of adsorption, negatively (-) charged at pH > pHZPC and positively (+) charged at pH < pHZPC. The pHZPC value for IL@mAC is approximated by plotting pH difference (ΔpH = pHi - pHf) as a function of pHi whereas the ZPC (isoelectric point) experimental value for IL@mAC is estimated around 6.3 (Fig. S1). So, it may be assumed that IL@mAC holds positive (+) surface charge below pH 6.3 whereas negative (-) above pH 6.3.
3.2. Model fitting and statistical analysis
According to Eq. (3), the final equation as coded factors is presented as follow by Eq. (4):
As can be seen from the above-developed equation, the effect of IL@mAC dose, pH, TCy concentration, and contact time, are significant, of which two second parameters have negative effect on TCy removal. In case of large F-values and small p-values, the parameter effectiveness can be high [28]. The response of the TCy removal procedure by IL@mAC depends significantly on the entire studied parameters, including IL@mAC dose, pH, TCy concentration, and contact time. Therefore, the suggested model can present a good estimation of the experimental results. Also, the insignificant LOF demonstrated the validity of the quadratic model for the current study [29]. According to the results (Table 2), the 2nd order model with F (F model = 9.13) and prob > F (0.0001) was significant. The significant model terms in this scenario are A, B, C, D, and B2 (given the p < 0.05). Whereas the higher p-values for AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD, A2, C2 and D2 are 0.8616, 0.7079, 0.3342, 0.3509, 0.2538, 0.5994, 0.1019, 0.7378, and 0.7506, respectively suggesting the insignificant interaction terms (given the p > 0.05).
Table 2
Experiment design matrix (Contained sets of anticipated and experimental values for TC adsorptive removal onto IL@mAC
|
Sum of squares
|
Degree of freedom (df)
|
Mean square
|
F-value
|
p-value
|
|
Model
|
4050.83
|
14
|
289.35
|
9.130
|
< 0.0001
|
Significant
|
A-Dose of IL@mAC
|
781.09
|
1
|
781.09
|
24.66
|
0.0002
|
|
B-pH
|
1712.03
|
1
|
1712.03
|
54.05
|
< 0.0001
|
|
C-Conc. of TC
|
230.43
|
1
|
230.43
|
7.270
|
0.0166
|
|
D-Reaction time
|
171.52
|
1
|
171.52
|
5.410
|
0.0344
|
|
AB
|
1.00
|
1
|
1.00
|
0.031
|
0.8616
|
|
AC
|
4.62
|
1
|
4.62
|
0.150
|
0.7079
|
|
AD
|
31.54
|
1
|
31.54
|
1.000
|
0.3342
|
|
BC
|
29.36
|
1
|
29.36
|
0.930
|
0.3509
|
|
BD
|
44.61
|
1
|
44.61
|
1.410
|
0.2538
|
|
CD
|
9.12
|
1
|
9.12
|
0.290
|
0.5994
|
|
A2
|
96.17
|
1
|
96.17
|
3.040
|
0.1019
|
|
B2
|
478.35
|
1
|
478.35
|
15.10
|
0.0015
|
|
C2
|
3.68
|
1
|
3.68
|
0.120
|
0.7378
|
|
D2
|
3.32
|
1
|
3.32
|
0.100
|
0.7506
|
|
Residual
|
475.14
|
15
|
31.68
|
|
|
|
Lack of fit
|
404.04
|
9
|
44.89
|
3.79
|
0.0595
|
Non-significant
|
Pure Error
|
71.10
|
6
|
11.85
|
|
|
|
Cor. Total
|
4525.97
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
Table S2 presents the ANOVA for response. In order to decide the polynomial model quality, adjusted R-Squared (R2adj) and R2 have been implemented i.e., 0.797 and 0.895, respectively. The model capability to characterize the changes in the response is increased, if R2 is closer to 1. In fact, it ensures the fitness of 2nd order model for experimental data. Consequently, one can reliably use the presented model for the response optimization [30]. The predicted R-Squared (R2pred) of 0.4297 is reasonably consistent with the R2adj of 0.797. Also, “AdEq. Precision" with desirable ratios higher than 4 is used to determine signal to noise ratio. The ratio of 11.338 suggests an adequate signal, showing that the design space can be navigated by the model. The normality of the distribution of residues was verified using the normality plot. Figure 4 shows a chart of nominal (expected) values relative to residual values obtained by applying the tested form of the RSM model. A straight line has been formed by the points on the residuals normal diagram, approving the normal distribution of the residuals [31]. Using CV (coefficient of variations) in Table S2, the results of model reproducibility are described. Given that CV < 10% represents the model reproducibility and this model has replicable results (CV value = 0.42%,).
3.3 Impact of interaction variables
The Fig. 5 (a,b,c) shows, as the initial pH is increased from 3 to 7, the adsorptive removal of TCy is also increased. The solution pH affects the nature of the IL@mAC and TCy. In case the pH is increased from 5 to 7, the % RTCy of IL@mAC towards the TCy is increased gradually. For the pH value higher than 7, the % RTCy is decreased rapidly. According to the results, the neutral environment is more favorable for the TCy enrichment on IL@mAC and TCy adsorption onto magnetite showed similar behavior [32]. It is primarily because, the pH of solution affects the surface charge of the IL@mAC and the TCy forms in the solution [33]. The value of pH affects the ionization degree of the TCy molecules. Three chemically distinct acidic functional groups are found in TCy: dimethylamine cation (pKa = 9.69), carboxymethyl (pKa = 3.30), and phenolic diketone (pKa = 7.68) [34]. Therefore, for solution pH < 3.30, the dominant form of TCy in the solution is the H4TCy+ ions. In case the pH is within the 3.30–7.68 range, TCy can be considered as a negatively charged hydroxyl group and a mixture of a dimethylamino group, where the dominant form is H3TCy. In case the pH is within the 7.68–9.69 range, the dominant form of TCy is the H2TCy− ions. In case the solution pH > 9.69, the dominant form of TCy is HTCy2−. Given that the ZPC of IL@mAC is found to be 6.3, the surface charge of IL@mAC is positive below pH 6.3 and negative above pH 6.3. Although both TCy and IL@mAC are of positive charge at pH below 6.3, whilst the maximum removal is observed, which indicates involvement of hydrogen bonding, π-π interaction along with electrostatic interactions between the surface of IL@mAC and TCy molecule [35]. Similar results were reported by Figueroa et al. [36] and Rakshit et al. [37] as well. When the pH is raised from 3 to 5, amphoteric TCy ions, H3TCy, and other TCy forms found in the solution were primarily seized by IL@mAC via hydrogen, ligand exchange, and electrostatic reactions or slightly positive or negative charge of IL@mAC surface minimized the electrostatic/repulsive attraction with H3TCy [35, 38]. In case of pH > 9, the electrostatic repulsion is formed between the negatively charged IL@mAC and the negatively charged HTCy2−, leading to the rapid reduction of TCy adsorptive removal onto IL@mAC. At pHs less than 5 and above 7, the tendency of the adsorbent and adsorbate is reduced due to the neutral surface charge of one of them relative to each other, which reduces the removal efficiency [39, 40]. The obtained results are also consistent with the results obtained by Guyer et al. [41].
A major effective factor for increasing the adsorption efficiency is the IL@mAC dose, because as the nanoparticle dose is increased, the surface area possessed by adsorbate for the exchange adsorption is increased [40]. Evidently, as the IL@mAC dose is increased from 0.06 to 0.09 g/50 mL at pH = 7, the efficiency of TCy removal is increased ranging from 75.44–82.52%. In addition, Fig. 5a shows that the highest efficiency of TCy removal (> 82%) is observed at IL@mAC dose of 0.06 g/50 mL.
The contact time is another factor effective in the adsorption procedure. Figure 5 (c,e,f) shows the effect of interaction of contact time with pH, TCy concentration and IL@mAC dose. Figure 5c suggests that at the neutral pH, when the contact time is prolonged to 135 min, the removal efficiency is increased from 66.9–77.2%. For TCy adsorption procedure, TCy transference from the solution phase takes place into the IL@mAC pores and around the adsorption site. At times higher than 135 min, the adsorption efficiency remains constant and does not change, probably due to the completion of the adsorption capacity of the IL@mAC. According to Fig. 5f, the interaction study between contact time and various TCy concentrations indicate that when the initial concentration of TCy is increased, the adsorption efficiency is decreased. Therefore, the higher rate of adsorption at the beginning of the adsorption procedure can be attributed to the superficial vacant sites of the IL@mAC that absorb TCy quickly and achieving the equilibrium. As the time passes after beginning of the procedure, the active adsorption sites are decreased and the TCy adsorption onto IL@mAC is declined. As a result, the external surfaces become nearly saturated, and the adsorption is continued as an internal and deep process, retarding the adsorption procedure, by which the efficiency of adsorption is maintained nearly constant [32].
The initial TCy concentration represents a major driving force present for hindering mass transfer from TCy between the solid and aqueous phases [33]. As a result, as the initial concentration of TCy is increased, the removal efficiency declines. At higher doses, the higher TCy concentration leads to higher probability of severe collisions between the IL@mAC surface and TCy molecules (Fig. 5). According to Fig. 5 (b,d,f) the maximum removal efficiency of 88.75% is obtained at pH 7, 0.06 g/50 mL dosage of IL@mAC, temperature 303 K and TCy concentration of 775 mg/L. Further it can be observed that removal efficiency of TCy is increased as the pH increased till 7 and decreased as concentration of TCy increased. The removal efficiency of 83.7% is observed at pH 7, 0.06 g/50 mL IL@mAC dose and 412 mg/L TCy concentration and when the similar conditions are used for 1137.5 mg/L TCy, a decreased (70%) removal efficiency is observed. Form Fig. 5, it can be observed that the optimum conditions are found to be pH 7, IL@mAC dose 0.06 g/50 mL, time 135 min where maximum removal (~ 88%) efficiency is achieved.
3.4. Mechanism of TCy adsorption onto IL@mAC
The TCy functional groups can undergo many electronic coupling interactions such as π-π EDA (electron donor acceptor), hydrogen bonding, and electrostatic interactions. Almost no TCy molecule carries net electrical charge within the 3–8 pH range, which results in hardly producing electrostatic attraction with IL@mAC. A low TCy sorption at the elevated pH values (i.e. pH > ~ 9) was observed, and at pH values lower than ~ 9, the sorption was higher because of the EDA interactions occurred between bulk π systems on IL@mAC surface and TCy molecules contained both double bonds and benzene rings, or hydrogen bonds have a major role in the potential adsorption mechanism [42]. At pH > ~ 9, the adsorption efficiency will decline because of the similar charges present between TCy and IL@mAC, indicating that the electrostatic interaction is the driving force of the adsorption. Moreover, It has also been reported that pore/size-selective adsorption is considered as a one of the major factors for TCy adsorption, where TCy is easily entered into the pores of IL@mAC because of their small molecular size (TCy: 0.403 nm3) [43]. Furthermore, π-π and hydrogen bonding interaction between TCy and the IL in the mAC are also involved for TCy adsorption [34]. Besides, hydroxyl, amine, phenol, and enone moieties of TCy may develop hydrogen bonds with hydroxyl and carboxyl functional groups on IL@mAC surfaces [44]. Another reason for formation of cation π bonding interactions is the easily protonated amine group at C4 of TCy [45], which is another desirable mechanism of TCy sorption [46]. The proposed mechanism for TCy removal by IL@mAC is illustrated in scheme 1.
TCy has several polar/ionizing functional groups, including phenols, alcohols, ketones, and amino acids. The surface charge of IL@mAC was positive below pH 6.3 and negative above pH 6.3. Therefore, cation exchange reactions as well as surface complexity between TCy molecules and their respective ions/polar sites are expected to occur at the IL@mAC surface. However, these factors alone could not be the main aspects responsible for the strong uptake of TCy onto IL@mAC. In general, the following mechanisms are proposed for the strong IL@mAC adsorbent interactions to adsorb TCy: (1) van der Waals forces (permanent dipole-induced dipole forces and London dispersion forces), (2) π-π EDA interaction between electron-bonded electron segments and IL@mAC π electrons and (3) cation-π bond between amino proton group and IL@mAC π- electrons. The TCy molecule has a large flat ring structure. Thus, strong van der Waals forces are likely to occur between the TCy molecule and the IL@mAC surface. The π-π EDA interaction may be one of the most important non-hydrophobic adsorption forces for TCy removal. The conjugated anon structures of the TCy molecule can act as electron receptors due to the strong acceptance of electrons in the ketone group, and therefore strongly interact with the IL@mAC (π-electron-donor) surface of adsorbents via π-π interactions. Recently, the similar interactions of π-π EDA for nitro-aromatic compounds (π-electron-acceptor) with carbon-based adsorbents such as graphene (π-electron-donors), graphite, coal and carbon nanotubes has been proposed [47–49]. The results of the present study show that the selection and adsorption efficiency can be improved through specific molecular level interactions between organic contaminants and IL@mAC.
3.5. Modeling of TCy adsorption onto IL@mAC
To obtain equilibrium data and apply different equilibrium models, the experiment was performed at pH 7 and temperature 303 K using 1.2 g/L IL@mAC dose in TCy initial concentration range from 50 to 1500 mg/L and agitated for 135 min (Fig S2). From the Fig S2, it can be observed that as the TCy initial concentration is increased the adsorption capacity increased from 40 to 815 mg/g and removal efficiency decreased from ~ 98 to ~ 65%. The competition between increased TCy molecules for less reaction sites onto IL@mAC could be the reason of diminution in % removal when the TCy concentration increased from 50 to 1500 mg/L. To further investigate the adsorption of TCy onto IL@mAC, the adsorption isotherms are applied, which not only provide real information about adsorption capacity of IL@mAC, but also a deeper understanding of the reaction mechanism depending which model is best fitted to data. Equilibrium adsorption capacity (qeq) and final equilibrium concentration (Ceq) after equilibrium are utilized to define the equilibrium. The isotherms can describe the reaction mechanisms between the adsorbent (IL@mAC) and adsorbed material (TCy).
The three models named Langmuir, Freundlich, and Temkin are applied on equilibrium data of TCy-IL@mAC system. The equations representing these models are given in supplementary data (Section S1). From plotting and fitting of adsorption models and determining correlation coefficient (R2), it can be predicted that which of the adsorption model is more appropriate and compatible with the experimental data of the adsorption process. The Langmuir parameters, qL and bL are estimated from intercept and slop of plot 1/qeq vs. 1/Ceq (Fig. S3a), Freundlich constants, kF and n are determined from intercept and slop of plot log qeq vs. log Ceq (Fig. S3b), and Temkin constants, B and aT are measured from slop and intercept of plot qeq vs ln Ceq (Fig. S3c). The calculated parameters (models constants and R2) from all models are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Isotherm parameters of TC on IL@mAC
Langmuir isotherm
|
bL
|
qL
|
R2
|
0.0605
|
666.7
|
0.9977
|
Freundlich isotherm
|
kF
|
1/n
|
R2
|
48.27
|
0.5027
|
0.9412
|
Temkin isotherm
|
B
|
aT
|
R2
|
131.3
|
0.924
|
0.9536
|
Considering the R2 for different models, it can be deduced that adsorption of TCy onto IL@mAC is fitted with all models in decreasing order, Langmuir (0.9977), Freundlich (0.9412), and Temkin (0.9536). Higher R2 value obtained from Langmuir model reveals that Langmuir is the best suited model to explain the mechanism of TCy adsorption onto IL@mAC. These findings suggest a monolayer adsorption of TCy onto homogeneous nature and surface of IL@mAC. Furthermore, the suitability of Langmuir model on experimental data also explains an indirect interaction between TCy and loss in the adsorption heat due to surface coverage. Besides, the estimated values of bL (0.0605) and adsorption intensity (1/n = 0.5027) are in the range of 0 to 1 indicating the suitable adsorption of TCy onto IL@mAC (favorable if 1/n lower than 1). Consequently chemisorption/physisorption occurs during removal of TCy onto IL@mAC [38]. Further the higher value of B estimated from Temkin model demonstrates a strong interaction force between IL@mAC (adsorbent) and TCy (adsorbate). The positive value of B indicates that the adsorption process of TCy onto IL@mAC was endothermic [50].
The Langmuir adsorption capacity is very useful tool to compare the adsorption efficiency to other adsorbents reported in literature. The adsorption capacity of IL@mAC for TCy is compared with other reported adsorbents in the literature and presented in Table 4. From the comparison, it can be observed that IL@mAC has much greater adsorption capacity for TCy as compared to other state of art adsorbents listed in Table 4. Thus, IL@mAC could be an effective alternative to other state of art adsorbents.
Table 4
Comparison of IL@mAC adsorption capacity with TCy reported adsorbents
Adsorbent
|
Adsorption capacity (mg/g)
|
Reference
|
H3PO4 modified biochar
|
552.0
|
[51]
|
Zirconia nanoparticles
|
526.3
|
[52]
|
MWCNT/MIL-53(Fe)
|
364.4
|
[53]
|
Modified rice straw derived biochar
|
98.33
|
[54]
|
Fe/Mn oxides loaded biochar
|
14.24
|
[55]
|
(GO/CA) composite fibers
|
131.6
|
[56]
|
Pistachio shell coated with ZnO nanoparticles
|
95.05
|
[57]
|
Modified tea waste biochar
|
293.4
|
[58]
|
Magnetic Fe/porous carbon hybrid
|
1301
|
[59]
|
WS-ACP
|
281.4
|
[38]
|
Eu doped SrAl2O4 composites
|
26.24
|
[60]
|
Boric acid activated carbon
|
173.9
|
[61]
|
IL@mAC
|
666.7
|
This study
|
3.6. Recyclability of IL@mAC
If the adsorbed pollutants cannot be desorbed from the adsorbent materials, the adsorbents need to be disposed and cannot be recycled several times, then the nano-adsorbent itself becomes the environmental pollutant and its use is not economically justified. Therefore, recyclability of IL@mAC was accessed to verify its repeated binding with TCy and outcomes of adsorption-regeneration-desorption cycles have been presented in Fig. 6. The result outcomes in Fig. 6 indicates that IL@mAC could be regenerated and reused without any significant decrease in its TCy adsorption capacity. Consequently, the removal efficiency of IL@mAC to remove TCy remains around 85% after six cycles. Due to smaller particle size, IL@mAC has more pores for diffusion, therefore the desorption amount of TCy on IL@mAC is steady with desorption efficiency [27]. The decrease in removal efficiency after 6th cycle might be due to the loss of IL@mAC adsorbent during recycling. These findings indicate that IL@mAC has the potential to be regenerated and reused many times for TCy removal. Therefore, it is possible to recycle and reuse IL@mAC to remove water pollutants, which makes IL@mAC of special economic and environmental importance.