Issue

Vol. 31 No. 1 (2019): Vol 31 Issue 1

Copyright (c) 2019 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Aqueous Solubility Enhancement and Desorption of Sudan III Dye from Contaminated Soil Using Plant Based Natural Surfactant

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2019.21523
M.C. Somasekhara Reddy
Department of Basic Sciences, G.P.R. Engineering College (Autonomous), Kurnool-518007, India; Section of Chemistry, Department of Education in Science and Mathematics (DESM), Regional Institute of Education (RIE), Mysore-570006, India
K. Sridevi
Department of Basic Sciences, G.P.R. Engineering College (Autonomous), Kurnool-518007, India; Department of Chemistry, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Engineering College, Pulivendula-516390, India
S.M. Sarvar Jahan
Department of Basic Sciences, G.P.R. Engineering College (Autonomous), Kurnool-518007, India
G.V. Subba Reddy
Department of Chemistry, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Engineering College, Pulivendula-516390, India

Corresponding Author(s) : M.C. Somasekhara Reddy

mcsr.gprec@gmail.com; som16@rediffmail.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 31 No. 1 (2019): Vol 31 Issue 1

Abstract

A plant based natural surfactant was extracted from fruit pericarp of Sapindus mukorossi, commonly known as soap nuts. The natural surfactant was used for the treatment of the soils which were contaminated with hydrophobic organic compounds like organic dye, Sudan III and the dye was removed/recovered from the soils. This biosurfactant has great advantages when used in environmental remediation as it is environment friendly in nature. Using a simple water extraction of fruit pericarp powder, the natural surfactant was prepared. The natural surfactant solutions were employed to enhance the aqueous solubility of hydrophobic organic compounds like organic dye, Sudan III and to desorb organic dye Sudan III from contaminated soils in batch experiments. The performance of natural surfactant for the removal of Sudan III was compared with that of commercial surfactants like sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) (anionic surfactant), cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) (cationic surfactant) and Triton X-100 (TX 100) (non-ionic surfactant). The aqueous solubility enhancement of Sudan III dye in presence of 0.04 M of NaCl was increased in case of non-ionic surfactants like natural surfactant (NS) and TX 100. The solubility of Sudan III dye in presence of 0.04 M of NaCl was decreased in case of ionic surfactants like SDS and CTAB. The desorption behaviour observed for natural surfactant was similar to TX 100 solutions. The natural surfactant solution performance was more or less similar to synthetic surfactants and the removal capacity of surfactant was given in increasing order as TX 100 > Natural surfactant > SDS > CTAB.

Keywords

Plant-based surfactant Natural surfactant Soil contamination Dyes Sudan III Desorption Solubility
Somasekhara Reddy, M., Sridevi, K., Sarvar Jahan, S., & Subba Reddy, G. (2018). Aqueous Solubility Enhancement and Desorption of Sudan III Dye from Contaminated Soil Using Plant Based Natural Surfactant. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 31(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2019.21523
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. H.L. Huang and W.M.G. Lee, J. Environ. Eng., 128, 60 (2002); https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2002)128:1(60).
  2. S. Paria, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 138, 24 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2007.11.001.
  3. R.G. Luthy, D.A. Dzombak, C.A. Peters, S.B. Roy, A. Ramaswami, D.V. Nakles and B.R. Nott, Environ. Sci. Technol., 28, 266A (1994); https://doi.org/10.1021/es00055a002.
  4. D.M. Mackay and J.A. Cherry, Environ. Sci. Technol., 23, 630 (1989); https://doi.org/10.1021/es00064a001.
  5. W.D. Elis, J.R. Payne and G.D. McNaab, Treatment of Contaminated Soils with Aqueous Surfactants, EPA/600/2-85/129, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, p. 129 (1985).
  6. C. Trellu, E. Mousset, Y. Pechaud, D. Huguenot, E.D. van Hullebusch, G. Esposito and M.A. Oturan, J. Hazard. Mater., 306, 149 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.12.008.
  7. M. Davin, A. Starren, M. Deleu, G. Lognay, G. Colinet and M.-L. Fauconnier, Chemosphere, 194, 414 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.174.
  8. S. Gan, E.V. Lau and H.K. Ng, J. Hazard. Mater., 172, 532 (2009); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.07.118.
  9. W. Zhou, X. Wang, C. Chen and L. Zhu, Colloid Surf. A, 425, 122 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2013.02.055.
  10. X. Mao, R. Jiang, W. Xiao and J. Yu, J. Hazard. Mater., 285, 419 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.12.009.
  11. A.S. Abdul and T.L. Gibson, Environ. Sci. Technol., 25, 665 (1991); https://doi.org/10.1021/es00016a009.
  12. K.H. Dma and N.C. Ann, J. Sci. Technol., 28, 2319 (1993).
  13. C.T. Jafvert and H.P.L. Hoof, Water Res., 28, 1009 (1994); https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(94)90185-6.
  14. Z. Liu, D.A. Edwards and R.G. Luthy, Water Res., 26, 1337 (1992); https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(92)90128-Q.
  15. V. Reddy, R.S. Torati, S. Oh and C.G. Kim, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 52, 556 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1021/ie302037c.
  16. A. Samanta, K. Ojha, A. Madal and A. Sarkar, J. Pet. Eng. Technol., 3, 20 (2013).
  17. B. Ankamwar, M. Chaudhary and M. Sastry, Inorg. Met.-Org. NanoMet. Chem., 35, 19 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1081/SIM-200047527.
  18. J. Huang, Q. Li, D. Sun, Y. Lu, Y. Su, X. Yang, H. Wang, Y. Wang, W. Shao and N. He, Nanotechnology, 18, 105104 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/18/10/105104.
  19. B.Z. Awen, S. Ganapati and B.R. Chandu, Res. J. Pharm. Biol.Chem. Sci., 1, 35 (2010).
  20. D. Roy, R.R. Kommalapati, S.S. Mandava, K.T. Valsaraj and W.D. Constant, Environ. Sci. Technol., 31, 670 (1997); https://doi.org/10.1021/es960181y.
  21. M.C. Somasekhara Reddy, S.M. Sarvar Jahan, K. Sridevi, and G.V. Subba Reddy, Asian J. Chem.,( Communicated).
  22. S.-T. Muntaha and M.N. Khan, J. Clean. Prod., 93, 145 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.023.
  23. K. Samal, C. Das and K. Mohanty, Dyes Pigments, 140, 100 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dyepig.2017.01.031.
  24. S. Balakrishnan, S. Varughese and A.P. Deshpande, Tenside Surf. Deter., 43, 262 (2006); https://doi.org/10.3139/113.100315.
  25. M.N. Kumar, B. Govindh and N. Annapurna, Asian J. Chem., 29, 2541 (2017); https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2017.20842A.
  26. A. Pradhan and A. Bhattacharyya, J. Clean. Prod., 150, 127 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.013.
  27. C. Schmitt, B. Grassl, G. Lespes, J. Desbrieres, V. Pellerin, S. Reynaud, J. Gigault and V.A. Hackley, Biomacromolecules, 15, 856 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1021/bm401708m.
  28. A.B. Chhetri, K.C. Watts, M.S. Rahman and M.R. Islam, Energy Soucres A, 31, 1893 (2009); https://doi.org/10.1080/15567030802462622.
  29. K.J. Rao and S. Paria, J. Phys. Chem. B, 113, 474 (2009); https://doi.org/10.1021/jp8071298.
  30. J. Singh, S. Sinha, N. Batra and A. Joshi, Environ. Technol., 33, 349 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2011.572925.
  31. M.B. Sarma, S.B. Gogoi, D. Devi and B. Goswami, J. Sci. Ind. Res., 71, 270 (2012).
  32. S. Khandelwal and Y.R. Chauhan, J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 4, 4219 (2012).
  33. R.R. Kommalapati, K.T. Valsaraj, W.D. Constant and D. Roy, Water Res., 31, 2161 (1997); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00052-3.
  34. R.R. Kommalapati, K.T. Valsaraj, W.D. Constant and D. Roy, J. Hazard. Mater., 60, 73 (1998); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(97)00156-8.
  35. S. Mukherjee, S. Mukhopadhyay, A. Pariatamby, G. Redzwan, M.A. Hashim and B.S. Gupta, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng., 53, 15 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2015.02.037.
  36. S. Song, L. Zhu and W. Zhou, Environ. Pollut., 156, 1368 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.06.018.
  37. Z.M. Gusiatin and E. Klimiuk, Chemosphere, 86, 383 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.10.027.
  38. S. Mukhopadhyay, S. Mukherjee, M.A. Hashim and B. Sen Gupta, Chemosphere, 119, 355 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.06.087.
  39. K.-J. Hong, S. Tokunaga and T. Kajiuchi, Chemosphere, 49, 379 (2002); https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00321-1.
  40. M. Cao, Y. Hu, Q. Sun, L. Wang, J. Chen and X. Lu, Environ. Pollut., 174, 93 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.11.015.
  41. M. Zhang, H. Gao and P. Liu, Chinese Patent, CN 89-103634 (1989).
  42. L.R. Row and C. Rukmini, Indian J. Chem., 4, 36 (1966).
  43. S. Mitra and S.R. Dungan, J. Agric. Food Chem., 45, 1587 (1997); https://doi.org/10.1021/jf960349z.
  44. R. Ghagi, S.K. Satpute, B.A. Chopade and A.G. Banpurkar, Ind. J. Sci. Technol., 4, 530 (2011).
  45. C.H. Yang, Y.C. Huang, Y.F. Chen and M.H. Chang, J. Food Drug Anal., 18, 155 (2008).
  46. W. Oleszek and Z. Bialy, J. Chromatogr. A, 1112, 78 (2006); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2006.01.037.
  47. E. Karimi, H.Z.E. Jaafar and S. Ahmad, Molecules, 16, 4438 (2011); https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules16064438.
  48. D.A. Edwards, R.G. Luthy and Z. Liu, Sci. Tech. (Paris), 25, 127 (1991); https://doi.org/10.1021/es00013a014.
  49. A. Basu, S. Basu, S. Bandyopadhyay and R. Chowdhury, Ind. Crops Prod., 77, 920 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.10.006.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 3 Download : 0