Figure 1
The schematic diagram shows the creation of the MV-MOF/CMC-CS composite and its MV2B dye adsorption capability.
Figure 2
(a) XRD of MV-MOF/CMC-CS, (b) N2 adsorption/desorption of MV-MOF/CMC-CS and MV2B@ MV-MOF/CMC-CS, (c) SEM of MV-MOF/CMC-CS (d) FT-IR, and (e) magnetization of MV-MOF/CMC-CS, and MV2B@ MV-MOF/CMC-CS.
Figure 3
XPS of MV-MOF/CMC-CS and MV2B@ MV-MOF/CMC-CS.
Figure 4
(a) Determination of pHpzc, (b) influence of pH on adsorption of MV2B dye, (c) influence of dose, (d) influence of original concentration of MV2B dye, (e) influence of communication time, and (f) temperature’s influence on MV2B dye adsorption on MV-MOF/CMC-CS.
Figure 5
(a) Models of the adsorption isotherm, (b) adsorption kinetic model, (c) IPD model, and (d) illustration of diffusion of MV2B dye onto MV-MOF/CMC-CS.
Figure 6
(a) The plot of van’t Hoff, (b) the models of Arrhenius, and (c) consequence of temperature on ΔG o.
Figure 7
Mechanism of MV2B dye and MV-MOF/CMC-CS interaction.
Figure 8
Removal of MV2B dye from authentic water samples.
Figure 9
The influence of interfering ions on the adsorption of MV2B dye onto MV-MOF/CMC-CS.
Figure 10
Efficiency of MV-CS-CMC/MOF regeneration.
Table 1
Examination of the variance for the models being fitted.
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F-value | p-value | Standard error | 95% CI low | 95% CI high | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 558.46 | 18.77 | 514.07 | 602.86 | |||||
| Model | 9.108 × 10+05 | 9 | 1.012 × 10+05 | 57.42 | <0.0001 | Significant | |||
| A-pH | 11084.74 | 1 | 11084.74 | 6.29 | 0.0405 | 14.84 | 2.13 | 72.32 | |
| B-time | 5.629 × 105 | 1 | 5.629 × 1005 | 319.40 | <0.0001 | 14.84 | 230.17 | 300.36 | |
| C-Dose | 45068.61 | 1 | 45068.61 | 25.57 | 0.0015 | 14.84 | −110.15 | −39.96 | |
| AB | 4127.46 | 1 | 4127.46 | 2.34 | 0.1698 | 20.99 | −17.51 | 81.76 | |
| AC | 2054.76 | 1 | 2054.76 | 1.17 | 0.3161 | 20.99 | −72.30 | 26.97 | |
| BC | 19729.55 | 1 | 19729.55 | 11.19 | 0.0123 | 20.99 | −119.87 | −20.60 | |
| A 2 | 41923.08 | 1 | 41923.08 | 23.79 | 0.0018 | 20.46 | −148.16 | −51.40 | |
| B 2 | 2.078 × 10+05 | 1 | 2.078 × 105 | 117.92 | <0.0001 | 20.46 | −270.55 | −173.79 | |
| C 2 | 1377.33 | 1 | 1377.33 | 0.7815 | 0.4060 | 20.46 | −66.47 | 30.29 | |
| Residual | 12337.38 | 7 | 1762.48 | ||||||
| Lack of fit | 12337.38 | 3 | 4112.46 | ||||||
| Pure error | 0.0000 | 4 | 0.0000 | ||||||
| Cor total | 9.231 × 105 | 16 | |||||||
| Std. Dev. | 41.98 | ||||||||
| Mean | 398.44 | ||||||||
| C.V. % | 10.54 | ||||||||
| R 2 | 0.9866 | ||||||||
| Adjusted R 2 | 0.9695 | ||||||||
| Predicted R 2 | 0.7862 | ||||||||
| Adeq precision | 23.6848 |
Table 2
Efficiency of MV2B dye adsorption via the reaction surface’s CCD.
| Run | Actual variables | Yield (mg/g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Time (min) | Dose (g) | Experimental | Predicted | Residue | Internally studentized residuals | Externally studentized residuals | |
| 1 | 7 | 100 | 0.25 | 478.88 | 438.18 | 40.69 | 1.939 | 2.637 |
| 2 | 7 | 52.5 | 0.135 | 558.46 | 558.46 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3 | 7 | 52.5 | 0.135 | 558.46 | 558.46 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 4 | 7 | 5 | 0.25 | 10.67 | 48.11 | −37.44 | −1.784 | −2.236 |
| 5 | 7 | 52.5 | 0.135 | 558.46 | 558.46 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 6 | 2 | 52.5 | 0.25 | 345.71 | 350.98 | −5.26 | −0.251 | −0.233 |
| 7 | 12 | 52.5 | 0.02 | 580.80 | 575.54 | 5.26 | 0.251 | 0.233 |
| 8 | 12 | 52.5 | 0.25 | 382.11 | 380.09 | 2.01 | 0.096 | 0.089 |
| 9 | 12 | 5 | 0.135 | 11.77 | −23.66 | 35.43 | 1.688 | 2.029 |
| 10 | 12 | 100 | 0.135 | 528.41 | 571.12 | −42.70 | −2.034 | −2.946 |
| 11 | 2 | 100 | 0.135 | 397.00 | 432.43 | −35.43 | −1.688 | −2.029 |
| 12 | 2 | 5 | 0.135 | 8.84 | −33.86 | 42.70 | 2.034 | 2.946 |
| 13 | 7 | 52.5 | 0.135 | 558.46 | 558.46 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 14 | 7 | 100 | 0.02 | 766.20 | 728.76 | 37.44 | 1.784 | 2.236 |
| 15 | 2 | 52.5 | 0.02 | 453.75 | 455.76 | −2.01 | −0.096 | −0.089 |
| 16 | 7 | 5 | 0.02 | 17.07 | 57.76 | −40.69 | −1.939 | −2.637 |
| 17 | 7 | 52.5 | 0.135 | 558.46 | 558.46 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 3
Statistical examination of numerous adsorption models for MV2B dye on the MV-MOF/CMC-CS.
| Source | Sum of square | Std. Dev. | Sequential p-value | Press | Adj R 2 | Pred R 2 | Remark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | 3.040 × 105 | 152.93 | 0.0019 | 5.130 × 105 | 0.5946 | 0.4443 | |
| 2F1 | 2.781 × 105 | 166.77 | 0.8174 | 9.157 × 105 | 0.5179 | 0.0081 | |
| Quadratic | 12337.38 | 41.98 | <0.0001 | 1.974 × 105 | 0.9695 | 0.7862 | Suggested |
| Cubic | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | Aliased |
Table 4
Modeling the sum of squares in a sequential fashion.
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean squares | F-value | P-value remark | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean value vs Total | 2.699 × 106 | 1 | 2.699 × 106 | |||
| Linear vs Mean value | 6.191 × 105 | 3 | 2.064 × 105 | 8.82 | 0.0019 | |
| 2FI vs Linear | 25911.77 | 3 | 8637.26 | 0.3106 | 0.8174 | |
| Quadratic vs 2FI | 2.658 × 105 | 3 | 88594.70 | 50.27 | <0.0001 | Suggested |
| Cubic vs Quadratic | 12337.38 | 3 | 4112.46 | Aliased | ||
| Residual | 0.0000 | 4 | 0.0000 | |||
| Total | 3.622 × 106 | 17 | 2.13 × 105 |
Figure 11
(a) Probability of the normal residual, (b) real values vs anticipated values, (c) residuals in contrast to run counts, (d) residuals vs predicted, (e) perturbation of adsorption MV2B dye onto MV-MOF/CMC-CS (for A: pH, B: Dose, and C: time), (f) BOX-Cox plot for power transforms, and (g) adsorption ability of MV2B dye on MV-MOF/CMC-CS is graphically optimized.
Figure 12
3D contour plots and surfaces that illustrate the impacts of (a) the adsorbent dose and initial pH, (b) the adsorbent dose and contact time, and (c) the contact time and initial pH.
Figure 13
(a) The statistically optimal solutions are becoming more and more popular, (b) desirability of every answer, (c) the use of a bar graph to illustrate individual desirability, and (d) 3D of desirability of all responses.