Adsorption of methyl orange on low-cost adsorbent natural materials and modified natural materials: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently a large number of extensive studies have amassed that describe the removal of dyes from water and wastewater using natural adsorbents and modified materials. Methyl orange dye is found in wastewater streams from various industries that include textiles, plastics, printing and paper among other sources. This article reviews methyl orange adsorption onto natural and modified materials. Despite many techniques available, adsorption stands out for efficient water and wastewater treatment for its ease of operation, flexibility and large-scale removal of colorants. It also has a significant potential for regeneration recovery and recycling of adsorbents in comparison to other water treatment methods. The adsorbents described herein were classified into five categories based on their chemical composition: bio-sorbents, activated carbon, biochar, clays and minerals, and composites. In this review article, we want to demonstrate the capacity of natural and modified materials for dye adsorption which can yield significant improvements to the adsorption capacity of dyes such as methyl orange. In addition, the effect of critical variables including contact time, initial methyl orange concentration, dosage of adsorbent, pH, temperature and mechanism on the adsorption efficiency will be covered as part of this literature review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".