Accepted Manuscript

Removal of Chemical Oxygen Demand from Landfill Leachate using Cow-dung

Ash as a Low-cost Adsorbent

Kamalpreet Kaur, Suman Mor, Khaiwal Ravindra

PII: S0021-9797(16)30105-9
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2016.02.025
Reference: YJCIS 21087

To appear in: Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

Received Date: 4 January 2016

Revised Date: 5 February 2016
Accepted Date: 6 February 2016

Please cite this article as: K. Kaur, S. Mor, K. Ravindra, Removal of Chemical Oxygen Demand from Landfill
Leachate using Cow-dung Ash as a Low-cost Adsorbent, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science (2016), doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2016.02.025

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Removal of Chemical Oxygen Demand from Landfill Leachate using Cow-dung Ash as a
Low-cost Adsorbent

Kamalpreet Kaur1, Suman Mor1 and Khaiwal Ravindra2*

1
Department of Environment Studies, Panjab University (PU), Chandigarh 160014, India
2
School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
(PGIMER), Chandigarh 160012, India

Abstract

The application of cow dung ash was assessed for the removal of organic contamination from the
wastewater using landfill leachate of known Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) concentration in
batch mode. The effect of various parameters like adsorbents dose, time, pH and temperature
was investigated. Results indicate that upto 79% removal of COD could be achieved using
activated cow dung ash (ACA) at optimum temperature of 30ºC at pH 6.0 using 20g/L dose in
120 minute, whereas cow dung ash (CA) shows 66% removal at pH 8.0 using 20g/L dose, also in
120 minutes. Data also shows that ACA exhibited 11-13% better removal efficiency than CA.
COD removal efficiency of various adsorbents was also compared and it was found that ACA
offers significantly higher efficiency. Freundlich and Langmuir adsorption isotherms were also
applied, which depicts good correlations (0.921 and 0.976) with the experimental data. Scanning
electron microscope (SEM) images shows that after the activation, carbon particles disintegrate
and surface of particles become more rough and porous, indicating the reason for high adsorption
efficiency of ACA. Hence, ACA offers a cost-effective solution for the removal of organic
contaminants from the wastewater and for the direct treatment of landfill leachate.

Key Words: Cow dung ash, Adsorption, Organic contamination, Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD), Wastewater and leachate

*Corresponding author: School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical

Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India 160012.
E-mail: Khaiwal@yahoo.com, Tel.: +911722755262; fax: +911722744401

1
1. Introduction
Leachate has been defined as a liquid mixture that is formed by the infiltration of water into the
layers of waste, which further undergoes various hydrological and biogeochemical reactions
(Mor et al., 2006). The characteristic of the landfill leachate can be represented by high
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC), biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), pH, ammonical nitrogen (NH3-N) and heavy metals content (Mor et al., 2006a, Ravindra
et al., 2015). Further, it is also reported that the organic matter present in the leachate acts as a
major pollutants as it has the tendency to contaminate surrounding land and water resources.
(Mor et al., 2006b, Mor et al., 2013). Therefore, it becomes necessary to treat landfill leachate
and remove pollutants before it is discharged into water resources and land.

Various treatment methods have been reported for the removal of organic pollutants such as
biological treatment, physico-chemical treatment, advanced oxidation treatment, and leachate
recirculation. Majority of these treatment methods are useful, but have one or more limitations
e.g. biological treatment (stabilization ponds, aerated lagoons, trickling filters, anaerobic
digestion) is applicable only for young leachate and does not yield good results for old leachate
(Kurniawan et al., 2006; Gupta et al., 2012). Advanced oxidation methods have high economic
costs and have issues of chlorine oxidation (Murray and Parsons, 2004). Leachate recirculation is
considered one of the least expensive methods but it has limitations of saturation and inhibition
of methanogenic activities (San and Onay, 2001). Other treatment methods like ozonation (Oh et
al., 2004), anaerobic filters (Im et al., 2001), coagulation- flocculation (Zhang et al., 2012) have
also been investigated for the treatment of leachate but are not cost-effective.

As discussed above, a number of methods are available for the wastewater treatment but
adsorption is preferred due to its universal nature and ease of operation (Mor et al., 2007; Mittal
et al., 2009a,b). Commercially available adsorbents like granular activated carbon are proven
highly effective for wastewater treatment due to the high adsorption capacity and micro porous
structure. However, commercially available carbons are highly expensive, due to which efforts
have been made to develop low-cost adsorbents (Mittal et al.m 2010a,b; Ali et al., 2012; Gupta
and Nayak, 2012). Various studies were carried out to explore the use of agricultural and
2
industrial residues as low-cost adsorbents for the treatment of wastewater or leachate. Some of
the efficient low-cost adsorbents like peat (Heavey, 2003), fly ash (Devi et al., 2006), bone char
(Xie et al., 2004), tamarind (Parande et al., 2009), bagasse (Mor et al., 2007) have already been
applied for the removal of COD, heavy metals, color removal and for other contaminants from
wastewater or leachate. These low-cost adsorbents have opened doors for the innovation and best
utilization of residues and cost-effective alternatives for the wastewater or leachate treatment.

Based on detailed review of literature it was observed that cow dung ash as an adsorbent
(directly or by modifying) has not been used for the removal of COD from leachate. Considering
this, cow dung ash, which is a common byproduct obtained after burning of cow dung cakes for
cooking was selected to explore its effectiveness for the removal of organic contamination as
COD from the landfill leachate or wastewater. The results of current study were also compared
with various other adsorbent materials to find its removal efficiency and cost effectiveness.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Leachate Collection
Landfill leachate samples were collected from the Dadumajra dumping site situated in
Chandigarh. Leachate samples were collected in 20 liter plastic bottles and stored at 4ºC.
Various physico-chemical parameter of leachate including pH, electrical conductivity, total
dissolved solids, COD, NH4-N were analyzed using the standard methodology as reported
elsewhere (Mor et al., 2013).

2.2.Preparation of adsorbent
The cow dung ash was obtained from the rural areas of Punjab after ensuring the complete
combustion of cow dung cakes. The ash was sieved using standard sieves of BSS: 40 mark to get
uniform particle size of 45 mm. After sieving ash was washed thoroughly with distilled water to
remove impurities like dust or other materials and dried in the oven at 105ºC to get fine and dry
adsorbent of cow dung ash (CA). Second adsorbent used was the activated cow dung (ACA) ash,
which was prepared using acetic acid. The acid ash mixture was allowed to stand for 12 hours
before washing with distilled water repeatedly till the neutral pH was obtained. The ash was then
oven dried and sieved again to get fine quality of ACA. The preparation of activated charcoal

3
was done as reported by Devi et al., (2008). Most widely used chemical activators for various
adsorbents are ZnCl2, H3PO4, H2SO4, KOH, K2S and KCNS, however in the current study acetic
acid was used for activation of sites. Active charcoal (CHAR) from Fischer Scientific Co. was
used to compare the efficiency of CA and ACA.

2.3.Batch Experiments
Batch experiments were carried out at room temperature in the flasks of 100 ml capacity on
rotary shaker, keeping uniform agitation speed to ensure equal mixing. The COD removal
experiments were conducted for the optimization of various parameters like dose, time, pH and
temperature. To determine the effect of adsorbent dose on COD removal, 50 ml of leachate was
treated with dose varying from 0.1 g to 5 g at room temperature. Effect of contact time was also
investigated by adding fixed dose of adsorbent and agitating 50 ml of sample at time interval
from 60 to 210 minute. The pH studies were performed at constant COD concentration (2300-
2600 mg/L), adsorbent dose (CA-1g, ACA-1g and CHAR-0.1g) and varying contact time from
60-210 minute The pH was varied from 2 to 8 using dilute NaOH (0.1 N) and HCl (0.1 N)
solutions. Experiments were also carried out to see the effect of temperature on COD removal
and to get the adsorption isotherms. The temperature of the samples was varied from 20ºC to
50ºC, maintaining the pH and dose constant at time interval ranging from 60-210 minute
Samples were withdrawn after a fixed time interval to determine the percent removal of COD
using reflux titrimetry method. Percentage COD removal was calculated by using the following
equation:

Adsorption efficiency (%)_ = [C0−Cf ×100] / C0

where, C0 and Cf are initial and final concentration of the leachate solution, respectively

2.4.Analytical Methods
The pH and temperature of the landfill leachate were measured regularly using pH meter and
thermometer respectively. COD is determined using reflux tirtimetry method, where the samples
were refluxed with known amount of potassium dichromate in the presence of sulphuric acid for
two hours at 125oC. The analytical method for the determination of COD from wastewater was

4
adopted from the procedure mentioned in APHA (American Public Health Association, 2005)
handbook. All chemicals used in the current study were of analytical grade.

2.5. Surface Morphology

The surface morphologies of the samples were analyzed in Central Instrument Laboratory,
Panjab University, Chandigarh. Prior to the analysis by Scanning Electron Microscope (Model
JSM-6100), samples were coated with gold by a sputter coater with conductive materials to
improve the quality of micrograph.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Leachate Characteristics
The average pH of leachate was 7.8, indicating its alkaline nature and has COD value in the
range of 2300-2600 mg/L. The other physico-chemical characteristics of leachate are depicted
Table 1.

3.2. Effect of Time and Dose

Adsorbent dose and contact time are important factors which play an important role in the
removal of contaminants from the wastewaters. Optimum COD removal (61% and 73%) from
leachate was achieved using 20g/L dose of CA and ACA in 180 minute. respectively (Figure 1).
After 180 minute decrease in removal of COD was observed, which could be attributed to the
various factors like high adsorbate concentration, lesser mixing, low availability of solute, no
vacant site available for adsorption and interface between binding sites (Devi et al., 2008). The
result of current study also show an agreement with a study where composite adsorbent of rice
hull/MnFe2O4 (RHM) was used and 73% COD removal (initial concentration - 2088 mg/l) was
reported (American Public Health Association, 2005). Lv et al. (2009) also reported 72% of
COD removal from effluents of cotton textile industry using bamboo ash as an adsorbent.

Experiments were also performed using commercially available charcoal (CHAR) to compare
the efficiencies of the applied adsorbents. The CHAR removed 94% of COD at the dose of 2g/L
of leachate after 180 minute. As maximum dose in case of CHAR was 10.0 g/L, comparative
analysis of COD removal efficiency is also shown at this dose (supplementary Fig S1). Fig S1
also shows that after CHAR, ACA is good adsorbent for the COD removal. Variation in COD
5
removal efficiency for these adsorbents could be attributed to the difference in number of
available carbonaceous adsorption sites.

3.3.Effect of pH
The effect of pH on the COD removal was also studied by varying the pH from pH 2 to pH 8 at a
constant dose and temperature. In case of CA, 20g/L of dose shows 59% and 61% COD removal
efficiency at pH 6 and 8.0, respectively in 120 minutes. Whereas, ACA shows maximum
removal of COD (75.6%) at pH 6 in 180 minute in comparison to pH 8 (74%) in 120 minute as
depicted in Fig 2. CHAR shows highest removal of COD 89.7% at pH 6, while minimum
removal was observed at pH 2. Highest removal at comparatively lower pH could be attributed to
the presence of H+ ions which increases the adsorption capacity (Andal and Charulatha, 2014).
Results for pH were similar to studies that reported neutral pH as optimum value for maximum
adsorption of COD from wastewater (Parande et al., 2009; Devi et al., 2008).

Experiments were also conducted at pH 10, but it was observed that while adding the alkaline
solution into the leachate to increase its pH more than 9, organic material precipitated out and
settled down at the bottom of the flasks. The supernatant remained was clear liquid, due to which
the experiments at pH of 10 could not be conducted.

3.4.Effect of Temperature
Temperature plays an important role in removal efficiency of adsorbent; therefore, after
optimizing the dose and pH, experiments were also conducted to investigate the effect of
temperature on COD removal. Temperature was varied from 20-50 ˚C and COD removal was
observed at a regular interval of time.

For CA the optimum COD removal (66.4%) was observed at 30oC after interval of 120 min at an
optimum dose of 20g/Lat pH 8 (Fig 3). ACA shows 79% and 79.9% removal of COD at
temperature of 30oC and 40ºC respectively with optimum dose of 20g/L at pH 6 after an interval
of 120 min (Fig 3). As there is no statistical difference in COD removal efficiency at 30 oC and
40ºC, optimum temperature of 30oC is recommended while using ACA as adsorbent. For CHAR,
experiments were performed at optimum dose of 2g/L with pH 6 solutions where highest COD
6
removal (89.8%) at temperature of 30ºC in the time period of 150 minute. El-Naas et al. (2010)
also reported that increase in the temperature from 25oC to 60oC also increases the COD removal
efficiency, when dates pit activated carbon was used for the treatment of petroleum refinery
effluent having initial COD value of 3490 mg/l. Increase in temperature enhance adsorbate
capacity. Further, higher temperature increases the kinetic energy of the adsorbent, which leads
to the expansion of pores by increasing the active sites of an adsorbent thereby increasing the
COD removal efficiency of CA and ACA.

3.5.Adsorption Isotherms
Freundlich and Langmuir equations have been used to determine the equilibrium characteristics
of adsorption. Freundlich isotherm often interprets that adsorption occurs on heterogeneous
surfaces. Data was fitted to the Freundlich isotherm equation as detailed below:

1
log q   log k     log Ce (1)
n

Where q is the amount of solute adsorbed per unit weight (mg/g) of the adsorbent used, Ce is the
equilibrium solute concentration in the solution (mg/L) and k and n are the constants representing
the adsorption capacity (mg/g) and intensity of adsorbent respectively. Their values are obtained
by plotting log q versus log Ce and the calculated values of k and n are given in Table 2.

The Langmuir model describes the interactive behavior between adsorbate and adsorbent, and as
per this model maximum adsorption corresponds to a saturated monolayer of adsorbate
molecules on adsorbent surface with a constant energy. Langmuir equation was also applied to
quantify adsorption capacity and is given below

Ce 1 C
  e (2)
q bq m q m

Where Ce and q are the equilibrium solute concentration in the solution (mg/L) and equilibrium
adsorption capacity, respectively. qm and b are the Langmuir constants representing adsorption
capacity and energy of adsorption (L/mg), respectively. The calculated values of Langmuir
constants are shown in Table 2.

7
Fig 4 and 5 show the best fitted equation for CA and ACA. Interestingly, Fig 4 may look
curvilinear and hence both curvilinear and liner patterns were studied. Fig 4 shows the maximum
R2 (0.921) with liner scale, indicating it as the best fit. It was also observed that out of the three
adsorbents CHAR was best among all with R2 value of 0.99. The best fitted equation for CA and
ACA was Langmuir equation; similar results were also reported by El- Naas et al. (2010) for
dates pit activated carbon.

3.6.Morphology
Fig 6 illustrates the morphology of CA and ACA using SEM. Both CA and ACA shows large
number of pores and rough structures indicating the more availability of surface for adsorption of
contaminants. SEM images of ACA also indicate that after the activation, carbon particles have
undergone disintegration, making the surface of particles more porous or rough. This could be
the reason of its high efficiency for adsorption. Similar structures were also reported by (Ahmad
and Hameed, 2009) showing honeycomb like structures having huge surface area and porous
structure of activated carbon obtained from bamboo ash.

The findings of current study were compared with the work already conducted by various
researchers using different adsorbent for COD removal and overview of the same is presented in
Table 3. Appraisal of Table 2 highlight that use of ACA allows maximum efficiency for COD
removal, when compared with other adsorbent, indicating that it can used as a cost-effective
adsorbent for the removal of COD from the wastewater and landfill leachate.

4. Conclusions
The study shows that cow dung ash is an effective adsorbent for the removal of COD, from
landfill leachate. Results depicts that 79% removal of COD could be achieved using activated
cow dung ash (ACA) at optimum temperature of 30ºC and pH 6.0 using 20 g/L dose. Although
the efficiency of these low-cost adsorbents is comparatively low as compared to commercially
available charcoal (CHAR) but considering the cost-effectiveness, it could be used for the
removal of COD and organic contaminants from the wastewater and for the treatment of landfill
leachate.

8
Acknowledgements: RK would like to thank Department of Health Research (DHR), Indian
Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, for providing the
Fellowship Training Programme in Environmental Health under Human Resource Development
Health Research Scheme. KK is thankful to University Grants Commission, New Delhi, for
providing PhD Fellowship.

9
References
Ahmad, A.A., Hameed, B.H., 2009. Reduction of COD and colour of dyeing effluent from a
cotton textile mill by adsorption onto bamboo-based activated carbon. J. Hazard. Mater. 172,
1538-1543.
American Public Health Association (APHA), 2005. Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater, 21st Edition. American Public Health Association, Washington DC.
Andal, N.M and Charulatha, S (2014) Efficacy of Agricultural Wastes in the Removal of
Hexavalent Chromium- A Review. Research and Reviews: Journal of Chemistry. 2(4),1-5.
Ali, I., Asim, M., Khan, T.A., 2012. Low cost adsorbents for the removal of organic pollutants
from wastewater. J. Environ. Manage. 113, 170-183.
Devi, R., Singh, V., Kumar, A., 2006. (2006). Chemical oxygen demand (COD) reduction in
domestic wastewater by fly ash and brick kiln ash. J. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 174,33–46.
Devi, R., Singh, V., Kumar, A., 2008. COD and BOD reduction from coffee processing
wastewater using Avacado peel carbon. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 853–1860.
El- Naas, M.H., Al-Zuhair, S., Alhaija, M.A., 2010. Reduction of COD in refinery wastewater
through adsorption on date-pit activated carbon. J. Hazard. Mater. 173,750-757.Gupta, V.K., Ali,
I., Saleh, T.A., Nayak, A. and Agarwal, S., 2012. Chemical treatment technologies for waste-
water recycling—an overview. Rsc Advances, 2(16), pp.6380-6388.Gupta, V.K. and Nayak, A.,
2012. Cadmium removal and recovery from aqueous solutions by novel adsorbents prepared
from orange peel and Fe 2 O 3 nanoparticles. Chemical Engineering Journal, 180, pp.81-90.

Heavey, M., 2003. Low-cost treatment of landfill leachate using peat. Waste Manage. 23, 447–
454.
Im, J.H., Woo, H.J., Choi, M.W., Han, K.B., 2001. Simultaneous organic and nitrogen removal
from municipal landfill leachate using an anaerobic–aerobic system. Water Res. 35, 2403–2410.
Kalderis, D., Koutoulakis, D., Paraskeva, P., Diamadopoulos, E., Otal, E., Valle, D.O.,
Fernandez-Pereira, C., 2008. Adsorption of polluting substances on activated carbons prepared
from rice husk and sugarcane bagasse. Chem. Eng. J. 144,42-50.
Kurniawan, T.A., Chan, G.Y., Lo, W.H., Babel, S. 2006. Comparisons of low-cost adsorbents for
treating wastewaters laden with heavy metals. Sci. Total Environ. 366, 409-426.

10
Lakdawala, M.M., Patel, Y.S., 2012. The effect of low cost material bagasse fly ash to the
removal of COD contributing component of combined waste water of sugar industry. Arch. Adv.
Appl. Sci. Res. 4, 852-857.
Lim, Y.N., Shaaban, G., Yin, C.Y., 2009. Treatment of landfill leachate using palm shell
activated carbon column: axial dispersion modeling and treatment profile. Chem. Eng. J. 146,
86-89.
Li, W., Hua, T., Zhou, Q. X., Zhang, S.G., Li, F.X., 2010. Treatment of stabilized landfill
leachate by the combined process of coagulation/flocculation and powder activated carbon
adsorption. Desalin. 264, 56-62.
Lv, S., Chen, X. C., Ye, Y., Yin, S., Cheng, J., Xia, M., 2009. Rice hull/MnFe2O4 composite:
preparation, characterization and its rapid microwave-assisted COD removal for organic
wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 171, 634-639.
Mittal, A., Mittal, J., Malviya, A., Kaur, D. and Gupta, V.K., 2010a. Decoloration treatment of a
hazardous triarylmethane dye, Light Green SF (Yellowish) by waste material adsorbents. Journal
of Colloid and Interface Science, 342(2), pp.518-527.
Mittal, A., Mittal, J., Malviya, A. and Gupta, V.K., 2010b. Removal and recovery of Chrysoidine
Y from aqueous solutions by waste materials. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 344(2),
pp.497-507.
Mittal, A., Kaur, D., Malviya, A., Mittal, J. and Gupta, V.K., 2009a. Adsorption studies on the
removal of coloring agent phenol red from wastewater using waste materials as adsorbents.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 337(2), pp.345-354.
Mittal, A., Mittal, J., Malviya, A. and Gupta, V.K., 2009b. Adsorptive removal of hazardous
anionic dye “Congo red” from wastewater using waste materials and recovery by desorption.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 340(1), pp.16-26.Mohan, D., Singh, P.S., Singh, V.K.,
2008. Wastewater treatment using low cost activated carbons derived from agricultural
byproducts-A case study. J. Hazard. Mater. 152, 762-811.
Mor, S., Ravindra, K., De Visscher, A., Dahiya, R.P. and Chandra, A., 2006a. Municipal solid
waste characterization and its assessment for potential methane generation: a case study. Science
of the Total Environment, 371(1), pp.1-10.

11
Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Dahiya, R. P., & Chandra, A., 2006b. Leachate characterization and
assessment of groundwater pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site. Environ. Monit.
Aassess. 118(1-3), 435-456.
Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Bishnoi, N.R., 2007. Adsorption of chromium from aqueous solution by
activated alumina and activated charcoal. Bioresour. Technol. 98 (4), 954-957.
Mor, S., Kaur, K., & Ravindra, K., 2013. Growth behavior studies of bread wheat plant exposed
to municipal landfill leachate. Journal of Environmental Biology, 34(6), 1083-1087.
Murray, C.A., Parsons, S.A., 2004. Advanced oxidation processes: flow sheet options for bulk
natural organic matter removal. Water Sci. Technol. 4, 113-119.
Oh, B.S., Song, S.J., Lee, E.T., Oh, H.J., Kang, J.W., 2004. Catalyzed ozonation process with
GAC and metal doped-GAC for removing organic pollutants. Water Sci. Technol. 49, 45-49.
Parande, A.K., Sivashanmugam, A., Beulah, H., Palaniswamy, N., 2009. Performance
evaluation of low cost adsorbents in reduction of COD in sugar industrial effluent. J. Hazard.
Mater. 168, 800-805.
Ravindra, K., Kaur, K., & Mor, S.,2015. System analysis of municipal solid waste management
in Chandigarh and minimization practices for cleaner emissions. J. Clean. Prod., 89, 251-256.
San, I., Onay, T.T., 2001. Impact of various leachate recirculation regimes on municipal solid
waste degradation. J. Hazard. Mater. 87, 259-271.
Xie, W., Wang, Q., Yao, J., Ma, H., Ohsumi, Y., Ogawa, H.I., 2004. Study on advanced
treatment of secondary effluent using fixed-bed filled with bone char. Water Air Soil Pollut. 159,
313-324.
Zhang, H., Wu, X., Li, X., 2012. Oxidation and coagulation removal of COD from landfill
leachate by Fered–Fenton process. Chem. Eng. J. 210, 188-194.

12
 Table 1:Physico-chemical characteristics of leachate

Parameters Values*
pH 7.83
EC 3.698
TDS 2360
Ammonical Nitrogen 339
Nitrate 95
COD 2300-2600
*All values are in mg/l except pH and EC (dS/m)

Table 2: Adsorption isotherm parameters for the adsorption of leachate on CA and ACA

Langmuir model Freundlich model

Adsorbent qm b R2 k N R2

CA 53.19 -0.006 0.98 17.90 -2.82 0.92

ACA 47.39 -0.006 0.98 17.29 -2.85 0.88

13
 Table 3: Comparative overview of different adsorbents employed for COD from the
wastewaters/leachate.
Activated carbon
Type of Material Used COD removal (%) Reference
type/precursor
 79.0 at 30◦C
Activated Cow Dung Ash Leachate Present Study

Cow Dung Ash Leachate  68 at 30◦C Present study

Charcoal Leachate  89.9 at 30◦C Present study

Lakdawala (2012)
Bagasse Fly Ash Wastewater from Sugar industry 27

Coconut Shell Carbon Industrial Waste water 47-72 Mohan et al. (2008)
Mohan et al. (2008)
Activated Rice Husk Industrial Waste water 45-73
Devi et al. (2008)
Activated Avocado Peel Effluent Coffee Processing Plant 98.2
Activated Date Nut Parande et al. (2009)
Effluent from Sugar industry 73
Carbon
Parande et al. (2009)
Tamarind Nut Carbon Effluent from Sugar industry 74

Oil Palm Shell Leachate 50 Lim et al. (2009)

Ahmad & Hameed
Bamboo Based Carbon Textile Wastewater 75 (2009)

Rice Husk Leachate 70 Kalderis et al. (2008)

14
 Figure Captions

Fig 1: Effect of dose on COD removal of leachate using ACA (above) and CA (below) as
adsorbent.

Fig 2: Effect of pH on COD removal of leachate uisng ACA (above) and CA (below) as
adsorbent. Fig 3: COD removal rates at different temperature uisng ACA (above) and CA
(below) as adsorbent. Fig. 4: Freundlich best fitting for the equilibrium isotherm data of the
COD adsorption on CA

Fig. 5: Langmuir best fitting for the equilibrium isotherm data of the COD adsorption on ACA

Fig. 6: SEM images of CA (left) and ACA (right) at magnification of 1500.

15
Fig 1: Effect of dose on COD removal of leachate using ACA (above) and CA (below) as
adsorbent.

16
Fig 2: Effect of pH on COD removal of leachate using ACA (above) and CA (below) as
adsorbent.

17
Fig 3: Effect of temperature on COD removal of leachate uisng ACA (above) and CA (below)
as adsorbent.

18
 2.10
2.05
y = -0.3551x + 2.885
2.00 R² = 0.9212
1.95
log x/m

1.90
1.85
1.80
Cow Dung Ash (CA)
1.75
1.70
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1
log Ceq

Fig. 4: Freundlich best fitting for the equilibrium isotherm data of the COD adsorption on CA at
temperature of 30˚C.

24

20
y = 0.0211x - 3.3435
R² = 0.9785
16
Ce/Qe

12

4 Activated Cow Dung Ash (ACA)

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Ce

Fig. 5: Langmuir best fitting for the equilibrium isotherm data of the COD adsorption on ACA at
temperature of 30˚C.

19
Fig. 6: SEM images of ACA (above) and CA (below) at magnification of 1500.

20
 20˚C 30˚C 40˚C 50˚C
80
COD Removal (%)

70

60

50
Activated Cow Dung Ash

40
60 120 150 180 210
Time (minutes)

21