2.

Summarize the discussion of the study (10m)

2.1 Characterization of the silicate porous material (SPM)

 SPM has a specific surface area of 3.40 m 2.g-1, 54 percent porosity, and 0.6 MPa
compressive strength. The morphology of SPM was examined by SEM, as shown in
Figure 2. The material's surface exhibited uneven form and big agglomerates, as well
as a rough surface, which provided additional sites for heavy metal ion adsorption.
 Figure 3 shows the FTIR spectra of SPM, silicate tailings, bauxite, and bentonite.
These chemicals' peaks were mostly found in three areas: 3399–3695 cm -1, 1608–
1873 cm-1, 542–792 cm-1, and 3695 cm-1. The Si–OH stretching vibration was ascribed
to the typical absorption peaks at 3399 cm; the C–O lattice vibrations were allocated
to the peaks at 1629 cm and 1873 cm; and the adsorption bonds near 534–542 cm -1
were assigned to the –H deformation vibration. It may be established that hydroxyl
groups had a significant role in heavy metal elimination.

2.2 Adsorption Properties

2.2.1 Effect of Contacting Time

 Pb2+, Cd2+, and Cu2+ were adsorbed on the SPM surface in equilibrium at 88.4
percent, 51.2 percent, and 41.3 percent, respectively. The elimination percent stays
constant between 0.5 and 4 hours, which might be due to the SPM's small and
dense micropores. When achieving the second equilibrium, the quantity of
adsorption is substantially more than when reaching the first equilibrium. Heavy
metal ions were quickly adsorbed onto the exterior surface of the SPM after the
addition of SPM. In the EDS spectra, distinctive peaks of Pb, Cd, and Cu were found,
and the corresponding peak intensities on the energy spectra were enhanced when
compared to blanks, as shown in Figure S2. When achieving the second equilibrium,
the quantity of adsorption is substantially more than when reaching the first
equilibrium.

2.2.2 Effect of Initial Concentration of heavy Metal Ions

 The adsorption capacity of SPM for Pb 2+, Cd2+, and Cu2+ rises dramatically as the
initial concentration of heavy metal ions increased. As the starting concentrations of
heavy metal ions increased, the removal efficiency dropped. The driving force at the
solid–liquid interface was improved by increasing the starting concentrations.

2.2.3 Effect of pH value on the Adsorption of Heavy Metal Ions

 The pH of the adsorbent surface is one of the main impact parameters that might
influence the heavy metal ions binding to the surface of the adsorbent during the
adsorption process. The adsorption curve findings showed that while pH had no
influence on Cd2+ adsorption, it did have an effect on Pb 2+ and Cu2+ adsorption, and
the removal efficiency rises as the pH climbed from 2 to 6. Pb 2+ and Cd2+ removal
 efficiency peaked at 82 percent and 71 percent at pH 6, respectively, but fell to 57
percent and 63 percent when the pH was greater than 6. At pH 7, Cu 2+ removal
efficiency reached a high of 98 percent. In this work, the best pH for the elimination
of Pb2+, Cd2+, and Cu2+ was found to be 6.

2.2.4 Competitive Adsorption among Three Heavy Metal Ions

 It is of great significance to investigate the interaction between heavy metal ions and
SPM. The adsorption capacity of Pb2+ was larger than those of Cd2+ and Cu2+. When
the initial concentration of metal ions increased from 20 mg·L −1 to 100 mg ·L-1, the
removal efficiency of heavy metal ion decreased.

2.3 Desorption of Heavy Metal Ions

 Figure 8 depicts the outcome of single heavy metal ions desorption from SPM. Cd 2+
and Cu2+ had higher desorption efficiency than Pb2+ throughout the desorption
process. During the first nine hours of the desorption process, heavy metal ions
were liberated from the surfaces of SPM, and 15.8% of Cd 2+, 16.7% of Cu2+, and
35.8% of Pb2+ were desorbed from SPM, respectively.
 Pb2+ had a lower desorption efficiency than Cd 2+ and Cu2+ During the first nine
hours, heavy metal ions were liberated from the surfaces of SPM. Cd 2+ and Cu2+
might be firmly bound on the surface of the SPM, according to the desorption
isotherm. This is likely owing to the presence of sites on the same surface for
particularly adsorbing Cd2+ and Cu.2+

2.4 Adsorption Isotherm of SPM

 The adsorption isotherms may be determined using theoretical models, the most
popular of which are the Langmuir and Freundlich models. Heavy metal ions'
adsorption coefficient is quite similar to the circumstances that encourage
favourable adduction. This data shows that more than one type of active site was
involved in heavy metal ion adsorption, maybe including certain particular adsorbed
sites, as suggested in Section 2.3. In a larger range of concentrations, the Langmuir
and Freundlich models may account for these results.

2.5 Kinetic Study of SPM

 In a variety of domains, the pseudo-first order kinetic model and the pseudo-second
order kinetic model have been widely employed to explain the removal of
contaminants from solution. The pseudo-first order (Equation (6)) and pseudo-
second order (Equation (7)) are evaluated here by referring to formula written in the
study.
 The pseudo-first order and pseudo-second order models well fit the kinetic
adsorption data (Table 6). Pb2+, Cd2+, and Cu2+ had R2 values of ~0.915–0.984,
~0.908–0.982, and 0.908–0.982, respectively. The results with a better match
showed that the diffusion process may be the rate-limiting phase before the rate-
limiting step.
2.6 Column Experiments

 The adsorption behaviour of the various heavy metal ions from SPM was adequately
represented by the Thomas model (R 2 = 0.9130.934). In column studies, Pb2+ was
shown to link more readily to the adsorbent sites of SPM than Cu 2+ or Cd2+. Pb3+ took
substantially longer than other metal ions to achieve the plateau of Ct/C0 value. This
shows that SPM is an effective adsorbent for removing heavy metal ions from
contaminated aqueous media.