ArticleScientific reports2026
A novel composite of chitosan and Bacillus subtilis exopolysaccharide for the removal of methylene blue from aqueous solutions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chitosan Hydrogels for Antibiotic Remediation and Dye Removal: A Review.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Enhanced Removal of Erythrosine B Dye Using Chemically Modified Chitosan Beads: A Comparative Evaluation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dye pollution in water poses serious health and ecological risks, requiring wastewater treatment before discharge and prompting increased research attention due to the widespread use of dyes in various industries. This study investigates the biosorption of methylene blue (MB) using a novel composite of chitosan and Bacillus subtilis exopolysaccharides (EPS). Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis confirmed the presence of essential functional groups for dye adsorption. The biosorption process was pH-dependent, with optimal removal efficiencies at pH 6 for the chitosan/EPS composite and pH 7 for chitosan alone, showing increased adsorption capacity with rising pH from 3.0 to 7.0. Contact time experiments demonstrated efficient MB removal in approximately 30 min, achieving decolorization rates of 71.6% for the composite and 60.62% for chitosan. The composite also demonstrated a higher maximum biosorption capacity (14.26 mg g−1) than chitosan (13.70 mg g−1) according to the Langmuir isotherm model, which best described the monolayer adsorption process. Kinetic analyses revealed that the pseudo-second order model best described the adsorption process, with calculated capacities closely matching experimental values (41.67 mg g−1 for chitosan and 45.87 mg g−1 for the composite). Post-adsorption FTIR results revealed involvement of –OH, –NH, –COO−, and –PO₄³− groups via electrostatic, hydrogen-bonding, and π–π interactions, confirming the interaction between MB and functional groups on the biosorbents. These findings highlight the synergistic effect of combining chitosan with EPS, resulting in a promising, efficient, and rapidly equilibrating biosorbent for mitigating dye pollution in wastewater. This work presents the first reported use of Bacillus subtilis exopolysaccharide combined with chitosan as a fully biodegradable composite biosorbent, exhibiting superior adsorption capacity (14.26 mg g−1), markedly faster kinetics (K₂ = 0.176 g mg−¹ min−¹), and equilibrium attainment within 30 min compared to pristine chitosan and most reported biopolymer-based adsorbents. Optimizing biosorption conditions can enhance dye removal efficiencies and contribute to sustainable environmental management practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.