Literature DB >> 20605038

Comparative study of arsenic removal by iron using electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation.

Divagar Lakshmanan1, Dennis A Clifford, Gautam Samanta.   

Abstract

This research studied As(III) and As(V) removal during electrocoagulation (EC) in comparison with FeCl(3) chemical coagulation (CC). The study also attempted to verify chlorine production and the reported oxidation of As(III) during EC. Results showed that As(V) removal during batch EC was erratic at pH 6.5 and the removal was higher-than-expected based on the generation of ferrous iron (Fe(2+)) during EC. As(V) removal by batch EC was equal to or better than CC at pH 7.5 and 8.5, however soluble Fe(2+) was observed in the 0.2-μm membrane filtrate at pH 7.5 (10-45%), and is a cause for concern. Continuous steady-state operation of the EC unit confirmed the deleterious presence of soluble Fe(2+) in the treated water. The higher-than-expected As(V) removals during batch mode were presumed due to As(V) adsorption onto the iron rod oxyhydroxides surfaces prior to the attainment of steady-state operation. As(V) removal increased with decreasing pH during both CC and EC, however EC at pH 6.5 was anomalous because of erratic Fe(2+) oxidation. The best adsorption capacity was observed with CC at pH 6.5, while lower but similar adsorption capacities were observed at pH 7.5 and 8.5 with CC and EC. A comparison of As(III) adsorption showed better removals during EC compared with CC possibly due to a temporary pH increase during EC. In contrast to literature reports, As(III) oxidation was not observed during EC, and As(III) adsorption onto iron hydroxides during EC was only 5-30% that of As(V) adsorption. Also in contrast to literature, significant Cl(2) was not generated during EC, in fact, the rods actually produced a significant chlorine demand due to reduced iron oxides on the rod. Although Cl(2) generation and As(III) oxidation are possible using a graphite anode, a combination of graphite and iron rods in the same EC unit did not produce As(III) oxidation. However, a two-stage process (graphite anode followed by iron anode in separate chambers) was effective in As(III) oxidation and removal. The competing ions, silica and phosphate interfered with As(V) adsorption during both CC and EC. However, the degree of interference depends on the concentration and presence of other competing ions. In particular, the presence of silica lowered the effect of phosphate with increasing pH due to silica's own significant effect at high pHs.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20605038     DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Water Res        ISSN: 0043-1354            Impact factor:   11.236


  8 in total

1.  Removal of arsenate from groundwater by electrocoagulation method.

Authors:  Imran Ali; Tabrez A Khan; Mohd Asim
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Enhanced removal of arsenic from a highly laden industrial effluent using a combined coprecipitation/nano-adsorption process.

Authors:  Yingnan Jiang; Ming Hua; Bian Wu; Hongrui Ma; Bingcai Pan; Quanxing Zhang
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Comparative study of humic acid removal and floc characteristics by electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation.

Authors:  Lucy Semerjian; Ahmad Damaj; Darine Salam
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Electrochemically induced dual reactive barriers for transformation of TCE and mixture of contaminants in groundwater.

Authors:  Xuhui Mao; Songhu Yuan; Noushin Fallahpour; Ali Ciblak; Joniqua Howard; Ingrid Padilla; Rita Loch-Caruso; Akram N Alshawabkeh
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Surface adsorption of poisonous Pb(II) ions from water using chitosan functionalised magnetic nanoparticles.

Authors:  Femina Carolin Christopher; Saravanan Anbalagan; Ponnusamy Senthil Kumar; Sundar Rajan Pannerselvam; Vinoth Kumar Vaidyanathan
Journal:  IET Nanobiotechnol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.847

Review 6.  Arsenic contamination of groundwater: a review of sources, prevalence, health risks, and strategies for mitigation.

Authors:  Shiv Shankar; Uma Shanker
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-10-14

7.  Spatial clustering of metal and metalloid mixtures in unregulated water sources on the Navajo Nation - Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, USA.

Authors:  Joseph H Hoover; Eric Coker; Yolanda Barney; Chris Shuey; Johnnye Lewis
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 8.  Frontier Materials for Adsorption of Antimony and Arsenic in Aqueous Environments: A Review.

Authors:  Xiaohua Fu; Xinyu Song; Qingxing Zheng; Chang Liu; Kun Li; Qijin Luo; Jianyu Chen; Zhenxing Wang; Jian Luo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 4.614

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.