| Literature DB >> 34926849 |
Omeje Maxwell1, Orere Faith Oghenerukevwe1, O Adewoyin Olusegun1, Emmanuel Sunday Joel2, Ozieme Arinze Daniel3, Ayanbisi Oluwasegun1, Hassana O Jonathan3, Taiwo O Samson4, Ngozi Adeleye5, Orosun Muyiwa Michael6, A Omeje Uchechukwu7, A Akinwumi Oluwasayo1, Akinwumi Akinpelu1, Akinyemi M L1, Olagoke Oladokun8.
Abstract
The poor access to water quality for Nigerians has pushed for the designing of new trend silver nitrate impregnated locally made Point-Of-Use (POU) ceramic filters to enhance water purification efficiency for household use. This study utilized silver nitrate-molded ceramic filters prepared with Kaolin from Owode, silt soil, sodium silicate, sawdust, and distilled water in three varying proportions to ascertain pollution removal efficiencies. Heating was carried out by firing the filters at 900 °C and further preheating at 400 °C after dipping in silver nitrate solution. Silver nanoparticle and dissociated particle discharge from filter pot painted with 0.03 mg/g casein-covered nAg or AgNO3 were estimated as an element of pH (5-9), ionic strength (1-50mM), and cation species (Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+). Silver delivery was constrained by disintegration as Ag+ and resulting cation exchange measures, paying little heed to silver structure applied. Water analysis for both heavy metals (Pb and Cd) and microbial load (E. coli) evaluated, corroborate the maximum removal efficiency. It was observed that kaolin-sawdust with the Silver nitrate filters showed a constant and effective removal of both heavy metals and disinfection of microbial loads. The minimum flow rates observed were 4.97 mL/min for batch filter used for Iju River water sample one (AF1) and 4.98 mL/min for batch filter used for Iju River water sample two (AF2) having porosity 49.05% and 50.00%, whereas the 5 mL/min higher flow rate was used for batch filter from borehole water sample one (BF1) and batch filter used for well water sample two (CF2) with porosity of 50.00%. Significantly, the results obtained show that the filters are suitable for point-of-use application in both the urban and rural areas of developing countries such as Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Clay- Kaolin; Household; Nano filters; Point-of-use ceramic filter; Sawdust; Water pollution
Year: 2021 PMID: 34926849 PMCID: PMC8649735 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08470
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Silt Clay preparation from Agbara Area of Ado-Odo Ota.
Figure 2Kaolin preparation from Owode Ketu Area of Ado-Odo Ota.
Ceramic filter batch formulation.
| Batches | Owode kaolin | Agbara Clay soil | Saw-dust |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 90.91% | 0.00 | 9.09% |
| F2 | 45.45% | 45.45% | 9.09% |
| F3 | 0.00 | 90.91% | 9.09% |
∗F1, F2 & F3: Batch filters 1, 2 & 3.
Source: Authors' Computations.
Figure 3Sieving the water samples from the prepared Kaolin Ceramic Filters. Diameter: 14.5 cm, Thickness: 2.5 cm.
Figure 4Sieving the water samples from the prepared Silt Clay Ceramic Filters. Diameter: 14.5 cm, Thickness: 2.5 cm.
Physical characterization of the ceramic filters.
| Batches | Loss on ignition (%) | Apparent Porosity (%) | Bulk density (g/cm3) | Bulk volume (cm3) | Shrinkage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 17.83 | 49.88 | 2.97 | 421 | 3.45 |
| F2 | 13.86 | 50.00 | 3.11 | 455 | 2.07 |
| F3 | 26.47 | 50.11 | 2.48 | 496 | 0.00 |
∗Source: Authors' Computations.
Figure 5Comparative Chart of Physical Analysis. ∗LOI: Loss on Ignition, AP: Apparent porosity, BD: Bulk Density. ∗Source: Authors ‘Computations.
Figure 6Effect of flow rate against efficiency. Source: Authors’ computations.
E-Coli result before and after filtration.
| Batch samples | Colony forming units (mls) | Colony removal efficiency % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | ||
| AF1 | 288 | 1 | 99.65 |
| AF2 | 296 | 0 | 100 |
| BF1 | 168 | 40 | 76.19 |
| BF2 | 160 | 0 | 100 |
| CF1 | 136 | 0 | 100 |
| CF2 | 48 | 0 | 100 |
∗AF1, AF2: Batch filters used for Iju River Water samples1 and 2.
∗BF1, BF2: Batch filters used for Borehole Water samples 1 and 2.
∗CF1, CF2: Batch filters used for Well water samples 1 and 2.
Source: Authors' Computations.
Figure 7Prepared samples for heavy metal analysis before and after filtering through the Ceramic Filters.
Filtration efficiency and flow rate.
| Batch samples | Weight of water before filtering (mL) | Weight of water after filtering (mL) | Flow rate (ml/min) | % Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AF1 | 300 | 298 | 4.97 | 99.33 |
| AF2 | 300 | 299 | 4.98 | 99.67 |
| BF1 | 300 | 300 | 5.00 | 100.00 |
| BF2 | 300 | 300 | 5.00 | 100.00 |
| CF1 | 300 | 300 | 5.00 | 100.00 |
| CF2 | 300 | 300 | 5.00 | 100.00 |
∗Source: Authors' Computations.
Figure 8Removal efficiency of Pb and cd. Source: Authors' computations.
Figure 9The flow Rate and Porosity of each Filter and Water Sample Analysed. Source: Authors' Computations.
Figure 10Microbial load culture before and after filtering through the Ceramic Filters.