| Literature DB >> 35564738 |
Xiaodan Wu1, Ni Hong1, Qingjing Cen1, Jiaxin Lu2, Hui Wan1,3, Wei Liu3, Hongli Zheng1, Roger Ruan4, Kirk Cobb4, Yuhuan Liu1.
Abstract
Constructed wetlands are an environmentally friendly and economically efficient sewage treatment technology. Heavy metals (HMs) removal is always regarded as one of the most important tasks in constructed wetlands, which have aroused increasing concern in the field of contamination control in recent times. The fillers of constructed wetlands play an important role in HMs removal. However, traditional wetland fillers (e.g., zeolite, sand, and gravel) are known to be imperfect because of their low adsorption capacity. Regarding HMs removal, our work involved the selection of prominent absorbents, the evaluation of adsorption stability for various treatments, and then the possibility of applying this HM removal technology to constructed wetlands. For this purpose, several phosphate materials were tested to remove the heavy metals Cu and Zn. Three good phosphates including hydroxyapatite (HAP), calcium phosphate (CP), and physic acid sodium salt hydrate (PAS) demonstrated fast removal efficiency of HMs (Cu2+, Zn2+) from aqueous solution. The maximum removal rates of Cu2+ and Zn2+ by HAP, CP, and PAS reached 81.6% and 95.8%; 66.9% and 70.4%; 98.8% and 1.99%, respectively. In addition, better adsorption stability of these heavy metals was found to occur with a wide variation of desorption time and pH range. The most remarkable efficiency for heavy metal removal among tested phosphates was PAS, followed by HAP and CP. This study can provide a basis for the application of HMs removal in manmade wetland systems.Entities:
Keywords: adsorption kinetic model; adsorption selectivity; adsorption stability; copper; physic acid sodium salt hydrate
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564738 PMCID: PMC9105325 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095344
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Chemical characteristics of experimental phosphate materials.
| Phosphate Source | Abbreviation | Chemical Composition | Molecular Weight | Purity | Purity Level | Phosphorus Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydroxyapatite | HAP | Ca5(PO4)3OH | 502.31 | ≥96% | AR | 17.77% |
| Bone Meal | BM | Ca3(PO4)2 | 310.18 | ≥20% | - | 4.00% |
| Calcium Phosphate | CP | Ca3(PO4)2 | 310.18 | ≥96% | AR | 19.18% |
| Calcium Phosphate monobasic Monohydrate | CPM | Ca(H2PO4)2·H2O | 252.06 | ≥85% | AR | 20.91% |
| Calcium Phosphate Hydrate | CPH | Ca(H2PO4)2·XH2O | 234.05 (as anhydrous) | ≥92% | AR | 24.37% |
| Phytic Acid Sodium | PAS | C6H18O24P6·xNa + yH2O | 660.04 (anhydrous free acid basis) | ≥99% | AR | 27.89% |
Note: “-” none of data.
Figure 1The concentration variation of Cu2+ in six phosphate treatments within 0 to 72 h.
Figure 2The removal performances of HMs on three phosphates (HAP, CP, PAS) in aqueous solution, (a) Cu2+ removal, and (b) Zn2+ removal.
Kinetic parameters of pseudo-first-order and pseudo-second-order models for adsorption of copper and zinc by phosphates.
| HMs | Materials | Pseudo-First-Order Model | Pseudo-Second-Order Model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qe (mg/g) | k1 (h−1) | R2 | qe (mg/g) | k2 (g/mg/h−1) | R2 | ||
| Cu (II) | HAP | 38.40 | 0.090 | 0.981 | 45.45 | 0.0023 | 0.998 |
| CP | 34.14 | 0.111 | 0.985 | 39.22 | 0.0035 | 1.000 | |
| PAS | 73.50 | 0.754 | 1.000 | 74.07 | 0.0870 | 1.000 | |
| Zn (II) | HAP | 33.81 | 0.078 | 0.995 | 41.49 | 0.0016 | 0.994 |
| CP | 27.00 | 0.074 | 0.983 | 33.11 | 0.0000 | 0.979 | |
| PAS | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Note: “-” none of data.
Figure 3The pseudo-first-order kinetic models of HMs adsorption, Cu2+: (a) HAP, (b) CP, (c) PAS; Zn2+: (d) HAP, (e) CP.
Figure 4The selective adsorption of Cu2+ and Zn2+ on HAP (a), CP (b), PAS (c); the distribution of selectivity coefficient (d).
Figure 5Influence of desorption time (a) and pH (b) on stability of adsorption.
Figure 6Schematic diagram of phosphates’ potential applications in a constructed wetland system.