Our research on arsenate removal by iron electrocoagulation (EC) produced highly variable results, which appeared to be due to Fe2+ generation without subsequent oxidation to Fe3+. Because the environmental technology literature is contradictory with regard to the generation of ferric or ferrous ions during EC, the objective of this research was to establish the iron species generated during EC with iron anodes. Experimental results demonstrated that Fe2+, not Fe3+, was produced at the iron anode. Theoretical current efficiency was attained based on Fe2+ production with a clean iron rod, regardless of current, dissolved-oxygen (DO) level, or pH (6.5-8.5). The Fe2+ remaining after generation and mixing decreased with increasing pH and DO concentration due to rapid oxidation to Fe3+. At pH 8.5, Fe2+ was completely oxidized, which resulted in the desired Fe(OH)3(s)/ FeOOH(s), whereas, at pH 6.5 and 7.5, incomplete oxidation was observed, resulting in a mixture of soluble Fe2+ and insoluble Fe(OH)3(s)/FeOOH(s). When compared with Fe2+ chemical coagulation, a transient pH increase during EC led to faster Fe2+ oxidation. In summary, for EC in the pH 6.5-7.5 range and at low DO conditions, there is a likelihood of soluble Fe2+ species passing through a subsequentfiltration process resulting in secondary contamination and inefficient contaminant removals.

No abstract

No abstract

The least‐cost method of removing arsenic may not be the best method all around. The best arsenic treatment technique for a given utility will depend on arsenic concentration and species in source water, other constituents in the water, existing treatment processes, treatment costs, and handling of residuals. To evaluate these issues, a national survey investigated arsenic occurrence and speciation in US drinking water sources. In general, total arsenic concentration was higher in groundwater than in surface water supplies. Particulate arsenic was more abundant than previously suspected, and more arsenate than arsenite was present. The cost of arsenic treatment increased in the following order: modified conventional treatment << activated alumina or anion exchange < reverse osmosis. Nevertheless, the most cost‐effective treatment still might not be best, because secondary treatment benefits and residuals handling should also be taken into account.

No abstract