In situ arsenic oxidation and sorption by a Fe-Mn binary oxide waste in soil

Abstract

In situ arsenic oxidation and sorption by a Fe-Mn binary oxide waste in soil., Journal of Hazardous Materialshttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jhazmat.2017.08.066 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Graphical abstractHighlights  A Fe-Mn binary oxide waste is used to remediate As contaminated soils. As(III) and As(V) adsorption capacities of 70 mg g 1 and 32 mg g 1 were determined. The bioaccessibility of total As was significantly reduced by 7.80 %  Arsenic in the contaminated soil effectively binds to the exogenous binary oxide. As(V) was sorbed by mononuclear bidentate corner-sharing with Fe. AbstractThe ability of a Fe-Mn binary oxide waste to adsorb arsenic (As) in a historically contaminated soil was investigated. Initial laboratory sorption experiments indicated that arsenite [As(III)] was oxidized to arsenate [As(V)] by the Mn oxide component, with concurrent As(V) sorption to the Fe oxide. The binary oxide waste had As(III) and As(V) adsorption capacities of 70 mg g 1 and 32 mg g 1 respectively. X-ray Absorption Near-Edge Structure and Extended X-ray Absorption Fine Structure at the As K-edge confirmed that all binary oxide waste surface complexes were As(V) sorbed by 3 mononuclear bidentate corner-sharing, with 2 Fe at ~ 3.27 Ǻ The ability of the waste to perform this coupled oxidation-sorption reaction in real soils was investigated with a 10% by weight addition of the waste to an industrially As contaminated soil. Electron probe microanalysis showed As accumulation onto the Fe oxide component of the binary oxide waste, which had no As innately. The bioaccessibility of As was also significantly reduced by 7.80 % (p < 0.01) with binary oxide waste addition. The results indicate that Fe-Mn binary oxide wastes could provide a potential in situ remediation strategy for As and Pb immobilization in contaminated soils.

Better Together: Water Treatment Residual and Poor‐Quality Compost Improves Sandy Soil Fertility

“…Pre‐trial As concentrations (11.7 μg kg −1 ) in the 25% WTR–compost were significantly lower ( p < 0.05) than in the pre‐trial 12.5% compost treatment (29.3 μg kg −1 ). This is attributed to the capacity of WTR to strongly chemisorb As (Sarkar et al, 2007; McCann et al, 2018) and suggests WTR addition to an As‐rich compost could reduce bioavailable As content.…”

Highly enhanced oxidation of arsenite at the surface of birnessite in the presence of pyrophosphate and the underlying reaction mechanisms

“…As a consequence, As concentration in natural aqueous environments is essentially controlled by interactions with mineral surfaces. Composite oxides have also been developed to enhance their efficiency as oxidants and adsorbents for both As(III) and As(V) (Chakravarty et al, 2002;Feng et al, 2006a;Ma et al, 2020;McCann et al, 2018;Wu et al, 2018;Ying et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2007;Zhang et al, 2018;Zheng et al, 2020). Manganese (Mn) oxides can also oxidize As(III) (Manning et al, 2002;Scott and Morgan, 1995), as reported in natural lacustrine environments (Oscarson et al, 1980(Oscarson et al, , 1981a(Oscarson et al, , 1981b, and Mn oxides have a key role in As geochemical cycling (Driehaus et al, 1995;Nesbitt et al, 1998;Scott and Morgan, 1995;Tournassat et al, 2002).…”

Performance evaluation of surfactant modified kaolin clay in As(III) and As(V) adsorption from groundwater: adsorption kinetics, isotherms and thermodynamics

“…So far, several techniques including oxidation (McCann et al., 2018), coagulation and precipitation (Cui et al., 2015), adsorption (Ren et al., 2014), ion exchange (Pakzadeh and Batista, 2011) and membrane techniques (Kang et al., 2000) have been developed and tested for their efficiency in arsenic removal. However, most of these techniques are expensive, generates toxic sludge and requires skilled labor for operation (Sarkar and Paul, 2016).…”