A New Process for Sulfate Removal From Industrial Waters

Reinsel, Mark A.

doi:10.21000/jasmr99010546

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the studies (72%) used synthetic water, 23% used natural waters, and 5% did not report the source of their water. From the studies with synthetic water, magnesium sulfate and calcium sulfate were the most common salts used (Darbi et al, 2003), and the concentrations were below 8000 mg L −1 (Reinsel, 1999), and within those found in natural effluents, which can vary greatly. For example, concentrations of 900 mg L −1 of sulfates in natural waters have been measured in the city of Puebla, Mexico (Gárfias et al, 2010), while in the Gamasiab River, in Iran, the measured concentration was around 45 mg L −1 (Salimi et al, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of technologies for the removal of sulfate from drinking water

Quintana‐Baquedano,

Sanchez‐Salas,

Flores‐Cervantes

2023

Water & Environment J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of the current water crisis worldwide, it is of great importance to find alternative sources of drinking water, such as sulfur water. This review analyses laboratory, pilot and industrial‐scale technologies available for sulfate removal from water produced for human consumption, from naturally occurring sulfur water and that resulting from human activities. Most of them exceed 90% removal efficiencies. However, the concentrations treated in each study were different; some technologies evaluate concentrations below recommended limits (250 mg L−1), while others evaluate much higher concentrations but require previous treatments. The technologies with higher energy requirements such as reverse osmosis and ion exchange have better removal efficiencies but require larger initial investments and have higher operational costs. Biological treatments, on the other hand, with lower energy and material requirements, are less expensive but require long retention times and depend on the season of the year and/or environmental conditions. Lastly, adsorption removal technologies fall in the middle, especially for energy requirements and operational costs and retention times. This review shows that although there are a variety of sulfate removal technologies suitable for use, there is still room for a novel methodology that removes sulfates from a wider range of concentrations more economically, more effectively and in less time than what is currently available.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of technologies for the removal of sulfate from drinking water

Quintana‐Baquedano,

Sanchez‐Salas,

Flores‐Cervantes

2023

Water & Environment J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aging time required for this step depends on the final level of sulfate removal required and the amount of reagent added (Reinsel 1999).…”

Section: Ettringite Precipitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sulfate removal from chemical industries' wastewater using ettringite precipitation process with recovery of Al(OH)3

Zahedi

Mirmohammadi

2022

Appl Water Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to investigate a simple and less expensive process for the removal of sulfate from Iranian Chemical Industries Investment Company' wastewater using the ettringite (a calcium aluminum sulfate (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12.26H2O)) precipitation process. The optimum experimental conditions for sulfate removal and Al(OH)3 recovery were determined using batch experiments. Using Ca(OH)2 allowed to achieve optimum pH (pH = 12–12.5) for ettringite precipitation. The final residual sulfate concentration is dependent upon the aging time and reagent dosage. Sulfate ions were entirely removed in the ettringite precipitation step using fresh (after heating aluminum hydroxide for 10 h at 350 °C) and recovered Al(OH)3 with a aging time of 61 and 46 h, respectively. The initial concentration of calcium ions in the wastewater sample was also reduced to less than 20.04 mg/l after the carbonation step with 95% removal efficiency. This method with the recovery of Al(OH)3 through the decomposition of precipitated ettringite under low pH conditions is highly feasible and cost-effective for sulfate removal from sulfate-containing industries' wastewater.

show abstract

“…Residual sulphate concentration below these limits can be achieved using ettringite precipitation, due to the low solubility of ettringite. During the ettringite precipitation process, calcium hydroxide (also known as hydrated lime) and aluminium reagents, such as sodium aluminate are added to the sulphate containing water, leading to a pH rise to 10.5-13, and, hence precipitation of ettringite (Reinsel, 1999;Tolonen et al, 2016;Segundo et al, 2019). Additionally, ettringite is widely recognised to stabilise hazardous components and toxic elements, including heavy metals and borate ion (Arliguie and Grandet, 1990;Olmo et al, 2001;Weeks et al, 2008;Coumes et al, 2009;Coumes et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, industrial by-products can be utilised as aluminium reagents during ettringite precipitation process, offering ecological benefits and lower costs (Álvarez-Ayuso and Nugteren, 2005). A cost effective sulphate removal process using an aluminium-based proprietary reagent has also been suggested in the literature (Reinsel, 1999). The selection of aluminium reagent influences the efficiency of sulphate removal, as well as sludge density and sludge settling velocity (Sapsford and Tufvesson, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of sulphate and arsenic from wastewater using calcium sulfoaluminate (ye’elimite)

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical precipitation is one of the most widely known methods for treatment of industrial wastewaters with high sulphate content, where sulphate can be precipitated as practically insoluble ettringite (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O). This treatment method is also widely recognised for solidifying hazardous components and toxic elements e.g. arsenic in wastewater. In the ettringite precipitation process, lime and aluminium salts are typically used as starting materials, in stoichiometric amounts to form ettringite from the sulphate-containing water, leading to a pH rise to ∼11.5 and ettringite precipitation. In the current study, for the first time, ye’elimite mineral (Ca4Al6O12SO4), also known as calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) in cements, is used in order to investigate its suitability to form ettringite precipitate from sulphate and arsenic containing synthetic wastewater and industrial wastewater solutions. The dissolution of ye’elimite prior to dosing, optimal precipitation pH, and arsenic co-precipitation were studied. The effluent and precipitates were characterized using X-ray diffraction (XRD), field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM-EDS) and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). The results showed that high percentage of sulphate removal (98% in the synthetic wastewater and 87% in the industrial wastewater) can be achieved using ye’elimite as the aluminium source in ettringite precipitation. Additionally, up to 95% arsenic removal was achieved in arsenic co-precipitation experiments from the synthetic wastewater. The current developed technology can be used as a novel ecological and cost-effective approach for removal of sulphate and toxic elements from wastewater.

show abstract

A New Process for Sulfate Removal From Industrial Waters

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

A review of technologies for the removal of sulfate from drinking water

A review of technologies for the removal of sulfate from drinking water

Sulfate removal from chemical industries' wastewater using ettringite precipitation process with recovery of Al(OH)3

Removal of sulphate and arsenic from wastewater using calcium sulfoaluminate (ye’elimite)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About