2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139466
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Arsenic removal with zero-valent iron filters in Burkina Faso: Field and laboratory insights

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Considering this, some researchers have applied commercial iron-nails in different water/ wastewater treatments e.g. in sand filters during the filtration process for arsenic removal [38][39][40][41], in Electrocoagulation process for removal of mercury (II) [42], and in ultrasound-assisted Fenton process for wastewater treatment [43]. However, the application of commercial iron-nails for NOM removal in the drinking water treatment plants has not been reported.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering this, some researchers have applied commercial iron-nails in different water/ wastewater treatments e.g. in sand filters during the filtration process for arsenic removal [38][39][40][41], in Electrocoagulation process for removal of mercury (II) [42], and in ultrasound-assisted Fenton process for wastewater treatment [43]. However, the application of commercial iron-nails for NOM removal in the drinking water treatment plants has not been reported.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geogenic arsenic in Burkina Faso stems from the oxidation of sulfide minerals (e.g., arsenian pyrite, arsenopyrite) often associated with gold mineralization, and occurs as As(V) under oxic conditions [32,47]. In the context of rural supplies, removing arsenic at the local scale is often the only option to meet the WHO and national acceptance thresholds (10 µg/L) [48]. This hints at the need to develop methods that can be implemented on the ground [48][49][50].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the context of rural supplies, removing arsenic at the local scale is often the only option to meet the WHO and national acceptance thresholds (10 µg/L) [48]. This hints at the need to develop methods that can be implemented on the ground [48][49][50]. Priority chemical contamination remains a major challenge for the future.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under oxidizing conditions, H 3 AsO 4 − is the more stable species between pH 2 and 7, whereas H 2 AsO 4 2− is the more stable species above pH 7 in natural waters 26,27 . Several treatment technologies for arsenic removal from drinking water have been applied worldwide, 28 and the most commonly used are chemical coagulation using metal (iron) salts, 29–31 sorption on activated alumina, 32–34 iron oxides and iron oxyhydroxides, 35–40 electrocoagulation with Fe/Al electrodes, 41 preliminary arsenic oxidation by ozonation or biological oxidation, 42 ion exchange using polymer resins 43 and pressure‐driven membrane processes, such as nanofiltration 44 and reverse osmosis 45–47 . Among the several existing arsenic removal technologies, chemical precipitation by ferric coagulation followed by filtration and adsorption onto iron oxides and iron oxyhydroxides appear to be cost effective for large‐scale arsenic treatment plants to comply with established WHO guideline value of 10 μg L −1 35,40,48 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%