2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.10.135
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of natural organic matter on arsenic removal by modified granular natural siderite: Evidence of ternary complex formation by HPSEC-UV-ICP-MS

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…52 This journal is © The reached equilibrium in 3 days, and the estimated maximum adsorption capacity was only 1.04 and 0.52 mg g À1 for As(III) and As(V), respectively. 62 However, As(III) adsorption on the synthetic siderite is fast and the adsorption equilibrium can be reached in 20 min. 63 As the percentage of oxidized As(III) increased, the siderite was converted to lepidocrocite and goethite.…”
Section: Iron Oxy-hydroxidesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…52 This journal is © The reached equilibrium in 3 days, and the estimated maximum adsorption capacity was only 1.04 and 0.52 mg g À1 for As(III) and As(V), respectively. 62 However, As(III) adsorption on the synthetic siderite is fast and the adsorption equilibrium can be reached in 20 min. 63 As the percentage of oxidized As(III) increased, the siderite was converted to lepidocrocite and goethite.…”
Section: Iron Oxy-hydroxidesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This can be explained by the fact that the surface water contains concentrations of competing substances, such as phosphate and organic matter. Phosphate is a well-established competitor for arsenic removal, whereas organic matter is not expected to have had a major effect on arsenic removal, as some previous studies have presented [45,46], which demonstrated that As(V) removal by iron oxides was affected by humic acids only when the latter were above 10 and 40 mg/L respectively. Furthermore, NOM concentration in groundwaters is usually low and therefore is usually not a limiting factor for efficient As(V) removal.…”
Section: As(v) and Cr(vi) Removal By Fe(ii) In Different Water Matricesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wood-based charcoal was efficient in the removal of As from arsenic-contaminated water (Hussain et al, 2001), however, a definitive mechanism was not provided for the removal of As. Alternatively, adsorbed NOM can significantly inhibit As(V) adsorption via competitive sorption processes (Ghosh et al, 2006, Li et al, 2017, suggesting that NOM oxidation could improve availability of sorption sites.…”
Section: 34mentioning
confidence: 99%