2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.133
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phosphorus adsorption onto clay minerals and iron oxide with consideration of heterogeneous particle morphology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
28
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 91 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
1
28
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Adsorbent magnetic particles have also been successfully tested over numerous regeneration cycles for the removal of nonorthophosphate species, for example, dissolved organophosphonates, which can also pose a risk of eutrophication once released into the environment (Rott et al, 2018). Other phosphorus sorbents include nano zero-valent iron (Eljamal, Khalil, Sugihara, & Matsunaga, 2016), iron oxides and clay (Fang, Cui, He, Lei, & Chen, 2017), zirconium oxide particles (Su, Cui, Li, Gao, & Shang, 2013) along with zirconium composites . Other researchers also proposed activated aluminum oxide and granulated ferric hydroxide (Genz, Kornmullerb, & Jekel, 2004), alum (Banu, Do, & Yeom, 2008), red mud granular adsorbents (Zhao et al, 2012), submerged vegetation (Dierberg, DeBusk, Jackson, Chimney, & Pietro, 2002), calcite (Karageorgiou, Paschalis, & Anastassakis, 2007), and calcium-rich minerals (Lamont et al, 2018).…”
Section: Research Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Adsorbent magnetic particles have also been successfully tested over numerous regeneration cycles for the removal of nonorthophosphate species, for example, dissolved organophosphonates, which can also pose a risk of eutrophication once released into the environment (Rott et al, 2018). Other phosphorus sorbents include nano zero-valent iron (Eljamal, Khalil, Sugihara, & Matsunaga, 2016), iron oxides and clay (Fang, Cui, He, Lei, & Chen, 2017), zirconium oxide particles (Su, Cui, Li, Gao, & Shang, 2013) along with zirconium composites . Other researchers also proposed activated aluminum oxide and granulated ferric hydroxide (Genz, Kornmullerb, & Jekel, 2004), alum (Banu, Do, & Yeom, 2008), red mud granular adsorbents (Zhao et al, 2012), submerged vegetation (Dierberg, DeBusk, Jackson, Chimney, & Pietro, 2002), calcite (Karageorgiou, Paschalis, & Anastassakis, 2007), and calcium-rich minerals (Lamont et al, 2018).…”
Section: Research Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…When the ambient pH is lower than the pH PZC (6.7) of hematite, anions are expected to adsorb on the surface of the positively charged hematite by electrostatic attraction. [34][35][36] The above-mentioned explanation can be regarded as one of the reasons why TP can be removed in large quantities.…”
Section: Experiments Under Optimal Electrolysis Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides iron content, phosphorus content, and the presentation of iron in the ores, other important factors that might account for this are the composition of the gangue associated with the respective ores, their distribution, and their respective abilities to adsorb phosphorus compared to the iron-containing phase of the ores. It is well known that marked differences exist in the ability of different iron oxides and oxyhydoxides to adsorb phosphate, and in the kinetics of the adsorption processes [50,79,83,85,[247][248][249][250][251][252], which has been linked to differences in their respective surface properties and mineralogy [253]. The most reported order is goethite > hematite > ferrihydrite [79,254,255], while phosphate desorption kinetics (in percentage of prior adsorbed phosphate desorbed) are ranked as follows: hematite (12.5%) > goethite (10%) > ferrihydrite (8.5%) [79].…”
Section: Plausible Reasons For Differences In the Ease Of Phosphorus mentioning
confidence: 99%