Removal of arsenic from water by zero-valent iron

Bang, Sunbaek; Korfiatis, George P.; Meng, Xiaoguang

doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.01.030

Cited by 207 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the direct application of RM in rural areas is limited by its high alkaline, therefore, proper modification to RM was considered [12]. For example, iron based sorbents and impregnated adsorbents were found effective in removing arsenic from aqueous environment [13][14][15]. Zhang et al [9] prepared ferric modified RM as adsorbent in arsenic removal, and the arsenic adsorption capacity was high.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Arsenic removal from aqueous solution using ferrous based red mud sludge

Wang

Luan

et al. 2010

Journal of Hazardous Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tFerrous based red mud sludge (FRS) which combined the iron-arsenic co-precipitation and the high arsenic adsorption features was developed aimed at low arsenic water treatment in rural areas. Arsenic removal studies shown that FRS in dosage of 0.2 or 0.3 g/l can be used effectively to remove arsenic from aqueous solutions when initial As(V) concentration was 0.2 or 0.3 mg/l. Meanwhile, turbidity of supernatant in disturbing water was lower than 2 NTU after 24 h. The pH range (4.5-8.0) for FRS in effective arsenic removal was applicable in natural circumstance. Phosphate can greatly reduce the arsenic removal efficiency while the presence of carbonate had no significant effect on arsenic removal. Arsenic fractionation experiments showed that amorphous hydrous oxide-bound arsenic was the major components. When aqueous pH was decreased from 8.0 to 4.5, arsenic in FRS was not obviously released. The high arsenic uptake capability, good settlement performance and cost-effective characteristic of FRS make it potentially attractive material for the arsenic removal in rural areas.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meanwhile, most previous studies focused on ferric based absorbents or ferric-arsenic co-precipitation for arsenic removal [13][14][15]. Recent studies have mentioned the possibility of using ferrous in aqueous arsenic removal [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arsenic removal from aqueous solution using ferrous based red mud sludge

Wang

Luan

et al. 2010

Journal of Hazardous Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, total of As immobilized in both columns were much higher than the calculated value, indicating that the mechanism of As removal with ZVI is not only sorption but also precipitation and co-precipitation with iron-bearing minerals in column test. [14][15][16] It was also confirmed by XRD pattern for the residual ZVI particles in 1.5 cm to 5.2 cm layer fraction as shown in Fig. 6, showing that magnetite (Fe 3 O 4 ), goethite (-FeOOH), lepidocrocite (-FeOOH) and FeAsO 4 were formed in addition to metallic iron.…”

Section: Column Testsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…One direction of development in PRBs researches is to find the cost effective reactive materials. Although zero valent iron (ZVI) is the most commonly used as a reactive material for As in PRBs, [14][15][16] less costy materials such as granules blast furnace slag (GBFS) 17) and basic oxygen furnace slag (BOFS) 18) have been investigated as alternatives in laboratorial and full scales of PRBs, resulting in acceptable efficiencies in some cases. According to the USEPA report, 19) the price of ZVI for the PRBs application in USA and Canada varies in a range of $0.33 and $0.77 kg À1 recently.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immobilization of Arsenic and Manganese in Contaminated Groundwater by Permeable Reactive Barriers Using Zero Valent Iron and Sheep Manure

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) column test was carried out to remove arsenic (As) and manganese (Mn) from groundwater using zero valent iron (ZVI), sheep manure, compost and woodchips as reactive materials. Arsenic was mainly immobilized through sorption and co-precipitation with iron-bearing minerals, and also possibly precipitation as FeAsO 4 . The presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) in the inoculated column was suggested by decrease of sulfate concentrations and increase of 34 S in the effluent. Arsenic was more effective to immobilize in the inoculated than in the sterilized column due to co-precipitation with sulfides formed by reduction of sulfate in addition sorption and/or co-precipitation with carbonates. The Mn was mainly immobilized through adsorption onto compost and ZVI, and partly by precipitation as carbonates. Manganese was more effectively immobilized in the sterilized than in the inoculated column. Since compost is biodegraded, the capability of compost to immobilize Mn 2þ decreased in the inoculated column. The result demonstrates that As is more effective to immobilize using mixture of sheep manure with ZVI than only ZVI as reactive materials in PRBs.

show abstract

“…Zerovalent iron (ZVI), ferrous and ferrihydrite were investigated for arsenic immobilization in soil. The mechanisms for arsenic uptake by ZVI, ferrous or ferrihydrite have been extensively studied (Bang et al 2005;Tokoro et al 2009;Xenidis et al 2010). Iron-arsenic coprecipitation and surface complexation were the main mechanism for arsenic uptake by iron (oxides).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of chemical immobilization treatments for reducing arsenic transport in red mud

Wang

et al. 2013

Environ Earth Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Red mud (RM) was produced during alumina production from bauxite known as the Bayer process. Arsenic was detected in the solid phase of RM (RMsf) which was disposed in the disposal area. This study investigates the effectiveness of using Zero-valent iron (ZVI), ferrihydrite, ferrous sulfate (FeSO 4 ), waste acid (WA) or CO 2 for immobilization of arsenic in the RMsf. To test the effect of the amendments on the arsenic leachability, the RMsf samples were amended with the iron-based materials or acidifiers at various w/w (weight/ weight) ratios (1-10 %) for 30 days. The leachability of arsenic in the RMsf was evaluated by a 4-step water elusion process. After 30-day treatment of the RMsf, the leachability of As decreased from an initial (12.7 %) to (7.0 %) with a w/w ratio of 5 % ZVI (0 %) with 5 % FeSO 4 Á7H 2 O, (3.4 %) with 5 % ferryhydrite, (2.0 %) with 6 % WA and (11.8 %) with 6 % CO 2 . FeSO 4 Á7H 2 O and WA showed more effectively than other amendments for immobilizing arsenic. Arsenic fractionation with a sequential extraction procedure was used to evaluate the arsenic migration potential in the RMsf. FeSO 4 and WA were effective in increasing the hydrous oxide combined arsenic in the RMsf. The leachable Cl -and SO 4 2-in the RMsf increased from 2.9 to 14.1 mg/g and 19.9-44.4 mg/g with 6 % WA and 5 % FeSO 4 Á7H 2 O added, respectively. The estimated cost of the FeSO 4 and WA treatment was 0.47 and 0.49 USD per ton, respectively.

show abstract

Removal of arsenic from water by zero-valent iron

Cited by 207 publications

References 29 publications

Arsenic removal from aqueous solution using ferrous based red mud sludge

Arsenic removal from aqueous solution using ferrous based red mud sludge

Immobilization of Arsenic and Manganese in Contaminated Groundwater by Permeable Reactive Barriers Using Zero Valent Iron and Sheep Manure

Evaluation of chemical immobilization treatments for reducing arsenic transport in red mud

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About