4.7 Article

Understanding colloidal FeSx formation from iron phosphate precipitation sludge for optimal phosphorus recovery

Journal

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
Volume 403, Issue -, Pages 16-21

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2013.04.001

Keywords

Colloid; Phosphorus recovery; Sulfide; Zeta potential

Funding

  1. University of Queensland
  2. Australian Research Council [LP100200122]
  3. Seqwater
  4. Veolia Water
  5. Australian Research Council [LP100200122] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of sulfide to form iron sulfide precipitates is an attractive option for separation and recovery of phosphorus and ferric iron from ferric phosphate sludge generated in wastewater treatment. The key factors affecting the simultaneous generation and separation of iron sulfide precipitates and phosphate solution from ferric phosphate sludge have so far not been thoroughly investigated. This study therefore focuses on the recovery of phosphorus from synthetic sludge by controlled sulfide addition under different operating conditions. The factors that affect the phosphorus recovery, as well as the optimal process conditions to achieve an effective solid-liquid separation, were investigated. The separation of the FeSx particles is a significant challenge due to the colloidal nature of the particles formed. Faster separation and higher phosphorus recovery was achieved when operating at pH 4 with dosing times of at least 1 h. At this pH, phosphorus recovery of 70 +/- 6% was reached at the stoichiometric S/Fe molar ratio of 1.5, increasing to over 90% recovery at a S/Fe molar ratio of 2.5. Zeta potential results confirmed the colloidal nature of the iron sulfide precipitate, with the isoelectric point around pH 4, explaining the fast separation of the FeSx particles at this pH. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available