4.7 Article

Removal of arsenate from water by coagulation with in situ formed versus pre-formed Fe(III)

Journal

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
Volume 115, Issue -, Pages 198-204

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2013.05.016

Keywords

Arsenate; Coagulation; Fe(III) formed in situ; Floc properties

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [0400219206]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse Foundation [PCRRY11001]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation [50908060, 21277095]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study the performance of Fe(III) formed in situ, generated by oxidizing Fe(II) with H2O2 or KMnO4 (denoted as H2O2-Fe(II) or KMnO4-Fe(II) process), for As(V) removal was compared with FeCl3 coagulation and the mechanisms were explored. The optimum oxidant/Fe(II) molar ratios for the H2O2-Fe(II) and KMnO4-Fe(II) processes were 1:2 and 1:3, respectively. The advantage of Fe(III) formed in situ over preformed Fe(III) for As(V) removal was strongly dependent on the Fe/As ratio and the advantage became less significant at high Fe/As ratio. The hydrolysis of Fe(III) formed in situ generated much more Fe-b species than the pre-formed Fe(III) did. Moreover, Fe(III) formed in situ hydrolyzed more slowly and generated flocs with smaller size compared to the pre-formed Fe(III) did over the pH range of 6.0-8.0. An introduction of high shear force for 1 min in the flocculation stage to break the aggregates into small particles enhanced the uptake of As(V) by pre-formed Fe(III) to a larger extent than that by Fe(III) formed in situ. The good performance of Fe(III) formed in situ for As(V) removal should be ascribed primarily to slow floc aggregation rate and small floc size and secondly to the formation of large amount of polymeric hydrolysis species. Crown Copyright (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. 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