4.8 Article

Fluoride Removal from Brackish Groundwaters by Constant Current Capacitive Deionization (CDI)

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 19, Pages 10570-10579

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03307

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Beijing Origin Water
  3. Western Australian Water Corporation
  4. Northern Territory Power Water
  5. Water Research Australia [LP130101107]
  6. Australian Research Council [LP130101107] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Charging capacitive deionization (CDI) at constant voltage (CV) produces an effluent stream in which ion concentrations vary with time. Compared to CV, charging CDI at constant current (CC) has several advantage, particularly a stable and adjustable effluent ion concentration. In this work, the feasibility of removing fluoride from brackish groundwaters by single-pass constant-current (SPCC) CDI in both zero-volt and reverse-current desorption modes was investigated and a model developed to describe the selective electrosorption of fluoride and chloride. It was found that chloride is preferentially removed from the bulk solution during charging. Both experimental and theoretical results are presented showing effects of operating parameters, including adsorption/desorption current, pump flow rate and fluoride/chloride feed concentrations, on the effluent fluoride concentration, average fluoride adsorption rate and water recovery. Effects of design parameters are also discussed using the validated model. Finally, we describe a possible CDI assembly in which, under appropriate conditions, fluoride water quality targets can be met. The model developed here adequately describes the experimental results obtained and shows how change in the selected system design and operating conditions may impact treated water quality.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available