4.6 Review

Versatility, Cost Analysis, and Scale-up in Fluoride and Arsenic Removal Using Metal-organic Framework-based Adsorbents

Journal

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION REVIEWS
Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 408-426

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15422119.2021.1956539

Keywords

Metal-organic framework; adsorption; arsenic removal; fluoride removal; fixed bed sorption; cost analysis

Funding

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are a novel approach for fluoride and arsenic removal, with high surface area, versatile building blocks and numerous active sites. Despite the lower yield compared to conventional adsorbents, MOFs' high adsorption capacity, tailored chemical structure, and ionic uptake of fluoride and arsenic make them a more favorable option than many other adsorbents. The cost of different MOFs usually varies between 0.1 and 5 US$/g depending on the synthesis routes.
Fluoride and arsenic are hazardous inorganic contaminants due to associated health risks and relatively higher levels of occurrence in groundwater. Metal-organic frameworks, (MOFs) with their high surface area, versatile building blocks and numerous active sites, are a novel approach to fluoride and arsenic uptake. This review presents the different types of MOFs for fluoride and arsenic removal along with a study of dynamic breakthrough times and cost analysis. MOF performances are based on a variety of synthesis methods, notable among which solvothermal one is more described. However, all research works concluded that MOFs have poor yield compared to conventional adsorbents. But, their high adsorption capacity, tailored chemical structure and ionic uptake of fluoride and arsenic make them a more favorable option than many other adsorbents. The cost of different MOFs usually varies between 0.1 and 5 US$/g depending on the synthesis routes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available