Comparison between Different Technologies (Zerovalent Iron, Coagulation-Flocculation, Adsorption) for Arsenic Treatment at High Concentrations

The presence of arsenic in water for human consumption is of concern, especially in developing countries, and the design of simple and economic treatments for arsenic removal is imperative. In this paper, three low-cost technologies were evaluated for As(V) or As(III) (5 mg L-1) removal: (1) zerovalent iron (Fe(0)), as powdered (mu Fe(0)) and iron wool (wFe(0)); (2) coagulation-flocculation with Al-2(SO4)(3) or FeCl3; and (3) adsorption on a natural clay. mu Fe(0) was more efficient than wFe(0), requiring a minimal dose of 0.25 g L-1 to achieve [As(V)] < 0.01 mg L-1 after 288 h; the reaction time was reduced to 168 h under stirring. When starting from As(III), partial oxidation to As(V) was observed, and removal was not complete even after 648 h with 1 g L-1 mu Fe(0). As(V) removal using FeCl3 and Al-2(SO4)(3) was very fast and completed in 15 min with 0.25 g L-1 of both reagents. However, Al-2(SO4)(3) was not efficient to remove As(III). With the clay, doses higher than 50 g L-1 and times longer than 648 h were needed to remove both As species. Arsenic leached from mu Fe(0) used to treat As(III) was almost negligible. Thus, Fe(0) may be the best alternative for low-cost, small-scale applications.

Automated summary

This study evaluated three low-cost technologies for arsenic removal in water: zerovalent iron, coagulation-flocculation, and clay adsorption. The results showed that zerovalent iron was most effective in removing As(V), while coagulation-flocculation and clay adsorption were not efficient for removing As(III).