4.8 Review

Arsenic Waste Management: A Critical Review of Testing and Disposal of Arsenic-Bearing Solid Wastes Generated during Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 19, Pages 10799-10812

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es401749b

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Water Research Foundation [4293]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation [CBET 0967707]
  3. Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute
  4. University of Michigan
  5. Directorate For Engineering [0967707] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0967707] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Water treatment technologies for arsenic removal from groundwater have been extensively studied due to widespread arsenic contamination of drinking water sources. Central to the successful application of arsenic water treatment systems is the consideration of appropriate disposal methods for arsenic-bearing wastes generated during treatment. However, specific recommendations for arsenic waste disposal are often lacking or mentioned as an area for future research and the proper disposal and stabilization of arsenic-bearing waste remains a barrier to the successful implementation of arsenic removal technologies. This review summarizes current disposal options for arsenic-bearing wastes, including landfilling, stabilization, cow dung mixing, passive aeration, pond disposal, and soil disposal. The findings from studies that simulate these disposal conditions are included and compared to results from shorter, regulatory tests. In many instances, short-term leaching tests do not adequately address the range of conditions encountered in disposal environments. Future research directions are highlighted and include establishing regulatory test conditions that align with actual disposal conditions and evaluating nonlandfill disposal options for developing countries.

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