4.7 Article

Insights on the effects of pH and Fe(II) regeneration during the chromate sequestration by sulfidated zero-valent iron

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 378, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.122115

关键词

Zero-valent iron; Sulfidation; Hexavalent chromium; Fe(II) regeneration; Reduction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878387]
  2. Shandong Key Scientific and Technological Development Plan of China [2017GSF17108]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies showed that Fe(II) acts as the major electron donor when sulfidated zero-valent iron (S-ZVI) is used for reductive removal of pollutants. However, few studies have focused on the utilization efficiency and regeneration rate of Fe(II). In this work, the dynamic interaction between pH and S-ZVI for Cr(VI) removal and Fe(II) production was investigated at several pH levels. It was found that the maximum utilization efficiency and regeneration rate of Fe(II) was obtained at pH 5, which is consistent with the Cr(VI) removal by S-ZVI. To further study the role of Fe(II) in Cr(VI) reduction, an innovative binary correlation analysis between aqueous Cr(VI) and Fe(II) was applied with the addition of 1,10-phenanthroline as a way to control Fe(II) availability for Cr(VI) reduction. The analysis revealed that the Cr(VI) sequestration was initially controlled by Fe-0/FeS and then by Fe (II), which accounts for the majority of the Cr(VI) sequestration. Additionally, the effects of several operational parameters (e.g., S/Fe ratio, S-ZVI dosage and initial concentration of Cr(VI)) on Cr(VI) removal were also evaluated and the results indicated that the removal of Cr(VI) exhibited a bimodal pattern with increasing S/Fe ratio, but followed a unimodal pattern with increase of S-ZVI dosage and chromium concentration. This study sheds additional insight into the dynamic interaction between pH and Fe(II), which is significant for further improving the efficiency of Fe(II) on contaminants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据