4.7 Article

Remediation of arsenic contaminated groundwater by electrocoagulation: Process optimization using response surface methodology

期刊

MINERALS ENGINEERING
卷 189, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2022.107881

关键词

Electrocoagulation; Arsenite; Arsenate; Central composite design (CCD); Response surface methodology (RSM); Spectrophotometric testing of arsenic

资金

  1. University Grants Commission (UGC) Delhi [43-314/2014]
  2. UGC-UPE support for the Centre of Emerging Sciences, Guru Nanak Dev University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the optimal conditions for removing elevated arsenic in groundwater through electrocoagulation, using response surface methodology to study arsenic removal efficiency. Confirmation of arsenic removal was done through Raman spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy.
Elevated arsenic in groundwater is a serious health hazard and needs attention. In this study, electrocoagulation was investigated in an effort to find the optimum condition for samples having a mixture of As3+ and As5+. A two-level full factorial design was used to investigate the effects of three independent process variables on the response variable (arsenic removal efficiency), namely (i) pH (6.5-8.5), (ii) As (III) = (100-400) ppb, and (iii) treatment time (2-9) min. Three factors (As3+ concentration, As5+ concentration, and treatment time) were used to design centre composite design (CCD) experiments, and the effect of each variable on arsenic removal efficiency was studied using response surface methodology (RSM) with a fixed current density (CD) of 10 A/m2 and an initial pH of 7.4. Arsenic removal from the samples was confirmed by Raman spectroscopy, which showed the multiple peaks of iron and arsenic compounds in the sludge sample. Arsenic removal was also indicated by the amorphous structure of flocs of iron oxide/hydroxide, observed in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of sludge and evidenced from X-ray diffraction studies.

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