4.5 Review

A comprehensive review of adsorbents for fluoride removal from water: performance, water quality assessment and mechanism

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1ew00232e

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51872181]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review comprehensively summarized and evaluated different types of defluoridation adsorbents developed in the past decade, highlighting their preparation methods and strategies to enhance defluoridation performance. The study also discusses water quality after defluoridation, related influencing factors, fluoride removal mechanisms of different adsorbents, as well as the advantages, disadvantages, prospects, and challenges of different adsorbents.
Excessive intake of fluoride can lead to a series of fluorosis-based diseases, and how to remove the excess fluoride from water is an urgent issue worldwide. Among various defluoridation methods, adsorption is a well-studied and widely used technology due to its simple design, convenient operation and low cost. In this review, we comprehensively summarized and evaluated different kinds of defluoridation adsorbents developed in the last decade, including adsorbents derived from natural minerals, industrial wastes and biomass, metal oxide and hydroxide adsorbents, and carbon-based adsorbents. The preparation methods of adsorbents and the strategies to enhance their defluoridation performance are highlighted. It is found that regulating and controlling the crystalline phases, microstructures and active sites and incorporating other materials to form composites are effective methods to enhance the defluoridation performances of adsorbents. The water quality after defluoridation and related influencing factors are discussed in detail. Moreover, the fluoride removal mechanisms of different adsorbents are outlined and analyzed. Based on the review, the advantages and disadvantages of different adsorbents, as well as the prospects and challenges are also discussed.

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

4.5
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