4.7 Article

Influence of organic matter on arsenic removal by continuous flow electrocoagulation treatment of weakly mineralized waters

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 83, 期 1, 页码 21-28

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.01.038

关键词

Arsenic; Speciation; ECF; CF; Iron; Zeta potential

资金

  1. Regional Council of the Limousin
  2. Association Scientifique et Technique pour l'Eau et l'Environnement (ASTEE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to evaluate and understand the electrocoagulation/flocculation (ECF) process to remove arsenic from both model and natural waters with low mineral content and to compare its performances to the coagulation/flocculation (CF) process already optimized. Experiments were thus conducted with iron electrodes in the same specific treatment conditions (4 <= current density (mA cm(-2)) <= 33) to study the influence of organic matter on arsenic removal in conditions avoiding the oxidation step usually required to improve As(III) removal. The process performance was evaluated by combining quantification of arsenic residual concentrations and speciation and dissolved organic carbon residual concentrations with zeta potential and turbidity measurements. When compared to CF, ECF presented several disadvantages: (i) lower As(V) removal yield because of the ferrous iron dissolved from the anode and the subsequent negative zeta potential of the colloidal suspension, (ii) higher residual DOC concentrations because of the fractionation of high molecular weight compounds during the treatment leading to compounds less prone to coagulate and (iii) higher residual turbidities because of the charge neutralization mechanisms involved. However, during this process, As(III) was oxidized to As(V) improving considerably its removal whatever the matrix conditions. ECF thus allowed to improve As(III) removal without applying an oxidation step that could potentially lead to the formation of toxic oxidation byproducts. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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