4.7 Article

Competitive adsorption of arsenate and phosphate onto calcite; experimental results and modeling with CCM and CD-MUSIC

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 1-13

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2012.06.021

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The competitive adsorption of arsenate and phosphate onto calcite was studied in batch experiments using calcite-equilibrated solutions. The solutions had circum-neutral pH (7-8.3) and covered a wide span in the activity of Ca2+ and CO32-. The results show that the adsorption of arsenate onto calcite is strongly reduced by the presence of phosphate, whereas phosphate adsorption is only slightly reduced by arsenate addition. Simultaneous and sequential addition (3 h apart) yields the same reduction in adsorption, underlining the high reversibility of the system. The reduction in adsorption of both arsenate and phosphate is most likely due to competition for the same sorption sites at the calcite surface, considering the similarity in sorption edges, pK(a)'s and geometry of the two anions. The strong reduction in arsenate adsorption by competition with phosphate suggests that adsorption of arsenate onto calcite is of minor importance in most groundwater aquifers, as phosphate is often present at concentration levels sufficient to significantly reduce arsenate adsorption. The CD-MUSIC model for calcite was used successfully to model adsorption of arsenate and phosphate separately. By combining the models for single sorbate systems the competitive adsorption of phosphate and arsenate onto calcite in the binary system could be predicted. This is in contrast to the constant capacitance model (CCM) which under-predicted the competition when combining the models for single sorbate systems. This study clearly shows the importance of performing competitive adsorption studies for validation of multi-component models and for estimating the mobility of an ion in the environment. (C) 2012 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