Comparative efficiency of peanut shell and peanut shell biochar for removal of arsenic from water
- 126 Downloads
Contamination of surface water and groundwater streams with carcinogenic chemicals such as arsenic (As) has been a major environmental issue worldwide, and requires significant attention to develop new and low-cost sorbents to treat As-polluted water. In the current study, arsenite (As(III)) and arsenate (As(V)) removal efficiency of peanut shell biochar (PSB) was compared with peanut shell (PS) in aqueous solutions. Sorption experiments showed that PSB possessed relatively higher As removal efficiency than PS, with 95% As(III) (at pH 7.2) and 99% As(V) (at pH 6.2) with 0.6 g L−1 sorbent dose, 5 mg L−1 initial As concentration, and 2 h equilibrium time. Experimental data followed a pseudo-second-order model for sorption kinetics showing the dominance of chemical interactions (surface complexation) between As and surface functional groups. The Langmuir model for sorption isotherm indicated that As was sorbed via a monolayer sorption process. The X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy analyses revealed that the hydroxyl (–OH) and aromatic surface functional (C=O, C=C–C, and –C–H) groups contributed significantly in the sorption of both As species from aqueous solutions through surface complexation and/or electrostatic reactions. We demonstrate that the pyrolysis of abandoned PS yields a novel, low-cost, and efficient biochar which provides dual benefits of As-rich water treatment and a value-added sustainable strategy for solid waste disposal.
KeywordsArsenic Biochar Sorption Peanut shell XPS Speciation
The authors thank the Center of Nanotechnology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for providing the analytical facility.
The study received financial support from the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan (Project No. 1430/SRGP/R&D/HEC/2016) and Government College University Faisalabad, Pakistan. Dr Nabeel Khan Niazi is thankful to the University of Agriculture Faisalabad and University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
- Ahmad M, Lee SS, Rajapaksha AU, Vithanage M, Zhang M, Cho JS, Lee S-E, Ok YS (2013) Trichloroethylene adsorption by pine needle biochars produced at various pyrolysis temperatures. Biomagn Res Technol 143:615–622Google Scholar
- Cheraghi M, Lorestani B, Merrikhpour H, Mosaed HP (2013) Assessment efficiency of tea wastes in arsenic removal from aqueous solution. Desal Water Treat:1–6Google Scholar
- García-Rosales G, Longoria-Gándara L, Cruz-Cruz G, Olayo-González M, Mejía-Cuero R, Pérez PÁ (2018) Fe-TiOx nanoparticles on pineapple peel: synthesis, characterization and As (V) sorption. Environ Nanotechnol Monit Manag 9:112–121Google Scholar
- IARC (2004) Some drinking-water disinfectants and contaminants, including arsenic. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 84:1–477Google Scholar
- Luqman M, Javed MM, Yasar A, Ahmad J, Khan A (2013) An overview of sustainable techniques used for arsenic removal from drinking water in rural areas of the Indo-Pak subcontinent. Soil and Environ 32:87–95Google Scholar
- Mohan D, Pittman CU Jr, Bricka M, Smith F, Yancey B, Mohammad J, Steele PH, Alexandre-Franco MF, Gomez-Serrano V, Gong H (2007) Sorption of arsenic, cadmium, and lead by chars produced from fast pyrolysis of wood and bark during bio-oil production. J Colloid Interface Sci 310:57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Niazi NK, Bibi I, Shahid M, Ok YS, Shaheen SM, Rinklebe J, Wang H, Murtaza B, Islam E, Nawaz MF (2018b) Arsenic removal by Japanese oak wood biochar in aqueous solutions and well water: investigating arsenic fate using integrated spectroscopic and microscopic techniques. Sci Total Environ 621:1642–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Qayyum MF, Abid M, Danish S, Saeed MK, Ali MA (2015) Effects of various biochars on seed germination and carbon mineralization in an alkaline soil. Pakistan J Agric Sci 51:977–982Google Scholar
- Raza M, Hussain F, Lee J-Y, Shakoor MB, Kwon KD (2017) Groundwater status in Pakistan: a review of contamination, health risks, and potential needs. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol:1–50Google Scholar
- WHO (2008): Guidelines for drinking-water quality. T, pp. 306Google Scholar