Comparative study on the effectiveness of natural coagulant aids and commercial coagulant: removal of arsenic from water
A novel cellulose and chitosan-based natural biopolymer or coagulant aids with a commercial coagulant (ferric chloride FeCl3) have been used for the removal of arsenite As(III) from synthetic tap water at 2 mg/L of initial arsenic concentration by coagulation–flocculation method. The maximum As(III) removal efficiency of 69.25% was obtained without coagulant aids at 40 mg/L concentration of FeCl3. The addition of cellulose and chitosan with FeCl3 enhanced the removal efficiency of As(III). The percentage of As(III) removal reached 84.62 and 74.87% at the concentration of 1 and 1.5 mg/L for cellulose and chitosan, respectively, with 25 mg/L of fixed FeCl3 concentration. Comparable As(III) removal efficiencies were obtained using cellulose, chitosan, and FeCl3. Moreover, As(III) removal efficiency of cellulose was significantly found greater (p < 0.01) than chitosan and comparable to that of FeCl3 (p < 0.01). In addition, the maximum percentage of As(III) removal was found at the pH range of 6–8.
KeywordsCoagulation–flocculation Arsenite removal Natural biopolymer Commercial coagulant
The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Institute of Technology (NIT) Patna, India, for the financial support. We would also like to thank the Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Patna, India, for providing laboratory facilities for this work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- Ahmed MF (2001) An overview of arsenic removal technologies in Bangladesh and India. In: Proceedings of BUET-UNU international workshop on technologies for arsenic removal from drinking water, DhakaGoogle Scholar
- Ahmed F, Jalil MA, Ali MA, Hossain MD, Badruzzaman ABM (2000) An overview of arsenic removal technologies in BUET. In: Ahmed MF (ed) Bangladesh environment. Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon, Dhaka, pp 177–188Google Scholar
- APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Dimitrovski DV, Bozinovski ZLJ, Lisichkov KT, Kuvendziev SV (2012) Arsenic removal through coagulation and flocculation from contaminated water in Macedonia. Zaštita Mater 53:57–61Google Scholar
- Ghosh A, Singh SK, Bose N, Chowdhary S (2007) Arsenic contaminated aquifers: a study of the Ganga levee zone in Bihar, India. In: Symposium on arsenic: the geography of a global problem. Royal Geographical Society, London, pp 29–31Google Scholar
- Gregor J (2001) Arsenic removal during conventional aluminium-based drinking water treatment. Water Resour 35:1659–1664Google Scholar
- Hering JG, Elimelech M (1996) Arsenic removal by enhanced coagulation and membrane processes. Am Water Works Assoc, DenverGoogle Scholar
- O’Connor JT (2002) Arsenic in drinking water. Part 2: human exposure and health effects. Water Eng Manag 149(3):35–37Google Scholar
- Pande SP, Deshpande LS, Patni PM, Lutade SL (1997) Arsenic removal studies in some groundwaters of West Bengal, India. J Environ Sci Health 7:1981–1987Google Scholar
- Saha KC (1984) Melanokeratosis rom arsenic contaminated tubewell water. Indian J Dermatol 29:37–46Google Scholar
- Saha AK, Chakraborti C, De S (1997) Studies of genesis of arsenic in groundwater in parts of West Bengal. Indian Soc Earth Sci 24:1–5Google Scholar
- Wang LK, Hung YT, Shammas NK (2005) Handbook of environmental engineering, vol 3. Physicochemical treatment processes. Humana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wilson LD (2014) An overview of coagulation–flocculation technology. Water Cond Purif Manag 56:28–34Google Scholar