Comparison of different iron oxide adsorbents for combined arsenic, vanadium and fluoride removal from drinking water
- 71 Downloads
Contamination of groundwater by arsenic due to natural processes is rather common worldwide and hinders its use for drinking water supply. In many cases, arsenic contamination is found together with high levels of vanadium and fluoride. Therefore, more than one type of treatment is required to reduce concentrations of all these contaminants below non-hazardous levels so to make the source drinkable. The present study investigated the uptake capacity of arsenic, vanadium and fluoride by three iron-based adsorbent media differing for particle size, iron content and specific surface. The aim of the treatment was to achieve the maximum allowable concentration set on drinking water by the law. The removal efficiency was evaluated in single and binary contaminated solutions. All the tested adsorbents demonstrated an efficient and rapid removal process of both arsenic and vanadium in the single and binary solutions, with a higher adsorption capacity for vanadium; by contrast, they were unable to achieve an appreciable reduction in fluoride concentration. The particle size showed to have the highest effect on the removal rate. The best kinetic and isotherm models and the related parameters were determined for each condition. In the binary solutions, the presence of vanadium hindered the uptake of arsenic, whereas fluoride did not have any effect. The results obtained showed that the iron-based adsorbents tested in the present study can be successfully applied for the treatment of drinking water contaminated by arsenic and vanadium, whereas a different medium or process needs to be adopted for the removal of fluoride.
KeywordsAdsorption Arsenic Fluoride Drinking water Iron oxide Vanadium
None external financial support was received for the research.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- APHA, AWWA, WEF (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21 edn. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2012) Toxicological profile for vanadiumGoogle Scholar
- Chinoy NJ (1991) Effects of fluoride on physiology of animals and human beings. Indian J Environ Toxicol 1:17–32Google Scholar
- D.Lgs. 31/2001 (2001) Decreto legislativo 2 Febbraio 2001, n. 31, attuazione della direttiva 98/83/CE relativa alla qualità delle acque destinate al consumo umano. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 52 del 03-03-2001Google Scholar
- Ergul S, Ferranti F, Sappa G (2013) Arsenic in the aquifer systems of Viterbo Region, Central Italy: distribution and geochemistry. Rend Online Soc Geol It 24:116–118Google Scholar
- EU Directive 98/83/EC (1998) Council Directive of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. Official Journal of the European Union L 330, 32 (5.12.1998)Google Scholar
- IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer (2004) Some drinking-water disinfectants and contaminants, including arsenic, vol. 84. IARC Monographs, LyonGoogle Scholar
- Mohan D, Pittman CU Jr, Bricka M, Smith F, Yancey B, Mohammad J, Steeke PH, Alexandre-Franco MF, Gómez-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(1):57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tchieda VK, D’Amato E, Chiavola A, Parisi M, Chianese A, Amamra M, Kanaev A (2016) Removal of arsenic by alumina: effects of material size, additives, and water contaminants. Clean 44(5):496–505Google Scholar
- WHO World Health Organization (2011) Guidelines for drinking-water quality. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- WRC (2001) Distribution of fluoride-rich groundwater in Eastern and Mogwase region of Northern and North-west province. WRC Report No. 526/1/01 1.1-9.85 PretoriaGoogle Scholar