| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
Environmental Engineering Research 2011;16(3): 165-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2011.16.3.165
Arsenic Removal from Water Using Various Adsorbents: Magnetic Ion Exchange Resins, Hydrous Ion Oxide Particles, Granular Ferric Hydroxide, Activated Alumina, Sulfur Modified Iron, and Iron Oxide-Coated Microsand
Shahnawaz Sinha1, Gary Amy1, Yeomin Yoon2, and Namguk Her3
1Water Desalination and Reuse Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955-6000, Saudi Arabia
2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
3Department of Chemistry and Environmental Sciences, Korea Army Academy at Young-Cheon, Yeongcheon, Cyeongbuk, 770-849, South
Corresponding Author: Namguk Her ,Tel: +82-54-330 4760, Fax: +82-54-335 5790, Email: namguk@daum.net
Received: February 25, 2011;  Accepted: August 8, 2011.
Share :  
The equilibrium and kinetic adsorption of arsenic on six different adsorbents were investigated with one synthetic and four natural types (two surface and two ground) of water. The adsorbents tested included magnetic ion exchange resins (MIEX), hydrous ion oxide particles (HIOPs), granular ferric hydroxide (GFH), activated alumina (AA), sulfur modified iron (SMI), and iron oxide-coated microsand (IOC-M), which have different physicochemical properties (shape, charge, surface area, size, and metal content). The results showed that adsorption equilibriums were achieved within a contact period of 20 min. The optimal doses of adsorbents determined for a given equilibrium concentration of Ceq = 10 μg/L were 500 mg/L for AA and GFH, 520–1,300 mg/L for MIEX, 1,200 mg/L for HIOPs, 2,500 mg/L for SMI, and 7,500 mg/L for IOC-M at a contact time of 60 min. At these optimal doses, the rate constants of the adsorbents were 3.9, 2.6, 2.5, 1.9, 1.8, and 1.6 1/hr for HIOPs, AA, GFH, MIEX, SMI, and IOC-M, respectively. The presence of silicate significantly reduced the arsenic removal efficiency of HIOPs, AA, and GFH, presumably due to the decrease in chemical binding affinity of arsenic in the presence of silicate. Additional experiments with natural types of water showed that, with the exception of IOC-M, the adsorbents had lower adsorption capacities in ground water than with surface and deionized water, in which the adsorption capacities decreased by approximately 60–95%.
Keywords: Adsorbents | Arsenic removal | Ion effect | Sorption | Water treatment
PDF Links  PDF Links
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
Editorial Office
464 Cheongpa-ro, #726, Jung-gu, Seoul 04510, Republic of Korea
TEL : +82-2-383-9697   FAX : +82-2-383-9654   E-mail : eer@kosenv.or.kr

Copyright© Korean Society of Environmental Engineers. All rights reserved.        Developed in M2community
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers