homework

Arsenic and radium

Several factors determine the level of arsenic and radium (As) in arsenic-contaminated water, including its chemistry and initial composition (Oke, Olarinoye, & Adewusi, , 2017). Arsenic (III) is the majority of the time noncharged at pH below 9.2, which makes most techniques for removing arsenic and radium from water ineffective for removing As (V) (de la Paix, Lanhai, de Dieu, & John, 2012).

The process of converting arsenic and radium from an aqueous to a solid state does not involve degrading it. Instead, it only involves separating it from water or converting it from an aqueous to a solid state (Choudhury, 2014). Because of its severe harmful effects on the body, removing arsenic and radium from streams of water is a serious research subject. In conferences, debates, and publications, arsenic and radium has drawn considerable attention for more than a decade. Scientists, among other things, aimed to develop a technology that was more efficient, less expensive, and easy to use (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012). Consequently, five technologies have emerged in a large grouping, which may be grouped as follows: ion exchange , adsorption , coagulation / flocculation , oxidation and membrane techniques (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013).

Streams of water contain contaminants like radium and arsenic (As), which is easily removed through membrane technology (de la Paix, Lanhai, de Dieu, & John, 2012). An membrane is a synthetic material with millions of pores that provides selective barriers. Membranes therefore prevent some water components from passing through. Between the feed side and the permeate side, there must be a transmembrane pressure (TMP) (Thy, My, Tuong, Chi, Tu, Ha, Nam, Phong, & Hieu, , 2020). A low-pressure membrane consists of a microfiltration membrane and an ultrafiltration membrane, while a high-pressure membrane is a reverse osmosis membrane (Sun, Hu, Hu, Qu, J & Yang, 2012). The number of publications describing different methods of removing radium and arsenic has been examined over time. As well, nanofiltration membranes seem to have attracted more interest over the past ten years, as many studies have been conducted on this type of membrane compared to the other membrane types (MF, UF, and RO) (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012). It may not be a completely accurate and exhaustive method, but it has indisputable effectiveness..

Rejection mechanism of radium and arsenic through NF membranes

As (V) rejection from contaminated water is a great benefit of nanofiltration membranes (NF). They separate multivalent ions from monovalent ions (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012). Water purification and radium and arsenic rejection levels on NF membranes are different (Liang, Zhang, & Zheng, 2013). A fixed surface charge is created by dissociating surface groups (e.g. sulfonated ions or carboxyl acids) in commercial NF membranes, which allow ion separation by combining electric effects, pores, and ion interactions (Maryudi, Amelia, & Salamah, 2019).

Interfacial and micro-hydrodynamic events at the surface, including within the nanopores, are reported to play a crucial role in the NF rejection mechanism (Maryudi, Amelia, & Salamah, 2019). Dielectric, Donnan, and steric effects combine to determine NF membrane's removal performance. In addition to pointing out the equilibria, the Donnan effect also shows how dynamic interactions could occur between the membrane surface and the charged species present inside the feed solution as a result of the Donnan effect (Choudhury, 2014).

Steric exclusion prevents neutral solutes from being transported through ultrafiltration (UF) membranes and has already been well established through a number of studies (Alfonso Tobón, & Branda, 2019). Membranes with NF structure have surfaces with ionizing functional groups, as well as pores with ions. According to the nanoparticles (NPs) materials used during preparation, these functional groups could be basic or acidic (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018). Dissociation of such surface groups was demonstrated to be strongly influenced by the pH of the solution, since an membrane may display an isoelectric point at a particular pH value. Further, Afonso et al. have demonstrated that nanofiltration membranes have weak ion-exchange capabilities, and even on occasion, ions from the feed solution can adsorb to the NFM surface, which changes the membrane charge (Kocabaş, , & Yürüm, 2017).

Electrostatic attraction and repulsion forces on localized ionic surroundings are a direct consequence of the aforementioned dielectric phenomena, which depend on the fixed charge of the membrane and the ion valence in solution (Choudhury, 2014). Due to competing hypotheses that attempt to explain obscurely why dielectric exclusion occurs, the exact nature of the interaction is not well understood (Oke, Olarinoye, & Adewusi, , 2017). In the first hypothesis, image forces are described as a phenomenon, while in the second hypothesis, an energy barrier is referred to as a mechanism relating to solvation (Thy, My, Tuong, Chi, Tu, Ha, Nam, Phong, & Hieu, , 2020). Nano-length scales and extreme spatial confinement are responsible for these two exclusion phenomena, which were investigated in detail during the NFM separation mechanism (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012).

Solvent passing by the pores' structure disrupted solute molecules that were freely moving in the feed solution (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012). The local environment has a significant impact on the transportation of this solute across the nanopore structure, so it can be reasonably considered a hindrance (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012).

The limitations in measurement technologies, as well as the lack of knowledge regarding the surface properties and structural characterization of the NFMs layer, have resulted in a significant debate as it has been understood that the NFM layer is close to atomic length scale in dimensions (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018). Dielectric exclusion is a phenomenon that is particularly disputed.

Currently, most NFMs appear to have porous active films based on satisfactory results (Babaee, Mulliga & Rahaman, 2017). To achieve the characterization of these pores, three main methodologies are used:

a) Indirect measurements of pore size can also be made using neutral solute removal models and adsorption/desorption methods such as Brunauer Emmett-Teller (BET) technique (Cheng,Zhang, & Ni, 2019).

b) AFM is used for direct measurement of pore size, surface roughness, and topography using reverse surface impregnation (RSI) combined with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018).

Cost evaluation of NF membranes in drinking water

Water softening with NF membranes is increasingly common, even for the removal of color and disinfection byproducts (DBP), especially where monovalent ion rejection is minimal and membrane pressure is low relative to RO membranes (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013). The permeate water generated by nanofiltration requires less stabilization to minimize distribution system corrosion, which is why it is preferred over reverse osmosis because the waste stream is more dilute, and the concentrate waste stream is more dilute (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012).

Several studies have shown that NF processing technology is the most appropriate technology for both hardness and organic rejections, despite the fact that this is not always the most cost-effective process (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013). In addition to being an effective method for treating drinking water, it has also been demonstrated in several studies that non-ionizing filters are effective technologies for treating wastewater at large facilities (Kocabaş, , & Yürüm, 2017). It is, however, during the winter season when the filters become fouled severely due to the changing organic matter properties and microbial activity (Thy, My, Tuong, Chi, Tu, Ha, Nam, Phong, & Hieu, , 2020). Chemical rejection using NF membranes has also been done for fluoride and pesticides, emerging organic contaminants, oxianions (including bromate, perchlorate, phosphate, sulfate) and heavy metals (de la Paix, Lanhai, de Dieu, & John, 2012).

Several options for the treatment of drinking water have been investigated for the purpose of cost comparison. Three different processes were used to calculate water costs:

(i) The application of lime and soda ash;

(ii) a combination of lime and soda ash in combination with ozonation and granular activated carbon for color removal);

(iii) NF membranes were used. Two different methods were used to evaluate NF membranes' cost, including the EPA method.

Two main conclusions were drawn from this investigation. It has been reported in the literature that NF is more cost-effective for smaller treatment plants (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018). Comparatively to technologies involving ozonation, lime soda, or granular-activated carbon (GAC), NF membrane systems produce water at a lower price when highly colored water is being treated (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012).

Commercial NF Membranes

As removal with nanofiltration (NF) membranes Nanofiltration (NF) membranes have developed dramatically since their introduction in the late 1980s. In 1993/1994, NF membranes were used to remove As (Choudhury, 2014) . Early NF membranes with thin film composites (TFC) removed 97 percent of AsV in these studies (Kumar Maji, & Pal, 2017). There have been several types and qualities of commercial NF membranes used since then, including: NF-45, NF70 4040-B, HL-4040F1550, 4040-UHA-ESNA, ES-10, NTR-7250, NTR-729HF, BQ01, NTR-729HF, NF-90, NF-200, NE 90, NF 300. Based on the studies that have been conducted so far relating to the removal of As by nanofiltration at various operational conditions, Table above shows the rejection percentage for both arsenate and arsenite, though most of them focused on arsenate only (Sun, Hu, Hu, Qu, J & Yang, 2012).

Synthesized and Modified NF Membranes for As Removal 

Nanofiltration membranes based on thin film composites have shown significant improvement over commercially available membranes so far (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013). The performance of NF membranes can be improved by various membrane fabrication techniques and innovative modification methods in addition to commercially available NF membranes (Babaee, Mulliga & Rahaman, 2017). A substantial improvement in NF would be: (a) the ability to separate, reject, and permeate; (b) the capacity to reduce fouling; (c) the ability to improve membrane lifetime and chemical resistance; and (d) the ability to reduce costs. Two of the most practical and useful techniques for NF modification are interfacial polymerization (IP) and grafting polymerization (GP) (Kocabaş, , & Yürüm, 2017).

Currently, thin film nanocomposite-NF (TFC-NF) is used to make NF membranes. A membrane that is typically made up of an ultrafiltration (UF) or microfiltration (MF) membrane and an active layer is deposited on top of a porous support layer (e.g., polyamide, PA, USA) (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012). In most cases, an IP and GP technique is used to form the active layer on the support membrane (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013). IP is usually achieved by inverting the phase before initiating the interfacial polymerization process in order to produce TFC membranes. There is no doubt that the active layer of the TFC-NF membrane has a great deal of influence on the performance of the membrane in terms of permeance and selectivity (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018). With such TFC structures, it is possible to produce membranes with high mechanical integrity and scalability at an affordable price and with strong mechanical integrity at the same time (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012).

Limitations and future prospects of nanofiltration membrane fabrication

There were different methods developed for the fabrication of nanofiltration membranes based on the pore size of the membranes (1–10 microns) (de la Paix, Lanhai, de Dieu, & John, 2012). Polymeric nanofiltration membranes are most commonly manufactured through interfacial polymerization. As mentioned in the previous section, different types of NF membrane for radium and arsenic removal have been made using the interfacial polymerization method (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018). Ultrafiltration membrane substrates are used in this process to support the selective membrane layer. TFC is the structure in which it is formed. A reactive monomer reacts with another monomer to form the thin layer (Thy, My, Tuong, Chi, Tu, Ha, Nam, Phong, & Hieu, , 2020).

It has been successfully used in TFC-NF to form thin active film layers using the IP method by reacting polyvinylamine with trimesoyl chloride (TMC), isophthaloyl chloride, or tannic acid, diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine (TETA), tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), piperazidine (PIP), or polyvinylamine with trimesoyl chloride (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018). It has been successful to prepare NF membranes with excellent bacteria inhibition characteristics using polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride (PHGH) as a monomer (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018).

Adsorption method

Adsorption Media

A pressure vessel filled with adsorptive granular media can remove radium and arsenic from untreated water (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013). Negatively charged arsenic V ions and positively charged media particles adsorb on the surfaces of water passing through the media. Adsorption media are currently available in a variety of forms, including activated alumina (AA), titanium based media, zirconium based media, and iron based sorbents. Iron-based materials and modified activated alumina are the two most commonly used media (Cheng,Zhang, & Ni, 2019).

Adsorption media treatment is attractive for first-time radium and arsenic removal systems due to several factors, including good removal efficiency (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018).

It is recommended that an empty bed contact time of 3 minutes to 10 minutes be used with adsorptive media systems, with a median of around 5 minutes (Kocabaş, , & Yürüm, 2017). As the bed depth varies with vessel size, it generally ranges from 3 to 6 feet. If the bed needs to expand by 15 to 50% during backwash, there is space left in the bed for that expansion (Kumar Maji, & Pal, 2017). The media bed material normally needs to be backwashed to remove particulates and distribute it throughout the system. The vendor's recommendations must, however, be followed to ensure optimal performance (Thy, My, Tuong, Chi, Tu, Ha, Nam, Phong, & Hieu, , 2020).

Radium and arsenic is present in small concentrations in the liquid residuals from all adsorption media after backwashing (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013). As with solid waste, spent media must be disposed of in a safe manner as well.

Iron Based Sorbents

In AA pressure vessels, iron based adsorbent granular media are used for radium and arsenic adsorption (Thy, My, Tuong, Chi, Tu, Ha, Nam, Phong, & Hieu, , 2020). Neither best available technology (BAT) nor small system compliance technology (SSCT) was listed in the Arsenic Rule due to limited performance research (Thy, My, Tuong, Chi, Tu, Ha, Nam, Phong, & Hieu, , 2020).

Radium and arsenic removal with iron-based media has been shown to be effective in recent studies, including those conducted by the EPA Arsenic Treatment Technology Demonstration Program (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012).

As compared to AA, iron media have a strong affinity for radium and arsenic at natural pH levels (Thy, My, Tuong, Chi, Tu, Ha, Nam, Phong, & Hieu, , 2020). Using iron-based sorbents without pH adjustment allows them to treat larger bed volumes. In addition, lower pH values are optimal for optimal performance, similar to AA (Sun, Hu, Hu, Qu, J & Yang, 2012). Depending on the circumstances, pH adjustment can be advantageous or disadvantageous. Addition of chemicals for pH adjustment raises operators' skill levels and introduces additional concerns, such as hazardous chemicals handling, as well as possible consequences for systems' compliance with lead and copper laws (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012).

When selecting a treatment strategy, raw water characteristics must be considered for possible interference (Oke, Olarinoye, & Adewusi, , 2017). There is an aggressive competition between phosphorus and silica for A(V) adsorption sites. In general, phosphate concentrations above 0.2 mg/L will result in approximately 30% loss in adsorption capacity (Maryudi, Amelia, & Salamah, 2019).

In general, iron-based sorbents are disposed of after use. In this way, solid waste and backwash water will be generated (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018). The treatment plant can easily recycle backwash water. In accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), exhausted iron based sorbents media cannot be disposed of in a landfill, thus allowing them to be recycled (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013).

Activated Alumina

Aluminum-based material is used in the AA process as a porous, granular sorption medium (Maryudi, Amelia, & Salamah, 2019). Adsorption of AA in packed-beds is used in drinking water treatment to remove organic matter and fluoride. One or more beds can be continually perfused with water under pressure to remove As(V) by adsorption (Kumar Maji, & Pal, 2017). A system's efficiency and economy are determined by factors like the characteristics of the water, whether the As(III) is preoxidized to As(V), and how much suspended solids are present in the water (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018). radium and arsenic removal with AA has a long history, but it is rarely used as an radium and arsenic adsorptive media today because newer technologies, such as modified AA, treat much larger bed volumes without adjusting pH (Choudhury, 2014).

The removal process of radium and arsenic is interfered with by several constituents of water, which compete for adsorption sites or clog the media with particulates. According to the table below, the most widely recognized characteristics of water quality that interfere with the removal of radium and arsenic are listed in Table 1 (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013).

Table 1: Water Quality Interferences with Activated Alumina Adsorption

Media containing modified activated alumina come in several varieties.

A modified AA system is typically made up of iron which makes it more cost-effective, more effective at removing radium and arsenic , and can have greater adsorptive capacities (Halim, Hoque, , Hossain, , Saadat, , Goni, & Islam, 2018).

Even in the presence of interfering substances and high pH conditions, many of these media are capable of removing high levels of radium and arsenic (Oke, Olarinoye, & Adewusi, , 2017).

The capacity of AA to remove radium and arsenic depends on pH. Arsenic adsorption capacity decreases with decreasing pH ranges outside of pH 5.0 - 6.0 (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012).

The backwash, caustic regeneration, neutralization, and rinse steps produce liquid waste if the machine is running in a regeneration mode (Chowdhury, & Yanful, 2013). Additionally, the media will be forced to be disposed of after each regeneration, as their adsorption capacity will decrease with each regeneration (Soner Altundoğan, Altundoğan, Tümen, , & Bildik, 2012). A municipal landfill can accept solid waste that has been generated from the disposal of throw-away media if the waste is tested for its ability to be disposed of in a municipal landfill prior to disposal (Sun, Hu, Hu, Qu, J & Yang, 2012).

In order to remove radium and arsenic, adsorption is most commonly used since there are a variety of advantages associated with this technology, including relatively high radium and arsenic removal efficiencies, a low operating cost, ease of handling, and no sludge production (Alfonso Tobón, & Branda, 2019). Arsenate adsorption occurs at low pH, while arsenite adsorption is most effective at pH 4-9. Adsorption of radium and arsenic is strongly influenced by the system's concentration and pH (Babaee, Mulliga & Rahaman, 2017). It is important to note that radium and arsenic does not appear to be the only ion. Contained in contaminated water are a variety of other ions, including phosphate and silicate, which compete for the same adsorption sites as radium and arsenic (Cheng,Zhang, & Ni, 2019) . Adsorption in radium and arsenic removal is also hindered by the type of adsorbent used, in addition to the conditions in the system, which may also affect the effectiveness of the adsorption process. There has already been research carried out on a number of adsorbents to remove radium and arsenic from water as indicated in the Table above (Cheng,Zhang, & Ni, 2019). A common problem with conventional adsorbents is that they have irregular pore structures and minimal specific surface areas, which makes them ineffective at adsorbing substances. In addition, these sorbents are limited in their ability to lower radium and arsenic concentrations to levels below MCL by a lack of selectivity, relatively weak interaction with metallic ions, and regeneration difficulties (Cheng,Zhang, & Ni, 2019).

Conclusion

Recent consumer awareness has also increased of the importance of eco-friendly products and processes, as well as the environment. The purpose of this chapter is therefore to review earlier research conducted on standardizing natural radium and arsenic extraction techniques, mordanting, process variables, and even natural finishing.

Adsorbents used for the removal of radium and arsenic from water have been discussed in this study in terms of their relative advantages and disadvantages. An overview of the mechanism involved with the adsorption of radium and arsenic to iron-containing adsorbents has been presented. The use of adsorption processes for removing radium and arsenic species from groundwater has made significant progress and is proving to be a highly effective method for making potable water more accessible to rural populations through the removal of radium and arsenic species from groundwater by practical means.

References

Alfonso Tobón, L. L., & Branda, M. M. (2019). Predicting the adsorption capacity of iron nanoparticles with metallic impurities (Cu, Ni and Pd) for arsenic removal: a DFT study. Adsorption. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10450-019-00177-4

Babaee, Y., Mulligan, C. N., & Rahaman, M. S. (2017). Removal of arsenic (III) and arsenic (V) from aqueous solutions through adsorption by Fe/Cu nanoparticles. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 93(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5320

Cheng, R., Zhang, H., & Ni, H. (2019). Arsenic Removal from Arsenopyrite-Bearing Iron Ore and Arsenic Recovery from Dust Ash by Roasting Method. Processes, 7(10), 754. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7100754

Choudhury, T. (2014). Arsenic (III) Removal from Real-Life Groundwater by Adsorption on Neem Bark (Azadirachta indica). International Research Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry, 4(6), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.9734/irjpac/2014/2713

Chowdhury, S. R., & Yanful, E. K. (2013). Arsenic removal from aqueous solutions by adsorption on magnetite nanoparticles. Water and Environment Journal, 25(3), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2010.00242.x

de la Paix, M. J., Lanhai, L., de Dieu, H. J., & John, M. N. (2012). Plant algae method for arsenic removal from arsenic contaminated groundwater. Water Science and Technology, 65(5), 927–931. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.875

Halim, M. A., Hoque, S. A. M. W., Hossain, M. K., Saadat, A. H. M., Goni, M. A., & Islam, M. S. (2018). Arsenic Removal Properties of Laterite Soil by Adsorption Filtration Method. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(20), 3757–3760. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2008.3757.3760

Kocabaş, Z. Ö., & Yürüm, Y. (2017). Evaluation of the Adsorption Potential of Synthesized Anatase Nanoparticles for Arsenic Removal. MRS Proceedings, 1317. https://doi.org/10.1557/opl.2011.381

Kumar Maji, S., & Pal, A. (2017). Adsorption Based Technologies for Arsenic Removal from Aqueous Environment: A Review. Recent Patents on Engineering, 4(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.2174/187221210791233461

Liang, M., Zhang, C., & Zheng, H. (2013). The removal of H2S derived from livestock farm on activated carbon modified by combinatory method of high-pressure hydrothermal method and impregnation method. Adsorption, 20(4), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10450-013-9591-7

Maji, S. K., Kao, Y.-H. ., & Liu, C.-W. . (2011). Arsenic removal from real arsenic-bearing groundwater by adsorption on iron-oxide-coated natural rock (IOCNR). Desalination, 280(1-3), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.06.048

Maryudi, M., Amelia, S., & Salamah, S. (2019). Removal of Methylene Blue of Textile Industry Waste with Activated Carbon using Adsorption Method. Reaktor, 19(4), 168–171. https://doi.org/10.14710/reaktor.19.4.168-171

Oke, I. A., Olarinoye, N. O., & Adewusi, S. R. A. (2017). Adsorption kinetics for arsenic removal from aqueous solutions by untreated powdered eggshell. Adsorption, 14(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10450-007-9047-z

Soner Altundoğan, H., Altundoğan, S., Tümen, F., & Bildik, M. (2012). Arsenic removal from aqueous solutions by adsorption on red mud. Waste Management, 20(8), 761–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0956-053x(00)00031-3

Sun, X., Hu, C., Hu, X., Qu, J., & Yang, M. (2012). Characterization and adsorption performance of Zr-doped akaganéite for efficient arsenic removal. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 88(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.3878

Thy, L. T. M., My, N. H. T., Tuong, H. H. P., Chi, C. V., Tu, T. H., Ha, H. K. P., Nam, H. M., Phong, M. T., & Hieu, N. H. (2020). Synthesis and adsorption ability of manganese ferrite/graphene oxide nanocomposites for arsenic(V) removal from water. Vietnam Journal of Chemistry, 58(3), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/vjch.201900044