Arsenic removal from groundwater using ferric chloride and direct filtration

Author(s):  
R "Fernández," ◽  
B Petrusevski ◽  
J Schippers ◽  
S Sharma
2020 ◽  
Vol 725 ◽  
pp. 138351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Ge ◽  
Biswarup Guha ◽  
Lee Lippincott ◽  
Stanley Cach ◽  
Jinshan Wei ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat Eyvaz ◽  
Hatice Deniz ◽  
Tuğrul S. Aktaş ◽  
Ebubekir Yüksel ◽  
Ahmet M. Saatçi

Abstract Pre-ozonation–coagulant interactions effects in relation to the coagulant type and dosage in direct filtration of surface waters were investigated. The performance of the process was evaluated by monitoring the effluent quality and head loss development through the filter bed. Two identical pilot scale filter columns filtering the same raw water were operated in parallel. The raw water was brought from Ömerli Reservoir in Istanbul. Before filtering, the raw water flow was split into two equal flows. One of the streams was pre-ozonated and the other was aerated using contact chambers with equal volumes equipped with same number and type of diffusers. In coagulation experiments, one of the filters was operated using aluminum sulfate as a coagulant while the other one was run with ferric chloride. For similar filter run times, the effluent quality was always better with pre-ozonation compared to aeration. It was also observed that, aluminum sulfate application gave more favorable results for both particle and turbidity removal compared to ferric chloride. Ives’ filterability index which incorporates the important filtration design parameters such as: effluent quality, the headloss and the velocity of filtration into a dimensionless number was used for the comparison of the experimental results.


2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Laky ◽  
B. László ◽  
I. Licskó

In laboratory experiments a traditional drinking water treatment method, coagulation/flocculation followed by solid/liquid phase separation has been applied in order to decrease arsenic concentration below 10 μg/L (which is the new Hungarian standard for arsenic). The goal of the research work was to examine the transition of the dissolved arsenic to solid form, to determine the factors which have significant effect on arsenic removal efficiency. The organic content of the water highly affected the arsenic removal process. The difference in the required coagulant dosage can be order of one magnitude depending on the organic content of the water. The phosphorous content also increases the required coagulant dose, since ferric phosphate precipitates are formed, decreasing the amount of coagulant available for arsenic removal. pH also proved to have significant influence when experiments were carried out at wide pH range. However, under more realistic conditions (pH is between 7.5 and 8), the effect of pH was not that significant. The inorganic carbon content at some extent favors the liquid/solid transition of arsenate, since it contributes to the buffering capacity of the water, therefore enhances the metal hydroxide formation process. However, the excess inorganic carbon has disadvantageous effect, since it competes with the arsenate ions for the free sites of metal hydroxides. Two oxidants (chlorine and potassium permanganate) and two coagulants (ferric chloride and aluminum sulfate) were studied in pilot scale experiments. The pilot plant was operated at Hajdúbagos, where the arsenic, iron and manganese concentration of the raw water is above the standard. In the experiments it was found the potassium permanganate + ferric chloride combination was the most efficient.


1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 164-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Karcher ◽  
L. Cáceres ◽  
M. Jekel ◽  
R. Contreras

Author(s):  
Bijan Bina ◽  
Afshin Ebrahimi ◽  
Farid Hesami ◽  
MohammadMehdi Amin

2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.M.T. Khan ◽  
K. Yamamoto ◽  
M.F. Ahmed

A variety of treatment processes have been used for arsenic removal from water. In a laboratory study using natural (tubewell) water, ferric chloride salt and alum were used, which are the most studied and widely used flocculents in water treatment due to their low price, comfortable availability and low risk usability. The solubility of arsenate(III) is much more than arsenite(V). Arsenate(III) was converted into arsenite(V) by proper oxidation using bleaching powder as an oxidizing agent before coagulation. The concentrations of ferric chloride salt and alum dose were varied from 10 mg/l to 200 mg/l, and pH was varied from 4 to 9. After intensive investigation, it was found that at pH 7 and for 100 mg/l to 125 mg/l dose of alum, the removal efficiency of arsenic and iron were around 82 to 86% and 92 to 95% respectively. Again, the optimum removal of arsenic and iron were around 90 to 93% and 97 to 100% respectively at pH 7 for 200 mg/l of ferric chloride salt. This research was carried out not only to observe the removal efficiency of arsenic, but also iron. Because most of the tubewells in Bangladesh, sometimes, contain higher amount of iron.


2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Ruhland ◽  
M. Jekel

A concept for a technical, ecological and economical evaluation of arsenic removal technologies is introduced and demonstrated on the basis of three alternative arsenic removal processes, direct filtration with FeCl3, adsorptive filtration with FeSO4 and adsorption on granulated ferric hydroxide, which were tested in a case study. A set of evaluation criteria is worked out and discussed with regard to the case study. Further, a multi criteria decision support instrument is described and used for identifying the preferential arsenic removal process. The ranking of the analysed alternatives is presented. The results base on the data of a full scale treatment plant of a water supplier in the Lower Saxony, Germany. The adsorption on granulated ferric hydroxide is ranked as preferential process - alternative for arsenic removal on the conditions of the case study.


2009 ◽  
Vol 168 (1) ◽  
pp. 430-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Fierro ◽  
G. Muñiz ◽  
G. Gonzalez-Sánchez ◽  
M.L. Ballinas ◽  
A. Celzard

2012 ◽  
Vol 239-240 ◽  
pp. 308-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Wu ◽  
Rui-Ping Liu ◽  
Hui-Juan Liu ◽  
Hua-Chun Lan ◽  
Jiu-Hui Qu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document