As(III) oxidation by active chlorine and subsequent removal of As(V) by Al13 polymer coagulation using a novel dual function reagent.

State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China.
Environmental Science & Technology (Impact Factor: 5.26). 05/2012; 46(12):6776-82. DOI: 10.1021/es203917g
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT An electrochemically prepared water treatment reagent containing a high concentration of Al(13) polymer and active chlorine (PACC) showed promising potential for the removal of As(III) due to the combined function of oxidation and coagulation. The results indicated that PACC was effective for As(III) removal through oxidation by the active chlorine and subsequent removal of As(V) by coagulation with the Al(13) polymer. The As(III) was oxidized to As(V) by active chlorine in PACC, with a stoichiometric rate of 0.99 mg Cl(2)/mg As(III). The Al(13) polymer was the most active Al species responsible for As(V) removal in PACC. To meet As drinking water standards the stoichiometric weight ratio of Cl(2)/Al within PACC was 0.09 for the treatment of As(III). Considering the process of As(III) oxidation and As(V) coagulation together, the optimal pH conditions for the removal of As by PACC was within the neutral range, which facilitated the reaction of As(III) with active chlorine and favored the formation of Al hydroxide flocs. The presence of humic acid reduced the As(III) removal efficiency of PACC due to its negative influence on subsequent As(V) coagulation, and disinfection byproduct yields were very low in the presence of insufficient or stoichiometric active chlorine.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the effects of influent variability and model parameter uncertainty when utilizing enhanced coagulation modification to bring existing treatment plants into compliance with a stricter arsenic regulation. Enhanced coagulation modification options include: (1) increased ferric chloride dose, (2) addition of an acid dose, and (3) a combination of the individual options. Arsenic removal is described by adsorption to hydrous ferric oxide with a surface complexation model and subsequent removal through sedimentation and filtration. The least-cost modification for reliably satisfying the arsenic regulation is determined using an optimization algorithm that explicitly includes variability and uncertainty. The ferric chloride only modification is always the least-cost treatment modification. The ferric chloride and acid modification could be the least-cost option when considering waste handling processes due to a tradeoff between modification cost and sludge production. By inclusion of variability and uncertainty, the relative importance of individual parameter distributions for determining whether the arsenic regulation is reliably satisfied is assessed. Influent arsenic concentration variability is always critical, while variability in the influent pH and sulfate concentrations and uncertainty in the filter removal efficiency and equilibrium adsorption constant for the triple bond Fe(s)OHCa2+ surface species are critical or important, depending on influent conditions.
    Environmental Science and Technology 10/2005; 39(17):6501-7. · 5.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated the stoichiometry, kinetics, and mechanism of arsenite [As(III)] oxidation by ferrate [Fe(VI)] and performed arsenic removal tests using Fe(VI) as both an oxidant and a coagulant. As(III) was oxidized to As(V) (arsenate) by Fe(VI), with a stoichiometry of 3:2 [As(III):Fe(VI)]. Kinetic studies showed that the reaction of As(III) with Fe(VI) was first-order with respect to both reactants, and its observed second-order rate constant at 25 degrees C decreased nonlinearly from (3.54 +/- 0.24) x 10(5) to (1.23 +/- 0.01) x 10(3) M(-1) s(-1) with an increase of pH from 8.4 to 12.9. A reaction mechanism by oxygen transfer has been proposed for the oxidation of As(III) by Fe(VI). Arsenic removal tests with river water showed that, with minimum 2.0 mg L(-1) Fe(VI), the arsenic concentration can be lowered from an initial 517 to below 50 microg L(-1), which is the regulation level for As in Bangladesh. From this result, Fe(VI) was demonstrated to be very effective in the removal of arsenic species from water at a relatively low dose level (2.0 mg L(-1)). In addition, the combined use of a small amount of Fe(VI) (below 0.5 mg L(-1)) and Fe(III) as a major coagulant was found to be a practical and effective method for arsenic removal.
    Environmental Science and Technology 01/2004; 37(24):5750-6. · 5.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The coagulation behavior of aluminum salts in a eutrophic source water was investigated from the viewpoint of Al(III) hydrolysis species transformation. Particular emphasis was paid to the coagulation effect of Al13 species on removing particles and organic matter. The coagulation behavior of Al coagulants with different basicities was examined through jar tests and hydrolyzed Al(III) speciation distribution characterization in the coagulation process. The results showed that the coagulation efficiency of Al coagulants positively correlated with the content of Al13 in the coagulation process ratherthan in the initial coagulants. Aluminum chloride (AICl3) was more effective than polyaluminum chloride (PACI) in removing turbidity and dissolved organic matter in eutrophic water because AlCl3 could not only generate Al13 species but also function as a pH control agent in the coagulation process. The solidstate 27Al NMR spectra revealed that the precipitates formed from AlCl3 and PACl were significantly different and proved that the preformed Al13 polymer was more stable than the in situ formed one during the coagulation process. Through regulating Al speciation, pH control could improve the coagulation process especially in DOC removal, and AlCl3 benefited most from pH control.
    Environmental Science and Technology 02/2006; 40(1):325-31. · 5.26 Impact Factor