Accepted Manuscript Evaluation of industrial based adsorbents for simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride from drinking water Sadia Bibi, Abida Farooqi, Assistant Professor Khadim Hussain, Naghma Haider PII:
S0959-6526(14)00960-3
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.030
Reference:
JCLP 4715
To appear in:
Journal of Cleaner Production
Received Date: 28 January 2014 Revised Date:
5 September 2014
Accepted Date: 8 September 2014
Please cite this article as: Bibi S, Farooqi A, Hussain K, Haider N, Evaluation of industrial based adsorbents for simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride from drinking water, Journal of Cleaner Production (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.030. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Evaluation of industrial based adsorbents for simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride from drinking water Sadia Bibi1, Abida Farooqi1*, Khadim Hussain2 and Naghma Haider2
Corresponding Author: Abida Farooqi (Assistant Professor)
SC
RI PT
Environmental Hydro geochemistry Laboratory, Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of biological Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan Geoscience advanced research laboratories, Chak Shahzd, Islamabad, Pakistan
Email:
[email protected]
AC C
EP
TE D
Phone #: +92-5190644139
M AN U
Address: Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of biological Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 2 3
Abstract
4
drinking water has global significance due to their easy and widespread availability. Present
5
study aimed to assess selected industrial waste materials for simultaneous removal of arsenic and
6
fluoride from drinking water in order to find cost effective adsorbent. Commercially available
7
Hydrated Cement, Marble Powder (waste) and Brick Powder (waste) were used. Adsorbents were
8
characterized by using X-Ray Diffractrometry techniques. The surface morphology of adsorbents
9
was studied by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Batch adsorption tests were employed to
10
evaluate the percent removal and adsorption capacity of adsorbents, under optimum conditions
11
of adsorption time, dose, pH and adsorbate concentration. Removal percentage of studied
12
adsorbents followed the decreasing trend: Hydrated Cement>Bricks Powder>Marble Powder.
13
Hydrated Cement showed highest percentage removal, 97% and 80% for arsenic and fluoride
14
respectively and was selected as the best media at neutral pH compared to other four adsorbents
15
substantiating its potential for the drinking water treatment process. The applicability of the
16
adsorbents for As was assessed under natural conditions with As contaminated groundwater
17
samples collected from Tehsil Mailsi. In order to determine maximum adsorption capacity of
18
adsorbents and to understand the nature of reaction on their surfaces, Langmuir and Freundlich
19
isotherm were calculated. This study revealed that this new adsorbent (Hydrate Cement) is
20
indigenous, easily available and could be easily applied in order to diminish the arsenic and
21
fluoride pollution from drinking water.
22
Keywords: Arsenic, Fluoride, removal %, Separation factor, Langmuir isotherm, Freundlich isotherm
24 25
RI PT
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
23
Evaluating the ability of industrial based adsorbents to remove arsenic and fluoride from
26 27 28
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Highlights (for review)
Simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride from drinking water.
3
Industrial waste materials used for the removal of arsenic and fluoride.
4
Hydrated Cement, Marble Powder and Bricks Powder are efficient and cost effective adsorbents.
5
RI PT
2
6
XRD and SEM were performed to assess the surface morphology of adsorbents.
7
Hydrated Cement, Marble Powder and Bricks Powder used first time for the simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride.
SC
8 9 10
M AN U
11 12 13 14 15
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
EP
18
AC C
17
TE D
16
28 29 30
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3 4
1. Introduction
5 6
Recognized as highly toxic elements, arsenic and fluoride are both contributors to the global
7
water crisis, with significant health problems resulting from drinking water. This situation has
8
become more serious due to increasing groundwater consumption in many countries like
9
Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Nepal in the Indo region due to resource pressures from
10
growing populations as well as surface water contamination (Farooqi et al., 2007; Kanel et al.,
11
2006; Muhammad et al., 2010; Smedley and Kinniburgh, 2002).
12 13
Arsenic is of serious concern because of its marked negative impacts to human health that range
14
from acute lethality to chronic and carcinogenic effects (Abernathy et al., 2003). Most
15
environmental arsenic problems are the result of mobilization under natural conditions.
16
However, mining activities, combustion of fossil fuels, use of arsenic pesticides, herbicides, crop
17
desiccants, wastewater discharge from mining/industry and use of arsenic additives to livestock
18
feed create additional impacts. Arsenic and its derivatives are being used for many years and still
19
they are in use like in electronics, material sciences and in medicines (Mudhoo et al., 2011;
20
Baidya et al., 2006; Ghosh et al., 2007; Mukherjee et al., 2003; Tseng, 2004). Arsenic is present
21
in a variety of forms, organic and inorganic, and oxidation states, in which the valances depend
22
on the pH and redox conditions (Abernathy et al., 2003; Saha et al., 1999). At ambient water pH
23
6 to 9, the predominant forms are: As-III (Arsenite) present as Arsenious Acid H3AsO3 and As-V
24
(Arsenate) present as anions H2AsO4- and HAsO42-(Mudhoo et al., 2011; Kumaresan, 2001). At
25
low pH, in the presence of sulfide, HAsS2 can be formed; arsine, arsine derivatives, and arsenic
26
metal can occur under extremely reducing conditions (Mudhoo et al., 2011; Kumaresan, 2001).
27
All inorganic compounds of arsenic are toxic, in particular present in trivalent form. Acute
28
exposure to arsenic results in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain) that
29
occur within 30 minutes. The central and peripheral nervous systems can also be affected,
30
leading to heart failure. Chronic inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic in humans is associated
31
with irritation of the skin, causing Blackfoot disease, and strongly associated with lung, skin,
32
bladder and liver cancers. Chronic oral exposure results in gastrointestinal effects, anemia,
33
peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyper pigmentation, and liver or kidney damage in humans
34
(Mudhoo et al., 2011; Baidya et al., 2006; Ghosh et al., 2007; Mukherjee et al., 2003; Tseng,
35
2004) . The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified inorganic arsenic as a
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
2
Evaluation of industrial based adsorbents for simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride from drinking water
1
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Group A human carcinogen (EPA, 1999). Arsenic contamination has aroused attention due to
2
groundwater levels in many parts of the world at much higher concentrations than the World
3
Health Organization (WHO) guideline of 10 µgL-1 (Saha et al., 1999). However, many countries
4
including Pakistan have retained the earlier WHO guideline of 0.05 mg L−1 arsenic as the
5
national standard or as provisional target (Muhammad et al., 2010). One of the major sources of
6
arsenic exposure by the general population is drinking water (Bissen and Frimmel, 2003; Saha et
7
al., 1999)
RI PT
1
8
Fluoride is essential to prevent dental caries but an excess intake is detrimental to human health.
10
The suitable level of fluoride ions in drinking water specified by the WHO is 1.5 mg L-1
11
(Tripathi et al., 2007). However, the concentration of fluoride ion in groundwater is higher than
12
1.5 mg L-1 in many areas throughout the world. (Farooqi et al., 2007; Muhammad et al., 2010)
13 14
Many technologies have been developed for removing arsenic or fluoride from groundwater.
15
Several treatment technologies have been adopted to remove arsenic from drinking water under
16
both laboratory and field conditions. The major mode of removing arsenic from water is by
17
physico-chemical treatment. Technologies for the removal of arsenic from drinking water
18
include
19
coagulation/precipitation/adsorption/filtration (Zhang et al., 2002). Out of these, adsorption is
20
evolving as a front line of defense. The traditional method of removing fluoride from drinking
21
water are liming (Sollo et al., 1978) precipitation and coagulation (Tressaud, 2006), activated
22
alumina (Ghorai and Pant, 2005), alum sludge (Sujana et al., 1998) and calcium (Huang and Liu,
23
1999) have been widely investigated. In addition, ion exchange (Meenakshi and Viswanathan,
24
2007; Popat et al., 1994), reverse osmosis (Viswanathan and Meenakshi, 2009) and
25
electrodialysis (Adhikary et al., 1989) have also been studied for the removal of excess amounts
26
of fluoride from drinking water. However, the shortcomings of most of these methods are high
27
operational and maintenance costs, secondary pollution (generation of toxic sludge, etc.) and
28
complicated procedure involved in the treatment. However, only few studies have been carried
29
out to investigate the simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride, although both contaminants
30
can co-present in groundwater in many cases (Devi et al., 2008).
31 32 33
Among various methods used for arsenic and fluoride removal, attention has recently focused on
34
adsorption process. It is being widely used because it offers satisfactory results and seems to be a
membrane
and
point-of-use
methods
such
as
AC C
EP
TE D
adsorption,
M AN U
SC
9
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
more attractive method in terms of cost, simplicity of design and operation (Mohapatra et al.,
2
2009). Recently, researchers have devoted their attention on different types of low cost but
3
effective materials. Widespread industrial activities generate huge amount of solid waste
4
materials as by products. One of the beneficial uses of these wastes is to convert them as
5
inexpensive sorbents (wherever applicable) for the detoxification of water. Various treated and
6
untreated industrial wastes have been examined for arsenic and fluoride removal from water
7
(Yadav et al., 2006; Kagne et al., 2008). However, challenges such as access to real low-cost
8
adsorbents for simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride, simpler processes for development
9
at local levels, sufficient availability, and high removal efficiency on real groundwater conditions
10
such as the existence at neutral pH are still prevailing. These challenges have to be solved for
11
developing efficient fluoride and arsenic removal technology for rural areas in developed and
12
undeveloped countries. With this perspective, current work was taken to explore the feasibility of
13
arsenic and fluoride adsorption from aqueous solutions and real groundwater with hydrated
14
cement (commercially available), marble powder and bricks powder (industrial waste) as
15
adsorbents. These adsorbents are easily available in almost all rural areas of Pakistan. Based on
16
the review of literature, these adsorbents have not previously been investigated for their potential
17
to adsorb arsenic and fluoride from water simultaneously. Hence an attempt has been made in the
18
present work to evaluate these materials for simultaneous removal of As and fluoride from water.
19
26 27 28 29
2.1
Materials
EP
25
2. Materials and methods
All chemicals used were of regent grade and used without further purification. Solutions were prepared by Milli-Q water (Q-H2O, Millipore Corp. with resistivity of 18.2MΏ-cm). Plastic ware (Polypropylene) used throughout the experiment to avoid metal contaminations were cleaned with 1% HNO3 and rinsed several times with deionized water before use. A total of 3 adsorbents including two industrial waste materials Marble waste and Bricks Powder and commercially available Cement were tested for their ability for arsenic and fluoride removal.
AC C
20 21 22 23 24
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
1
30 31 32 33
2.2
34
obtain fine powder. The bricks powder was washed several times with distilled water till clear
35
water was obtained and oven dried at 105ºC for 12 h. The dried material was sieved to separate
Preparation of adsorbents
Bricks pieces were collected from brick kiln, washed with distilled water, dried and ground to
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
less than 300 um size of particles for the present study.
2
About 1000 g (1 kg) of commercially available cement was taken in a vessel and the required
4
amount of distilled water (500 mL) was added. The pH of the cement in distilled water was about
5
9. It was kept for 72 h at room temperature for hydration. After hydration/air-drying, clinkers
6
were broken into small granules of 1.4–3 mm size.
7
RI PT
3
Marble powder used in this study was obtained, free of charge, from marble processing
10
workshop was sieved and practical size 50 µm were used in present study. Samples were oven
11
dried for 2h at 125 °C then cooled at room temperature, packed in stopper bottle and stored in
12 13 14 15
desiccators for future use.
16
A 100 mg L-1 fluoride stock solution was prepared by dissolving 221 mg NaF (analytical grade)
17
in 1000 mL distilled water. F- ions bearing solutions were prepared by diluting the stock solution
18
to different concentrations (5 mgL-1, 15 mgL-1, 30 mgL-1) with deionized water. Concentration
19
of F- ions was analyzed with a F- selective electrode connected to an ion meter (Orion, 868).
Reagents and stock solutions
TE D
20
M AN U
2.3
SC
8 9
Arsenic stock solution of 1000 µg mL−1 was prepared from atomic absorption standard (Perkins
22
Elmer, USA), working standards were prepared by serial dilution of stock in deionized water.
23
Hydride Generator Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy was used for the analysis of arsenic
24
(Perkins Elmer Hitachi). 0.1 M solutions of HCl and NaOH were prepared in deionized water for
25
pH adjustment.
27 28 29 30 31
AC C
26
EP
21
2.4 Chemical analysis and sample Characterization of adsorbents 2.4.1
X-Ray Diffraction Measurements (XRD)
X-ray powder diffractometry was performed to characterize the mineralogy of hydrated cement,
32
waste marble powder and bricks powder samples. Three gram aliquots of the research splits were
33
dry pulverized with a mortar and pestle to an average particle size of about 50-150 µm. About
34
one gram of each specimen was then packed in an aluminum sample holder and analyzed with a
35
Scintag X-1 Automated Diffractometer at a scan speed of 1°2θ in 2 min and a step size of 0.02° 6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 2 3 4 5
using a Ni-filtered Cu-Kα radiation 2.4.2
Scanning Electron Microscope
Scanning Electron Microscope JSM-6610 LV was used for the surface studies of adsorbent materials. Using the optimized conditions for the adsorption of arsenic and fluoride, the loaded
7
mass was filtered, washes and dried at 105ºC for 30 min and cooled to room temperature. A
8
blank mass (unloaded) was also subject to the same conditions and both the loaded and unloaded
9
mass was subjected to SEM to check the changes on the surface of the mass before and after
10
loading by the adsorbate molecules. The micrographs were taken at different resolutions from
11
500× to 10,000×.Scanning Electron Micrographs of the adsorbent material with and without
12
arsenic and fluoride loaded samples at different magnifications i.e., 500× to 100,000× were used
13
to study the surface characteristics of the adsorbent material after selecting optimum conditions
14
for adsorption.
SC
M AN U
15 16 17 18 19
RI PT
6
2.5 Batch experiments
Effects of various control parameters were investigated batch wise in Erlenmeyer flasks using different amounts of adsorbent material (10–40 g) with varying amounts of adsorbate (100-1000
21
µg L−1 for As and 5-30 mgL-1 for fluoride) maintained at room temperature (25 ± 3ºC). Flasks,
22
along with test solution were shaken in horizontal shaker (Wise Shake SHO-2D, Witeg
23
Germany) at agitation speed of 150 rpm for all experiments. At the end of desired contact time
24
(30, 60 and 90 min), flasks were removed from shaker and allowed to stand for 2 min for settling
25
the adsorbent. Then supernatants were filtered using Whatman no. 42 filter paper and filtrate
26
samples were analyze in order to determine residual arsenic and F- ions concentration. The
27
percentage sorption (Eq. 1) of the adsorbent was calculated by using the following formula:
29 30 31
EP
AC C
28
TE D
20
% Sorption
100
(1)
Where Ci and Ce are the initial and equilibrium concentrations.
32 33 34
2.6 Adsorption Isotherms
35
species among liquid and adsorbent, based on a set of assumptions that are mainly related to the
36
heterogeneity/homogeneity of adsorbents, the type of coverage and possibility of interaction
Adsorption isotherms are mathematical models that describe the distribution of the adsorbate
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
between the adsorbate species. Adsorption isotherms give a quantitative relationship between the
2
solute concentration in the solution and the amount of solute adsorbed per unit mass of the
3
adsorbent. In the present study, two of the isotherms, Langmuir and Freundlich, were applied to
4
the experimental data to check its credibility. In present study, the amounts of adsorbents were
5
added to a specific volume of arsenic and fluoride containing solutions of known concentration
6
and the removal was calculated by determining the remaining amount of arsenic and fluoride
7
after the adsorbent was made to stand in the solution up to already known equilibrium time. The
8
same data was used for Langmuir isotherm and Freundlich Isotherm.
SC
3. Results and discussion 3.1 Adsorption studies 3.1.1 Effect of time on adsorption
M AN U
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
RI PT
1
The results of time required to reach equilibrium for arsenic and fluoride were shown in Figure 1(a-c). Test solutions of 100 µgL-1adsorbate concentrations of arsenic and 5 mgL-1 of
20
fluoride were investigated using 10 gL-1, 20 gL-1, 30 gL-1and 40 gL-1 of adsorbents mass at pH
21
8.0. Study revealed, an initial increase of arsenic and fluoride removal with increased contact
22
time, but gradually it approached to an almost constant value, denoting attainment of
23
equilibrium. When curves appeared nearly asymptotic to the time axis was assumed as
24 25 26
equilibrium time.
27
time up to 30 min for all the studied adsorbents (Hydrated cement, Bricks powder and Marble
28
powder) and it became maximum at 60 min and attained saturation. No significant effect on
29
equilibrium was observed for further time increase up to 90 min. The short equilibrium time
30
indicate rapid rate of reaction and presence of a large number of adsorption sites on adsorbents.
31
Therefore, further studies were carried out using 60 min contact time for all the adsorbents
32
(Table 1a). Fluoride adsorption profile also was very similar to As, which showed a rapid
33
increase initially and reached equilibrium within 60 min. So 60 minutes equilibrium time was
34
selected as optimum, for further studies (Table 1b).
TE D
19
AC C
EP
Fig. 1 (a-c) showed that for As, sharp increase in adsorption curve was observed by increasing
35 36
Initially, the adsorption was fast, probably due to initial concentration gradient between
37
the adsorbate and the number of vacant sites available on the adsorbent surface (Bhatnagar et al., 8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2010) and later on the adsorption rate geared until saturation. This may be due to limited mass
2
transfer of the adsorbate molecules to the external surface of adsorbent from the bulk liquid.
3
Several parameters determine the equilibrium adsorption time. These include agitation rate in the
4
aqueous phase, physical properties of the adsorbent (surface charge density, porosity and surface
5
area), amount of adsorbent, properties of the ions to be removed, concentration of ionic species
6
and the presence of other metal ions that may compete with the ionic species of interest for the
7
active sites (Say et al., 2003).
RI PT
1
3.1.2 Effect of adsorbent dose
12
get the tradeoff between the adsorbent dose and the percentage removal resulting in an optimum
13
adsorbent amount. To determine the effect of adsorbent dosage on the percent adsorption (i.e.
14
uptake of arsenic and fluoride) study was conducted in the range of 10–40 gL-1using optimum
15
equilibrium contact time of 30 and 60 min at pH 8.0 with arsenic and fluoride concentration of
16
100µgL-1 and 5mgL-1 respectively.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
M AN U
TE D
20
Percent removal of arsenic increased by increasing adsorbent dose up to 30 gL-1 with sorption efficiency of 98.8% for Hydrated Cement, 96.4% for Bricks Powder and 95.3% for Marble Powder. Further increase in adsorbent dosage up to 40 gL-1 caused no effect on the percent removal of arsenic Fig.2 (a-c) (Table 2a ).Similarly 30 gL-1 was an optimum dose for fluoride adsorption (Hydrated Cement 99%, Bricks Powder 88% and Marble Powder 94%) (Table 2b). The removal of arsenic and fluoride was enhanced with increasing adsorbent material dosage shown in Fig 2.(a-c),because of increase in the number of active sites as the adsorbent material dosage increased (Al-Garni et al., 2009). Increase in adsorption efficiency by increasing adsorbent concentration (from 20 to 30gL-1), lead to the corresponding increase in adsorption sites (Chubar et al., 2005; Kamala et al., 2005) and stabilized afterward due to cell crowding, while it decreased with the increase of adsorbent concentration. On the basis of above mentioned results 30 gL-1was found optimum for arsenic and fluoride adsorption.
EP
19
Study on the effect of adsorbent dose for arsenic and fluoride removal was important to
3.1.3
AC C
17 18
SC
8 9 10 11
Effect of pH on adsorption efficiency
The pH of the solution also had a significant impact on the uptake of metals and ions since it determines the surface charge of the adsorbent, the degree of ionization and speciation of
36
the adsorbate. The effect of pH in the range of 2–9 on removal of arsenic and fluoride using optimum adsorbent dosage of 30gL-1equilibrated for optimum 60 min as discussed earlier. As
37
concentration of 100 µgL-1 and fluoride 5 mgL-1was studied in order to establish the effect of pH
35
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 2 3
on the adsorption.
4
optimum range of pH value. The percentage adsorption of arsenic was found to increase with an
5
increase in pH up to 8 and then it decreased with a further increase of pH. The percentage
6
removal of As is increased from 60% to 99 % with increasing the initial pH from 2 to 8. The
7
sharpest increase in As uptake was obtained at pH=7 (99.9%) removal with Hydrated Cement
8
and Marble powder and pH=8 (99.9%) removal with Bricks Powder, The sorption efficiency
9
remained higher than 80% for when the pH was greater than 5 till 8, and decreased afterward
RI PT
(Fig. 3(a-c) and (Table 3a).
SC
10
It was found that the adsorption rate of As was parabolic, indicate that there exists an
Studies suggest that in strong acidic solution, several ions present in natural water
13
competes with As for active adsorption sites and impedes adsorption process, and adsorption
14
amount of As decreases with acidity increasing. While in alkaline solution, hydrates formed with
15
hydrolyzation of As precipitate on the surface of adsorbents, and can decrease the adsorption
16
activity. Moreover, the relative distribution of dissolved arsenic is influenced by pH and the
17
redox conditions. This indicated that the effect of pH on the sorption of arsenic was in a good
18
working range of water at house hold level. The WHO acceptable pH range of the potable water
19
was 6.5–8.5, and these adsorbents can be used without pH adjustment. Similarly pH of the
20
medium was one of the important parameters that significantly affect the extent of fluoride
21
adsorption. The percentage adsorption of fluoride was found to increase with an increase in pH
22
up to 8 and then it decreased with a further increase. The optimum pH for the removal of fluoride
23
was found to be pH=7 (99%) removal with Hydrated Cement and (94%) removal with Marble
24
Powder and pH=8 (92%) Bricks Powder (Figs. 3a-c) and (Table 3b).
27 28 29 30 31
TE D
EP
The lower adsorption efficiency of fluoride in acidic medium might be due to the formation of weakly ionized hydrofluoric acid, which reduces availability of free fluoride for adsorption. In alkaline conditions, lower adsorption may be due to the competition of OH ions with F− ions for adsorption because of similarity in F− and OH− in charge and ionic radius.
AC C
25 26
M AN U
11 12
Thus results indicated that the adsorption process was highly dependent on pH of solution
32
and recorded higher adsorption capacities at pH 7 and 8 then pH 9. These findings attributed to
33
the fact that the change in pH values can affect the surface charge of the adsorbent as well as the
34
degree of ionization and speciation of the adsorbate. Keeping in view the normal pH range of
35
potable water, pH 7 was selected for Hydrated Cement and Marble Powder and pH 8 for Bricks 10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Effect of adsorbate concentration
Effect of adsorbate concentration on arsenic and fluoride removal was studied at different adsorbate concentrations of As (100 µgL-1, 500 µgL-1, and 1000 µgL-1) and F- (5 mgL-1, 15 mgL1 and 30 mgL-1) keeping string speed of 150 rpm, at optimum pH, adsorbent dose and contact time.
RI PT
11
3.1.4
The results indicated that arsenic removal efficiency was high at lower concentrations up to 100 µg L-1 with removal efficiencies of 98.8% for Hydrated Cement, 95% for Marble Powder and 91% for Bricks Powder, respectively and decrease with the increase in concentration. However, (Figs. 4a-c) % removal efficiencies were still higher than 90% up to the concentration of 1000 µgL-1 for Hydrated Cement and Bricks Powder and higher than 80% for Marble Powder
SC
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Powder for further studies.
(Table 4a ).Similarly in case of fluoride adsorption efficiency was high at low concentration and it decreases with increase in fluoride concentration. Hydrated Cement showed higher adsorption efficiency of 99% at fluoride concentration of 5 mgL-1; however the removal efficiency was higher than 80% up to the concentration of 30 mgL-1. Similarly for Marble Powder and Bricks
M AN U
1
21 22 23
It is worth noting that nature of adsorbent and the available adsorption sites were most
24
important parameters affecting the rate of adsorption. The mechanism of solute transfer to the
25
solid includes diffusion through the fluid film around the adsorbent particle and diffusion
26
through the pores to the internal adsorption sites (Kamala et al., 2005). In the initial stages of
27
adsorption of As and F-, the concentration gradient between the film and the available pore sites
28
was large, hence the rate of adsorption was faster. The rate of adsorption decreased in the later
29
stages of the adsorption probably due to the slow pore diffusion of the solute ion into the bulk of
30
the adsorbent. At low concentration, the ratio of available surface to the arsenic and fluoride
31
concentration was larger, so the removal was higher. However, in case of higher concentrations,
32
this ratio was low; hence, the removal percentage was lesser.
EP
AC C
33 34 35 36
TE D
20
Powder adsorption efficiency decreased with increase in concentration. However it remained higher than 75% for fluoride concentration of 30 mgL-1 (Table 4b).
19
3.2 Applicability of adsorbents under natural water conditions Present study demonstrated the potential of different adsorbent materials (Hydrated
37
Cement, Marble Powder and Bricks Powder) for the removal of As from naturally As
38
contaminated ground water. The applicability of the adsorbents was assessed by using As 11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
contaminated groundwater collected from Tehsil Mailsi. Table (1) summarizes all the physico-
2
chemical parameters of contaminated water samples and removal efficiency of the proposed
3
adsorbents. Adsorption experiments were carried out under the optimum conditions. Results
4
indicated that arsenic removal efficiency of proposed adsorbents under natural conditions was
5
well suited for potable water applications. In a set of experiments the adsorbents demonstrated
6
>800 µg/l of As present in contaminated ground water could be removed >90% for Hydrated
7
Cement and Marble Powder and >85% for Bricks Powder under the aforementioned optimum
8
conditions. Thus, it could be recommended for the successful removal of arsenic from
9
groundwater of affected areas. The results of water quality before and after adsorption of studied
10
water samples were shown in Table (1). It might be seen that after adsorption, As was reduced to
11
a value < 50µgL-1 for Hydrated Cement and Marble Powder which was within the Pak EPA
12
permissible limits (50 µgL-1) clearly showing the efficiency of adsorbents for the removal of As
13
ions from understudy groundwater samples by increasing the adsorbent dose most of samples
14
could be brought under the permissible limit set by WHO of 10 µgL-1.
SC
M AN U
3.3 Adsorption Isotherms 3.3.1 Langmuir Isotherm
TE D
15 16 17 18 19 20
RI PT
1
The Langmuir model assumes monolayer adsorption onto homogeneous surface with a
21
finite number of identical sites and maximum adsorption occurs when the surface was covered
22
by the adsorbate (Dodd et al., 2006) (Eq. (2))
(2)
EP
23
Where, qe is the sorbed concentration (mass of adsorbate/mass of adsorbent), qm the maximum
25
capacity of adsorbent for the adsorbate (mass of adsorbate/mass of adsorbent), C was the initial
26
concentration of adsorbate in solution (mass per unit volume) Kads the adsorbate affinity for
27
adsorbent. A plot of 1/q against 1/C produced a straight line with an intercept of 1/qm and A
28
slope of 1/qm.Kads for As (Fig. 5a) and F-(Fig. 5b).
29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Hydrated Cement, Bricks Powder and Marble powder showed a good fit to the linearized Langmuir model both for As (R2=0.99 for all adsorbents) and fluoride (R2=0.99 (Hydrated Cement) and R2= 0.98 (bricks Powder and Marble) (Table 2a and 2b). Maximum adsorption capacity of adsorbents was found in order of Hydrated Cement>Bricks Powder>Marble Powder both for arsenic and fluoride. Hydrated cement had maximum adsorption capacity of 1.92 mgg-1 and 1.72 mgg-1 for arsenic and fluoride respectively. While for Bricks powder and Marble waste
AC C
24
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
it was found 0.04 mgg-1 for arsenic and 0.84 mgg-1 and 0.18 mgg-1 for fluoride respectively. The essential characteristics of Langmuir isotherm and adsorption favorability could be expressed in terms of dimensionless constant called the separation factor or equilibrium parameter (RL), which was defined by the following equation (Eq. 3) (Saifuddin M and Kumaran, 2005):
5
(3)
!
RI PT
1 2 3 4
6 7 8 9 10
Where Kads was the Langmuir constant and Ci was the initial concentration of arsenic and fluoride with different concentration as mentioned from (100–1000µgL-1) and (5-30 mgL-1) respectively. The value of RL indicates the nature of adsorption as unfavourable (RL > 1), linear
11
arsenic and fluoride indicate highly favourable adsorptions of As and fluoride on Hydrated
12
Cement, Bricks Powder and Marble at all concentrations (Table 3a and 3b.).
SC
3.3.2 Freundlich adsorption isotherm
M AN U
13 14 15 16
(RL = 1) favourable (0
The Freundlich equation deals with physicochemical adsorption on heterogeneous
17
surfaces (Chassapis et al., 2010). The Freundlich adsorption isotherm is the most widely used
18
mathematical model in aqueous systems. Freundlich proposed the following expression (Eq. 4)
19
for the adsorption from solutions, on the basis of absorption studies:
20 21 22 23
On the basis of this assumption there were different active sites on the adsorbent surface
24
that had different affinities for different adsorbate; the Freundlich Isotherm could be derived
25
from the Langmuir isotherm model. Where K was the measure of capacity of adsorbent, (n) the
26
measure of change in affinity for the adsorbate with a change in adsorption density in the above
27
equation. The linearized form (Eq. 5) of the equation (4) could be used to plot the Freundlich
28
isotherm:
30
( ) '
TE D
(4)
EP
AC C
29
"# $% &
*+,"# *+,$ ' *+,%
(5)
A plot of log qe against log C produced a straight line with a slope of 1/n and an intercept
31
of log k. Values of R2=0.99 (Fig. 6a) indicated that As data for Bricks Powder fits to the
32
Freundlich Isotherm. While R2=0.86 (As) and R2=0.85 (Fluoride) for Hydrated Cement and
33
R2=0.79 (As) and R2=0.78 (Fluoride) for Marble Powder indicates that the experimental data
34
fitted well to Freundlich model but was not good as Langmuir model (Fig. 6b) (given as Table 2a
35
and 2b). The constant ―n‖ gives an indication of how favorable the adsorption processes were.
36
The slop1/n was a measure of adsorption intensity or surface heterogeneity that represents the 13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
deviation from linearity of adsorption as follows: if the value of 1/n=1, the adsorption was linear,
2
1/n<1, the adsorption process was chemical, if 1/n>1, the adsorption was a favorable physical
3
process and adsorption was cooperative (Valko et al., 2007). However, it signified that surface of
4
the adsorbent under investigation was heterogeneous in nature (Streat et al., 2008). In case of
5
fluoride, for all adsorbents 1/n<1 indicate that adsorption process was chemical. While for As
6
1/n<1 for Marble powder, 1/n=1 for Hydrated Cement indicates adsorption was linear and 1/n>1
7
in case of Bricks Powder indicating adsorption as favorable physical process.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Mineralogy and Surface morphology of adsorbents
3.4.1
XRD analysis
SC
13 14
3.4
The identified crystalline phases of Marble Powder were calcite and dolomite. (Fig. 7a) Strong broad peaks between 30º, 39º, 47º and 49º (2θ) are characteristic of amorphous calcite (CaCO3) and small peaks at 31, 41 and 51 are characteristics of dolomite (CaMg)(CO3)2. It also contains SiO2, and small amount of Al2O3 and Fe2O3.
M AN U
8 9 10 11 12
RI PT
1
XRD spectra of Brick Powder (Fig. 7b) strong peeks at 21º, 25º and 50º are characteristic peeks of quartz. Small peeks at 26º indicate presence of albite and peeks at 33 and 35 indicate
24 25 26 27
presence of hematite.
28
characteristic peeks of portlandite. Peeks at 30º, 32º and 49º indicate presence of calcium
29
magnesium aluminum oxide silicate, di-calcium silicate and calcium aluminum oxide silicate
30
respectively. 3.4.2
EP
In XRD spectra of Hydrated Cement (Fig. 7c) two strong peeks at 19º and 34º are
AC C
31 32 33 34
TE D
23
Surface morphology of adsorbents
The surface morphology of adsorbents was studied by Scanning Electron Microscopy
35
(SEM). Fig 8, 9 and 10 showed loaded and unloaded mass of Marble powder, Hydrated Cement
36
and Bricks powder. Fig 8a, 9a and 10a showed that adsorbents had uneven surfaces with large
37
number of pores spaces, which perhaps provides sites for adsorption of As and F either
38
physically or chemically. Fig 8b, 9b and 10b showed that the pores are fairly covered due to the
39
adsorption and aggregation of fluoride and arsenic, form layers that settled on the rough and 14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
irregular surfaces. Fig 8c, 9c and 10c micrographs had been taken on high resolution of 10,000×
2
by focusing on available pores which were shown in Figure 8a, 9a and 10a. These high
3
resolution micrographs indicate large number of irregular outgrowths providing high surface area
4
and more space for accommodation of arsenic and fluoride.
6
RI PT
5
3.5 Comparison of adsorbents efficiency and selection of best media
7 8
Three different inexpensive and easily available adsorbents were used in the present
10
study. Industrial materials (Bricks Powder and Marble Powder, while and Hydrated Cement
11
was prepared from commercially available cement) were used. They were compared in terms
12
of removal of arsenic and fluoride (% sorption), contact time and pH range. Absorbents were
13
individually screened for their ability to remove arsenic and fluoride from water.
M AN U
SC
9
The data in Table 4a-4b showed that best results were obtained by comparing industrial
17
waste materials Marble Powder and Bricks Powder with commercially available Portland
18
cement. The sorption efficiency was in order of Hydrated Cement >Bricks Powder >Marble
19
Powder with % removal of 97%, 95 % and 88% at As concentration of 1000 µgL-1
20
respectively. Similarly in case of fluoride order of sorption efficiency followed the same
21
pattern Hydrated Cement >Bricks Powder >Marble Powder and percentage removal of fluoride
22
was found 80%, 75% and 75% respectively. Order of sorption efficiency of all the five
23
adsorbents for adsorption of As and F was found as Hydrated Cement >Bricks Powder
24
>Marble Powder. Hydrated Cement was selected as the best media due to superior results
25
compared to other adsorbents.
EP
AC C
26 27 28
TE D
14 15 16
Comparison of adsorption capacity of different adsorbents used for removal of arsenic
29
and fluoride reported in the literature is given in Table (5). It appears that all adsorbents used in
30
this study specially Hydrated Cement had a reasonable potential as an adsorbent for the
31
removal of As and fluoride from aqueous solutions.
32
In the present study, the amounts of different adsorbents were added to a specific
33
volume of arsenic and fluoride containing solutions of known concentration and the removal of
34
arsenic and fluoride was calculated by determining the remaining amount of arsenic and
35
fluoride after the adsorbent was made to stand in the solution up to already known equilibrium 15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
time. The same data was used for Langmuir isotherm and Freundlich Isotherm. Bricks Powder and Marble Powder are easily available free of cost from brick kilns and marble
4
processing workshops. The author get the waste materials free of cost from the Brick kilns and
5
Marbel Processing companies. Commercially available cement cost 0.8 US $/ Kg and 30g
6
Hydrated Cement is enough to treat 1 L of water (removal % >90 for arsenic and >75 % for
7
fluoride from an aqueous solution of 1000 µgL-1 of As and 30 mg L−1 of fluoride). As adsorbents
8
are inexpensive so regeneration was not required. For the disposal the waste was solidified with
9
good quality cement and disposed into a concrete vault.
SC
10 11
RI PT
2 3
Conclusions
In present study, new adsorbents were studied for removal of arsenic and fluoride from
15
drinking water. The method was simple and had shown great potential for removal of arsenic
16 17 18
and fluoride. The main conclusions that can be drawn from the above study are given below:
M AN U
12 13 14
23
found to load as high as 1.92 mgg-1 and 1.72mgg-1 for arsenic and fluoride respectively.
24
While for Bricks powder and Marble waste it was found 0.04 mgg-1 for arsenic and 0.84
25
mgg-1 and 0.18 mgg-1 for fluoride respectively.
20 21
EP
19
TE D
22
1. All the adsorbents (Hydrated Cement, Bricks Powder and Marble Powder) showed removal % >90 for arsenic and >75 % for fluoride from an aqueous solution of 1000 µgL-1 of As and 30 mg L−1 of fluoride at pH 7.0 and 8, with the contact period of 60 min and a dose of 30 g L−1. 2. The adsorption followed the Langmuir adsorption isotherm model. Hydrated Cement was
3. The optimum pH was found to about 7 for arsenic and fluoride adsorption with Hydrated
27
Cement and Marble powder and pH 8 for Bricks Powder which made them very suitable for
28
use in drinking water treatment.
29
AC C
26
4. Other ions did not greatly affect the adsorption of arsenic thereby indicating that these adsorbents were selective adsorbent for arsenic.
30 31 32
5. The simple method developed for the removal of arsenic and fluoride could successfully
33
reduced the arsenic and fluoride levels to below drinking water limits and proved to be an
34 35 36 37
effective and rapid household method
Acknowledgment 16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
This work was supported by the Higher Education Commission Pakistan (Grant No. 1267),
References
RI PT
Abernathy, C.O., Thomas, D.J., Calderon, R.L., 2003. Health effects and risk assessment of arsenic. The Journal of nutrition 133, 1536S-1538S. Adhikary, S., Tipnis, U., Harkare, W., Govindan, K., 1989. Defluoridation during desalination of brackish water by electrodialysis. Desalination 71, 301-312.
SC
Al-Garni, S., Ghanem, K., Bahobail, A., 2009. Biosorption characteristics of Aspergillus fumigatus in removal of cadmium from an aqueous solution. African Journal of Biotechnology 8.
M AN U
Baidya, K., Raj, A., Mondal, L., Bhaduri, G., Todani, A., 2006. Persistent conjunctivitis associated with drinking arsenic-contaminated water. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 22, 208–211. Bhatnagar, A., Minocha, A., Sillanpää, M., 2010. Adsorptive removal of cobalt from aqueous solution by utilizing lemon peel as biosorbent. Biochemical engineering journal 48, 181-186. Bissen, M., Frimmel, F.H., 2003. Arsenic—a review. Part I: occurrence, toxicity, speciation, mobility. Acta hydrochimica et hydrobiologica 31, 9-18.
TE D
Chassapis, K., Roulia, M., Vrettou, E., Fili, D., Zervaki, M., 2010. Biofunctional Characteristics of lignite fly ash modified by humates: A new soil conditioner. Bioinorganic chemistry and applications 2010.
EP
Chubar, N., Kanibolotskyy, V., Strelko, V., Gallios, G., Samanidou, V., Shaposhnikova, T., Milgrandt, V., Zhuravlev, I., 2005. Adsorption of phosphate ions on novel inorganic ion exchangers. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 255, 55-63. Devi, R., Alemayehu, E., Singh, V., Kumar, A., Mengistie, E., 2008. Removal of fluoride, arsenic and coliform bacteria by modified homemade filter media from drinking water. Bioresource technology 99, 2269-2274.
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Dodd, M.C., Vu, N.D., Ammann, A., Le, V.C., Kissner, R., Pham, H.V., Cao, T.H., Berg, M., von Gunten, U., 2006. Kinetics and mechanistic aspects of As (III) oxidation by aqueous chlorine, chloramines, and ozone: relevance to drinking water treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 40, 3285-3292. Farooqi, A., Masuda, H., Firdous, N., 2007. Toxic fluoride and arsenic contaminated groundwater in the Lahore and Kasur districts, Punjab, Pakistan and possible contaminant sources. Environmental Pollution 145, 839-849. Ghosh, P., Banerjee, M., Chaudhuri, S.D., Chowdhury, R., Das, J.K., Mukherjee, A., Sarkar, A.K., Mondal, L., Baidya, K., Sau, T.J., Banerjee, A., Basu, A., Chaudhuri, K., Ray, K., Giri, A.K., 2007. Comparison of health effects between individuals with and without skin lesions in 17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
the population exposed to arsenic through drinking water in West Bengal, India. J. Exp. Sci. Environ. Epidemol. 7, 215–223.
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Meenakshi, S., Viswanathan, N., 2007. Identification of selective ion-exchange resin for fluoride sorption. Journal of colloid and Interface Science 308, 438-450.
33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Muhammad, S., Tahir Shah, M., Khan, S., 2010. Arsenic health risk assessment in drinking water and source apportionment using multivariate statistical techniques in Kohistan region, northern Pakistan. Food and Chemical Toxicology 48, 2855-2864.
Ghorai, S., Pant, K., 2005. Equilibrium, kinetics and breakthrough studies for adsorption of fluoride on activated alumina. Separation and purification technology 42, 265-271.
RI PT
Huang, C.J., Liu, J., 1999. Precipitate flotation of fluoride-containing wastewater from a semiconductor manufacturer. Water Research 33, 3403-3412.
SC
Kagne, S., Jagtap, S., Dhawade, P., Kamble, S., Devotta, S., Rayalu, S., 2008. Hydrated cement: a promising adsorbent for the removal of fluoride from aqueous solution. Journal of Hazardous Materials 154, 88-95.
M AN U
Kamala, C., Chu, K., Chary, N., Pandey, P., Ramesh, S., Sastry, A., Sekhar, K.C., 2005. Removal of arsenic (III) from aqueous solutions using fresh and immobilized plant biomass. Water Research 39, 2815-2826. Kanel, S.R., Greneche, J.-M., Choi, H., 2006. Arsenic (V) removal from groundwater using nano scale zero-valent iron as a colloidal reactive barrier material. Environmental Science & Technology 40, 2045-2050.
TE D
Kumaresan, M., Riyazuddin, P., 2001. Overview of speciation chemistry of arsenic. Curr. Sci. 80, 837–846.
Mohapatra, M., Anand, S., Mishra, B., Giles, D.E., Singh, P., 2009. Review of fluoride removal from drinking water. Journal of environmental management 91, 67-77.
AC C
EP
Mudhoo, A., Sharma, S.K., Garg, V.K., Tseng, C., 2011. Arsenic: an overview of appli-cations, health, and environmental concerns and removal processes. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 435–519.
Mukherjee, S.C., Rahman, M.M., Chowdhury, U.T., Sengupta, M.K., Lodh, D., Chanda, C.R., Saha, K.C., Chakraborti, D., 2003. Neuropathy in arsenic toxicity from groundwater arsenic contamination in West Bengal, India. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 38, 165–183.
40 41
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Popat, K., Anand, P., Dasare, B., 1994. Selective removal of fluoride ions from water by the aluminium form of the aminomethylphosphonic acid-type ion exchanger. Reactive polymers 23, 23-32.
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Tressaud, A., 2006. Fluorine and the Environment: Agrochemicals, Archaeology, Green Chemistry & Water: Agrochemicals, Archaeology, Green Chemistry & Water. Access Online via Elsevier.
RI PT
Saha, J., Dikshit, A., Bandyopadhyay, M., Saha, K., 1999. A review of arsenic poisoning and its effects on human health. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 29, 281313. Saifuddin M, N., Kumaran, P., 2005. Removal of heavy metal from industrial wastewater using chitosan coated oil palm shell charcoal. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 8, 43-53.
SC
Say, R., Yılmaz, N., Denizli, A., 2003. Biosorption of cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic ions by the fungus Penicillium purpurogenum. Separation Science and Technology 38, 2039-2053.
M AN U
Smedley, P., Kinniburgh, D., 2002. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Applied Geochemistry 17, 517-568. Sollo, F., Larson, T.E., Mueller, H.F., 1978. Fluoride removal from potable water supplies. University of Illinois, Water Resources Center. Streat, M., Hellgardt, K., Newton, N., 2008. Hydrous ferric oxide as an adsorbent in water treatment: Part 3: Batch and mini-column adsorption of arsenic, phosphorus, fluorine and cadmium ions. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 86, 21-30.
TE D
Sujana, M., Thakur, R., Rao, S., 1998. Removal of fluoride from aqueous solution by using alum sludge. Journal of colloid and Interface Science 206, 94-101.
EP
Tseng, C.H., 2004. The potential biological mechanisms of arsenic-induced diabetes mellitus. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 197, 67–83.
AC C
Tripathi, R.D., Srivastava, S., Mishra, S., Singh, N., Tuli, R., Gupta, D.K., Maathuis, F.J., 2007. Arsenic hazards: strategies for tolerance and remediation by plants. TRENDS in Biotechnology 25, 158-165. Valko, M., Leibfritz, D., Moncol, J., Cronin, M.T., Mazur, M., Telser, J., 2007. Free radicals and antioxidants in normal physiological functions and human disease. The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology 39, 44-84. Viswanathan, N., Meenakshi, S., 2009. Role of metal ion incorporation in ion exchange resin on the selectivity of fluoride. Journal of hazardous materials 162, 920-930.
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Yadav, A.K., Kaushik, C., Haritash, A.K., Kansal, A., Rani, N., 2006. Defluoridation of groundwater using brick powder as an adsorbent. Journal of Hazardous Materials 128, 289-293.
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Zhang, W., Cai, Y., Tu, C., Ma, L.Q., 2002. Arsenic speciation and distribution in an arsenic hyperaccumulating plant. Science of the Total Environment 30
AC C
1 2 3 4 5 6
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1a: Effect of time on adsorption of arsenic.
BP
MP
Time
Equilibirium As Conc. (Ce) (µg/l)
(Ci-Ce)
(Ci-Ce)/Ci
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
30 60 90 30 60 90 30 60 90
25.2 20.2 20 24.3 20.1 20.2 29.5 24.5 24.4
74.8 79.8 80 75.7 79.9 79.8 70.5 75.5 75.6
0.748 0.798 0.8 0.757 0.799 0.798 0.705 0.755 0.756
BP
MP
Time
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
30 60 90 30 60 90 30 60 90
74.8 79.8 80 75.7 79.9 79.8 70.5 75.5 75.6
Equilibirium F Conc. (Ce) (mg/l)
(Ci-Ce)
(CiCe)/Ci
Removal%
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.9
3.2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.1
0.64 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.74 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.62
64 70 70 70 74 74 62 62 62
EP
HC
Mass of Adsorbent (g/l)
AC C
Adsorbent
Initial Conc. F (Ci) (mg/l)
TE D
Table 1b: Effect of contact time on adsorption of fluoride.
Removal %
RI PT
Mass of Adsorbent (g/l)
SC
HC
Initial Conc. (Ci) (µg/l)
M AN U
Adsorbent
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2a: Effect of adsorbent dose on adsorption of arsenic.
MP
Equlibrium As Conc. (Ce) (µg/l)
(Ci-Ce)
(CiCe)/Ci
Removal%
20.4 13.9 1.2 1.2 20.1 10.5 3.6 3.6 24.5 10.7 4.7 4.7
79.6 86.1 98.8 98.8 79.9 89.5 96.4 96.4 75.5 89.3 95.3 95.3
0.796 0.861 0.988 0.988 0.799 0.895 0.964 0.964 0.755 0.893 0.953 0.953
79.6 86.1 98.8 98.8 79.9 89.5 96.4 96.4 75.5 89.3 95.3 95.3
TE D
BP
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Mass of Adsorbent (g)/l 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
EP
HC
Initial Conc. (Ci) (µg/l)
AC C
Adsorbent
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2b: Effect of adsorbent dose on adsorption of fluoride.
BP
(Ci-Ce)
1.5 0.9 0.05 0.05 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.9 0.8 0.3 0.3
3.5 4.1 4.95 4.95 3.7 3.8 4.4 4.4 3.1 4.2 4.7 4.7
(CiCe)/Ci
Removal%
0.70 0.82 0.99 0.99 0.74 0.76 0.88 0.88 0.62 0.84 0.94 0.94
70 82 99 99 74 76 88 88 62 84 94 94
EP
TE D
MP
Equlibrium F Conc. (Ce) (mg/l)
RI PT
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
HC
Mass of Adsorbent (g)/l 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
SC
Initial Conc. (Ci) (mg/l)
M AN U
Adsorbent
Adsorbent pH HC
2 3
Mass of Adsorbent (g) 30 30
AC C
Table 3a: Effect of pH on adsorption of arsenic Initial As Conc. (Ci) (µg/l)
Equlibrium As Conc. (Ce) (µg/l)
(Ci-Ce)
(CiCe)/Ci
Removal%
100 100
32.8 31.6
67.2 68.4
0.7 0.7
67.2 68.4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
70.1 88.3 91.4 98.8 88.5 67.3 65.3 66.6 71.1 75.0 80.2 84.5 96.4 83.1 67.1 67.5 71.1 84.3 85.8 95.2 81.1 72.4
RI PT
0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7
SC
70.1 88.3 91.4 98.8 88.5 67.3 65.3 66.6 71.1 75.0 80.2 84.5 96.4 83.1 67.1 67.5 71.1 84.3 85.8 95.2 81.1 72.4
M AN U
29.9 11.7 8.6 1.2 11.5 32.7 34.7 33.4 28.9 25.0 19.8 15.5 3.6 16.9 32.9 32.5 28.9 15.7 14.2 4.8 18.9 27.6
TE D
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
EP
MP
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
AC C
BP
4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3b: Effect of pH on adsorption of fluoride
MP
(Ci-Ce)
(CiCe)/Ci
Removal%
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
2.2 1.9 1.5 1.2 1 0.05 0.3 0.5 2.5 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.6 2.1 1.9 1.4 0.9
2.8 3.1 3.5 3.8 4 4.95 4.7 4.5 2.5 2.7 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.4 2.9 3.1 3.6 4.1
0.56 0.62 0.70 0.76 0.80 0.99 0.94 0.90 0.50 0.54 0.70 0.76 0.82 0.90 0.92 0.88 0.58 0.62 0.72 0.82
56 62 70 76 80 99 94 90 50 54 70 76 82 90 92 88 58 62 72 82
M AN U
SC
Equlibrium F Conc. (Ce) (mg/l)
TE D
BP
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5
Mass of Adsorbent (g)
EP
HC
Initial F Conc. (Ci) (mg/l)
AC C
Adsorbent pH
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
30 30 30 30
4.2 4.7 3.7 3.6
0.8 0.3 1.3 1.4
0.84 0.94 0.74 0.72
RI PT
5 5 5 5
TE D
M AN U
SC
6 7 8 9
Table 4a: Effect of adsorbate concentration on adsorption of arsenic.
HC
BP
Final Conc. (Ce)
100 500 1000 100 500 1000 100 500
4.81 42.30 119.00 1.20 10.10 31.72 3.60 18.34
(Ce-Ci)
(Ci-Ce)/Ci
% Removal
95.19 457.70 881.00 98.80 489.90 968.28 96.40 481.66
0.95 0.92 0.88 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96
95.19 91.54 88.10 98.80 97.98 96.83 96.40 96.33
EP
MP
Initial Conc. (Ci)(µg/l)
AC C
Adsorbent
84 94 74 72
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
951.64
0.95
Table 4b: Effect of adsorbte concentration on adsorption of fluoride.
MP
5 15 30 5 15 30 5 15 30
0.1 0.5 6.1 0.6 3.3 7.4 0.3 1.1 7.5
5.0 14.5 24.0 4.4 11.7 22.6 4.7 13.9 22.5
(CeCi)/Ce
Removal %
M AN U
(Ce-Ci)
TE D
BP
Equlibrium F conc. (mg/l) (Ce)
EP
HC
Initial F conc. mg/l (Ci)
AC C
Adsorbent
95.16
RI PT
48.36
SC
1000
1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7
99 97 80 88 78 75 94 93 75
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
634 746 970 650 452
155 207 269 165 107
60 56 72 58 45
1074 1220 683 1044 781
75 170 100 80 100
206 815 971 412 313
21 29 13 32 20
SC
1.92 1.99 2.22 0.78 1.09
2 2 2 1 0
M AN U
7.6 7.3 7.8 7.4 7
TE D
Sargana Sargana Malsi Malsi Sargana
Total EC Mg+2 HCO3ClSO4-2 NO-1 Fe Zn As % Ca+2 Hardness MP (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (µg/l) (ms/cm) Removal (mg/l)
EP
pH
AC C
Sample
RI PT
Table 5: Physio-chemical parameters of ground water samples and As removal % of different adsorbents (Atta et al, 2014 unpublished data)
0 1 2 0 0
787 642 538 828 285
13 5 3 24 BDL
98 99 99 97 100
HC
% Removal
BP
% Removal
12 11 5 21 BDL
98 98 99 97 100
86 65 7 103 BDL
89 90 99 88 100
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 6a: Isotherm parameters obtained from Langmuir model for adsorption of As Kads (l/mg) 0.12 0.16 0.03
R2 0.999 0.999 0.999
qm (mg/g) 1.92 0.04 0.04
RI PT
Adsorbents HC BP MP
Figure 6b: Isotherm parameters obtained from Langmuir model for adsorption of fluoride
qm (mg/g) 1.72 0.84 0.18
R2 0.997 0.985 0.980
SC
Kads (l/mg) 3.06 0.25 0.66
M AN U
Adsorbents HC BP MP
TE D
Table 7a: Separation Factor for As using different adsorbents
Adsorbents
EP
HC
AC C
BP
MP
Initial As Concentration (Ci) (µg/l)
KadsCi
RL
100 500 1000 100 500 1000 100 500 1000
12.4 62.0 124.0 15.6 77.8 155.6 2.6 13.2 26.4
0.075 0.016 0.008 0.060 0.013 0.006 0.275 0.071 0.037
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 7b: Separation Factor for fluoride using different adsorbents
MP
5 15 30 5 15 30 5 15 30
15.3 45.9 91.7 1.2 3.7 7.4 3.3 9.9 19.8
RL
RI PT
BP
KadsCi
0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0
SC
HC
Initial F Concentration (Ci) (mg/l )
M AN U
Adsorbent
Table 8a: Isotherm Parameters obtained from Frendulich model for adsorption of As Adsorbents MP BP
K
R2
0.5 1.5
0.2 0.4
0.999 0.992
1.0
1.2
0.996
TE D
HC
n
Table 8b: Isotherm Parameters obtained from Frendulich model for adsorption of fluoride
n
K
R2
MP BP HC
0.3 0.2 0.4
0.9 1.3 2.5
0.785 0.990 0.857
AC C
EP
Adsorbents
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 9: Comparison of different adsorbent with present study for removal of arsenic and fluoride from water Adsorbent
Maximum adsorption capacity mg/g
pH
Reference
Gibbsite
0.073
3.0–7.0
140
Fly ash
0.40
Hematite
0.003
Feldspar
0.003
Iron oxide coated sand
0.01
RH-FeOOH
0.03
Blue Pine wood shavings
0.1
Quaternized rice husks
0.77
Activated alumina
0.18
RI PT
Arsenic
141
4.2
141
6.2
141
4
142
4
143
10
55
7-8
144
7-8
144
1.92
7
Present study
0.04
8
Present study
0.02
7
Present study
0.42
4.5
120
1.76
6
145
1.16
-
-
0.39
6
145
0.26
6
146
Crassipes biomassand itscarbonized form
0.52
5.5
147
Geogenicapatite
0.01
5-6
148
Fe–Al–Cenanoadsorbent
2.22
7
149
Calciumchloridemodified natural zeolite Hydrated Cement
1.76
6
150
1.72
7
Present study
Bricks Powder
0.84
8
Present study
Marble Powder
0.18
7
Present study
M AN U
Hydrated Cement Bricks Powder Marble Powder Fluoride Al(OH)coated ricehusks ash
TE D
Fluorspar Activated quartz Calcite
AC C
EP
Montmorillonite
SC
4.0
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 1: Effect of contact time on adsorption of arsenic and fluoride (a) Hydrated Cement (b) Marble powder (c) Bricks powder
100
HC
60
As
40
SC
% Removal
80
RI PT
A
F
20
100
MP
TE D
% Removal
60
20
90
B
80
40
60 Time (min)
M AN U
30
EP
30
60 Time (min)
90
AC C
100
BP
C
%Removal
80
60
40
20 30
60 Time (min)
90
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
% Removal
110
HC
90
As
70
F
RI PT
Figure 2: Effect of adsorbent dose on adsorption of arsenic and fluoride (a) Hydrated Cement (b) Marble powder (c) Bricks powder
SC
A
50
10
20
30
40
90
MP
70
TE D
% Removal
110
M AN U
Adsorbent dose (g/l)
B
50
10
20
30
40
EP
Adsorbent dose (g/l)
PB
% Removal
AC C
110
90
70
C 50 10
20
30
Adsorbent dose (g/l)
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 3: Effect of pH on adsorption of arsenic and fluoride (a) Hydrated Cement (b) Marble powder (c) Bricks powder
110
% Removal
90
70 As
2
3
4
5
6
110
90
70
8
9
B
TE D
% Removal
MP
7
M AN U
pH
SC
F
50
RI PT
A
HC
50
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
pH
EP
2
110
% Removal
AC C
BP
C
90
70
50 2
3
4
5
6 pH
7
8
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 4: Effect of adsorbate concentration on adsorption of arsenic and fluoride (a) Hydrated Cement (b) Marble powder (c) Bricks Powder
110
HC
90
RI PT
% Removal
100
80 70
As
60 F
A 100
500 Adsorbate Conc.
1000
M AN U
100
SC
50
MP
% Removal
90 80 70
TE D
60
B
50
100
500
1000
Adsorbate Conc.
EP
110
BP
AC C
% Removal
100 90 80 70 60
C 50 100
500 1000 Adsorbate Conc.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 5: Langmuir Isotherm (5A) Arsenic (5B) Fluoride 10.0
400
MP
MP
8.0 6.0
1/qe
200
4.0
100
2.0
RI PT
1/qe
300
0.0
0 0
100
200
0.0
300
1.0
1/C 400
HC
10.0
3.0
4.0
8.0
200
6.0
SC
300
1/qe
1/qe
HC
4.0
100
M AN U
2.0 0
0.0
0
500
1000
1/C
400
0.0
10.0
BP
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1/C
BP
8.0
1/qe
300 200
TE D
1/qe
2.0
1/C
100 0 0
100
200
1/C
AC C
EP
5(a)
300
6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1/C
5(b)
1.5
2.0
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 6: Freundlich Isotherm (6a) As (F-)
8
8.0
MP
MP 6.0
4
RI PT
Log qe
Log qe
6
4.0 2.0
2
0.0
0 0
2
4
6
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
HC
2
M AN U
Log qe
6.0
4
4.0 2.0
0 0
2
4
6
8
TE D
Log C
BP
6 4
2
Log C
AC C
0
EP
2 0
8
4
0.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
Log C
8.0 BP 6.0
Log qe
Log qe
2.0
8.0
HC
6
Log qe
1.0
SC
8
0.0
Log C
Log C
4.0 2.0 0.0
6
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
Log C
0.0
0.5
1.0
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
Figure 7a. XRD spectra of Marble Powder
Figure 7b. XRD spectra of Bricks Powder
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
Figure 7c: XRD spectra of Hydrated Cement
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 8: SEM of Marble Powder (8a) unloaded (8b) lorded (8c) high resolution SEM of single pore shown in 8a
M AN U
SC
RI PT
8a
4c
AC C
8c
EP
TE D
8b
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 9: SEM of Hydrated Cement (9a) unloaded (9b) loaded (9c) high resolution SEM of single pore shown in 9a
M AN U
SC
RI PT
9a
AC C
9c
EP
TE D
9b
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 10: SEM of Bricks powder (10a) unloaded (10b) loaded (10c) high resolution SEM of single pore shown in 10a
M AN U
SC
RI PT
10a
AC C
EP
TE D
10b
10c cc
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights (for review) Simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride from drinking water.
Industrial waste materials used for the removal of arsenic and fluoride.
Hydrated Cement, Marble Powder and Bricks Powder are efficient and cost effective adsorbents.
RI PT
XRD and SEM were performed to assess the surface morphology of adsorbents.
Hydrated Cement, Marble Powder and Bricks Powder used first time for the
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride.