No abstract

Recent studies have suggested that the interaction between phosphate and goethite includes ternary adsorption/ surface precipitation as well as surface complexformation. The ternary adsorption/surface precipitation process envisioned involves the dissolution of the goethite crystal and subsequent adsorption of iron on the surface-bound phosphate. Further evidence to support the suggested process is needed. The process was investigated using two approaches. First, the sorption of iron spiked into a slurry of phosphated goethite and the effect of the iron sorption on phosphate uptake kinetics were investigated to determine whether iron would be adsorbed on the phosphated surface and whether it would enhance phosphate adsorption. Lead was also spiked into solution for comparison. Second, changes in the xi-potential of phosphated goethite were monitored with time. Adsorption of iron on the surface of phosphated goethite should increase the xi-potential of the goethite. Iron spiked into a phosphated goethite slurry was adsorbed on the solid with a concurrent adsorption of phosphate. The iron adsorption did not change the slow phosphate adsorption kinetics. Lead spiked into the solution was also sorbed but to a lesser extent than iron and with a lower apparent P:Pb mole ratio. Lead addition also changed the phosphate adsorption kinetics. With time, the xi-potential of phosphated goethite became more positive, returning almost to the potential of unphosphated goethite at low surface coverages. The slow increase in xi-potential over time indicates that long-term reactions are occurring on the goethite surface, most likely involving the dissolution of goethite to release iron and the subsequent reaction between the iron and surface-bound phosphate. These results provide strong support for the surface precipitation model, and are inconsistent with models envisioning the reaction between phosphate and the goethite surface as involving only monolayer surface complex formation.

The competitive adsorption of phosphate and arsenate on goethite was investigated to better understand the bonding mechanisms for the two ions. The anions were added both simultaneously and sequentially. When added simultaneously, the two ions were adsorbed about equally, with the total surface coverage being slightly greater than for either ion alone. When added sequentially, the extent of exchange for the first ion depended on the equilibration time before the second ion was introduced--the longer the equilibration time the greater the exchange. There is a nonexchangeable fraction for both ions that is approximately equal to the initially adsorbed amount of each ion. The results suggest a two-phase reaction on the surface, with the first phase being a rapid surface complex formation on the goethite surface, followed by the slower buildup of a surface precipitate on the adsorbed layer. The exchangeable ions are in the surface precipitate. These results are incompatible with a surface complexation model (SCM) for anion adsorption on geothite and indicate that the actual reactions are more complicated than the reaction assumed in a SCM.

The slow stage of phosphate or arsenate adsorption on hydrous metal oxides frequently follows an Elovich equation. The equation can be derived by assuming kinetic control by either a diffusion process (either interparticle or intraparticle) or a heterogeneous surface reaction. The aim of this study is to determine whether the slow stage of arsenic adsorption on goethite is more consistent with diffusion or heterogeneous surface reaction control. Adsorption kinetics of arsenate and dimethylarsinate (DMA) on goethite (alpha-FeOOH) were investigated at different pH values and inert electrolyte concentrations. Their adsorption kinetics was described and compared using Elovich (Gamma vs ln time) plots. Desorption of arsenate and DMA was studied by increasing the pH of the suspension from pH 4.0 to pH 10.0 or 12.0. The effective particle sizes and zeta-potential of goethite were also determined. Effective particle size increased rapidly as the pH approached pH(IEP), both in the absence and presence of arsenic. Inert electrolyte concentrations and pH had no effect on the slow stage of arsenate adsorption on goethite, while the kinetics of DMA adsorption on goethite was influenced by both parameters. The slow stage of arsenate adsorption on goethite follows an Elovich equation. Since effective particle size changes with both pH and inert electrolyte concentrations, and effective particle size influences interparticle diffusion, the arsenate adsorption kinetics indicate that the slow adsorption step is not due to interparticle diffusion. DMA also has complex adsorption kinetics with a slow adsorption stage. DMA desorbed completely and rapidly when the pH was raised, in contrast to the slow adsorption kinetics, indicating that the slow adsorption step is not due to intraparticle diffusion. The slow adsorption is not the result of diffusion, but rather is due either to the heterogeneity of the surface site bonding energy or to other reactions controlling arsenic removal from solution.

No abstract