Arsenic Removal from Groundwater in Conjunction with Biological‐Iron Removal

Lehimas, G. F. D.; Chapman, J. I.; Bourgine, F. P.

doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2001.tb00331.x

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though the results showed the presence of iron bacteria, a biological arsenic-removal mechanism inside the filters is rather unlikely, mainly because, in that case, removal would also then be observed in the reference filter, i.e., all three filters presented a biological top layer. Among other aspects, the low iron concentration in the inlet was probably the limiting factor for biological arsenic removal in this case, i.e., according to the investigation by Pokhrel et al [17,30], iron must be present in groundwater in concentrations at least 40 times higher than that of arsenic for biological arsenic-removal to be efficient. More detailed investigations would have to be conducted, however, including a more complete analysis of the microbiological population of the other two filters, in order to allow a better understanding of the influence of the biological activities of this type of filters on arsenic removal.…”

Section: Biological Arsenic Removalmentioning

confidence: 82%

Comparing Mixed-Media and Conventional Slow-Sand Filters for Arsenic Removal from Groundwater

Śmiech

Tolsma

Kovács

et al. 2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arsenic contamination of groundwater is a major public health concern worldwide. The problem has been reported mainly in southern Asia and, especially, in Bangladesh. Slow-sand filters (SSF) augmented with iron were proven to be a simple, low-cost and decentralized technique for the treatment of arsenic-contaminated sources. In this research, three pilot-scale SSF (flowrate 6 L·h −1 ) were tested regarding their capability of removing arsenic from groundwater in conditions similar to those found in countries like Bangladesh (70 µg As(III) L −1 , 26 • C). From the three, two filters were prepared with mixed media, i.e., sand mixed with corrosive iron matter (CIM filter) and iron-coated sand (ICS filter), and a third conventional SSF was used as a reference. The results obtained showed that the CIM filter could remove arsenic below the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline concentration of 10 µg·L −1 , even for inlet concentrations above 150 µg·L −1 . After 230 days of continuous operation the arsenic concentration in the effluent started increasing, indicating depletion or saturation of the CIM layer. The effluent arsenic concentration, however, never exceeded the Bangladeshi standard of 50 µg·L −1 throughout the whole duration of the experiments.

show abstract

Section: Biological Arsenic Removalmentioning

confidence: 82%

Comparing Mixed-Media and Conventional Slow-Sand Filters for Arsenic Removal from Groundwater

Śmiech

Tolsma

Kovács

et al. 2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arsenic removal in conjunction with the biological oxidation of iron or manganese or both has been reported (Lehimas et al, 2001;Zouboulis and Katsoyiannis, 2002a;Katsoyiannis et al, 2002;. Lehimas et al (2001) used natural groundwater and arsenite {As(III)} and ferrous iron was added in pilot scale experiments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Lehimas et al (2001) used natural groundwater and arsenite {As(III)} and ferrous iron was added in pilot scale experiments. They found that As(III) removal was directly related to the concentration of iron added to the system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological filtration for removal of arsenic from drinking water

Pokhrel

Viraraghavan

2009

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Consequently, excess amounts of adsorbents are required to ensure sufficient arsenic removal, which results in the generation of large amount of arseniccontaminated sludge and rising of overall remediation costs 22,23) . To solve such problems, iron-based biological treatments applying iron-oxidizing bacteria (IOB), which has been originally used for Fe and Mn removal from groundwater, have been recently proposed as a cost-effective and environmentally-friendly alternative technology for arsenic removal [24][25][26] . Biogenic iron oxides (BIO) produced by IOB, such as Gallionella ferruginea and Leptothrix ochracea, have been proven to adsorb arsenic efficiently due to their large surface area 26,27) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arsenic adsorption characteristics of biogenic iron oxides in comparison to chemogenic iron oxides

Inoue

Sei

et al. 2012

Japanese J. Wat. Treat. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Iron-based adsorbents are attractive agents for remediation of arsenic contaminated water. This study characterized biogenic iron oxides (BIO) samples, which were obtained from a biological water treatment plant, from the physicochemical and biological aspects, and examined their As(V) and As(III) adsorption capability in comparison to that of chemogenic iron oxides (CIO). The BIO samples contained large amounts of Fe, Mn and PO4 3and were dominated with Leptothrix spp., a typical iron-oxidizing bacteria, suggesting the formation of Fe and Mn oxides precipitation with large surface area on Leptothrix cell surface. Batch adsorption experiments of As(V) and As(III) (100 to 1500 μg/L each) with BIO and CIO (5 mg-Fe/L), and the regression of the experimental data by Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms revealed that BIO is more effective than CIO regarding the aqueous arsenic removal, irrespective of the species and concentrations of arsenic. The maximum arsenic adsorption capacities of BIO were 34.25 µg-As(V)/mg-Fe and 28.99 µg-As(III)/ mg-Fe, respectively, which were 2.7 times larger than those of CIO. Because BIO can be generated continuously by biological oxidation of Fe coexisting in arsenic contaminated water, it can be concluded that BIO-based adsorption would be a promising arsenic remediation technology for Asian developing countries where drinking water source is heavily contaminated with arsenic and contains a high concentration of iron.

show abstract

Arsenic Removal from Groundwater in Conjunction with Biological‐Iron Removal

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

Comparing Mixed-Media and Conventional Slow-Sand Filters for Arsenic Removal from Groundwater

Comparing Mixed-Media and Conventional Slow-Sand Filters for Arsenic Removal from Groundwater

Biological filtration for removal of arsenic from drinking water

Arsenic adsorption characteristics of biogenic iron oxides in comparison to chemogenic iron oxides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About