Cited by 238Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removalUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsHeavy Metal Pollution Remediation

Simultaneous removal of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni and Zn from stormwater: Experimental comparison of 11 different sorbents

Genç-Fuhrman, Hülya, Mikkelsen, Peter S., Ledin, Anna·2007·Water Research

Abstract

The potential of using alumina, activated bauxsol-coated sand (ABCS), bark, bauxsol-coated sand (BCS), fly ash (FA), granulated activated carbon (GAC), granulated ferric hydroxide (GFH), iron oxide-coated sand (IOCS), natural zeolite (NZ), sand, and spinel (MgAl(2)O(4)) as sorbents for removing heavy metals from stormwater are investigated in the present study. The ability of the sorbents to remove a mixture of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni and Zn from synthetic stormwater samples were evaluated in batch tests at a starting pH of 6.5. The metal speciation and saturation data is obtained using the PHREEQ-C geochemical model and used to elucidate the sorption data. It is found that BCS, FA, and spinel have significantly higher affinity towards heavy metals mainly present as cationic or non-charged species (i.e. Cd, Cu, Ni and Zn) compared to those present as anionic species (i.e. As and Cr). However, IOCS, NZ and sand have higher affinity towards As and Cr, while alumina has equally high affinity to all tested heavy metals. The Freundlich isotherm model is found to fit the data in many cases, but ill fitted results are also observed, especially for FA, BCS and GAC, possibly due to leaching of some metals from the sorbents (i.e. for FA) and oversaturated conditions making precipitation the dominant removal mechanism over sorption in batches with high heavy metal concentrations and pH. Calculated sorption constants (i.e. K(d)) are used to compare the overall heavy metal removal efficiency o…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2006.10.024

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Genç-Fuhrman, H., Mikkelsen, P. S., & Ledin, A.
Affiliations
Technical University of Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Genç-Fuhrman, Hülya
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-02
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
591-602
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036209727
Cited by
238
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
FWCI
14.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Water Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Heavy Metal Pollution Remediation
Keywords
stormwater treatment, heavy metal removal, sorbents, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, fly ash, granular activated carbon, spinel, natural zeolite, iron oxide-coated sand, alumina, Freundlich isotherm, metal speciation, sorption constants, metal leaching, precipitation chemistry
MeSH terms
Adsorption, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Nickel, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Zinc, Water Purification, Metals, Heavy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review