The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative study of arsenic removal by iron using electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation
Abstract
This research studied As(III) and As(V) removal during electrocoagulation (EC) in comparison with FeCl(3) chemical coagulation (CC). The study also attempted to verify chlorine production and the reported oxidation of As(III) during EC. Results showed that As(V) removal during batch EC was erratic at pH 6.5 and the removal was higher-than-expected based on the generation of ferrous iron (Fe(2+)) during EC. As(V) removal by batch EC was equal to or better than CC at pH 7.5 and 8.5, however soluble Fe(2+) was observed in the 0.2-μm membrane filtrate at pH 7.5 (10-45%), and is a cause for concern. Continuous steady-state operation of the EC unit confirmed the deleterious presence of soluble Fe(2+) in the treated water. The higher-than-expected As(V) removals during batch mode were presumed due to As(V) adsorption onto the iron rod oxyhydroxides surfaces prior to the attainment of steady-state operation. As(V) removal increased with decreasing pH during both CC and EC, however EC at pH 6.5 was anomalous because of erratic Fe(2+) oxidation. The best adsorption capacity was observed with CC at pH 6.5, while lower but similar adsorption capacities were observed at pH 7.5 and 8.5 with CC and EC. A comparison of As(III) adsorption showed better removals during EC compared with CC possibly due to a temporary pH increase during EC. In contrast to literature reports, As(III) oxidation was not observed during EC, and As(III) adsorption onto iron hydroxides during EC was only 5-30% that of As(V) adsorption. Also in contrast to literature, significant Cl(2) was not generated during EC, in fact, the rods actually produced a significant chlorine demand due to reduced iron oxides on the rod. Although Cl(2) generation and As(III) oxidation are possible using a graphite anode, a combination of graphite and iron rods in the same EC unit did not produce As(III) oxidation. However, a two-stage process (graphite anode followed by iron anode in separate chambers) was effective in As(III) oxidation and removal. The competing ions, silica and phosphate interfered with As(V) adsorption during both CC and EC. However, the degree of interference depends on the concentration and presence of other competing ions. In particular, the presence of silica lowered the effect of phosphate with increasing pH due to silica's own significant effect at high pHs.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Pallier et al. [159] used kaolinite and FeCl3 as a coagulant/flocculent and they obtained more than 90% and 77% removal of AsV and AsIII, respectively, using 9.2 ppm of Fe3+.”
From Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater: A Review of Sources, Prevalence, Health Risks, and Strategies for Mitigation (2014) · cites this paper as [159]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- Arienzo, 2002, Retention of arsenic on hydrous ferric oxides generated by electrochemical peroxidation, Chemosphere, 48, 1009, 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00199-6 · DOI
- Balasubramanian, 2001, Arsenic removal from industrial effluent through electrocoagulation, Chem. Eng. Technol., 24, 519, 10.1002/1521-4125(200105)24:5<519::AID-CEAT519>3.0.CO;2-P · DOI
- Chen, 2000, Separation of pollutants from restaurant wastewater by electrocoagulation, Separ. Purif. Technol., 19, 65, 10.1016/S1383-5866(99)00072-6 · DOI
- Cheng, 1994, Enhanced coagulation for arsenic removal, J. AWWA, 86, 79, 10.1002/j.1551-8833.1994.tb06248.x · DOI
- Ghurye, 2004, Pilot study of coagulation microfiltration for arsenic removal from groundwater, J. AWWA, 96, 143, 10.1002/j.1551-8833.2004.tb10605.x · DOI
- Han, 2002, Preliminary investigation of electrocoagulation as a substitute for chemical coagulation, Water Sci. Technol., 2, 73
- Hansen, 2006, Electrocoagulation as a remediation tool for wastewaters containing arsenic, Miner. Eng., 19, 521, 10.1016/j.mineng.2005.09.048 · DOI
- Hering, 1996, Arsenic removal by ferric chloride, J. AWWA, 88, 155, 10.1002/j.1551-8833.1996.tb06541.x · DOI
- Holt, 2002, A quantitative comparison between chemical dosing and electrocoagulation, Colloid. Surface Physicochem. Eng. Aspect., 211, 233, 10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00285-6 · DOI
- Jiang, 2002, Laboratory study of electrocoagulation–flotation for water treatment, Water Res., 36, 4064, 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00118-5 · DOI
- Kim, J., Velichenko, A.B., Korshin, G.V., 2002. Effect of selected water quality parameters on electrochemical oxidation of arsenite in drinking water. In: Proc. Annu. AWWA Conf.
- Kobya, 2006, Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewaters by electrocoagulation, J. Hazard. Mater., 133, 172, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.10.007 · DOI
- Kumar, 2004, Removal of arsenic from water by electrocoagulation, Chemosphere, 55, 1245, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.12.025 · DOI
- Lakshmanan, D., 2007. A Systematic Study of Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water Using Coagulation–Filtration and Electrocoagulation–Filtration. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Houston, Houston, TX.
- Lakshmanan, 2009, Ferrous and ferric ion generation during iron electrocoagulation, Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 3853, 10.1021/es8036669 · DOI
- McNeill, 1995, Soluble arsenic removal at water treatment plants, J. AWWA, 87, 105, 10.1002/j.1551-8833.1995.tb06346.x · DOI · Paper page
- McNeill, 1997, Predicting arsenic removal during metal hydroxide precipitation, J. AWWA, 89, 75, 10.1002/j.1551-8833.1997.tb08163.x · DOI
- Mills, 2000, A new process for electrocoagulation, J. AWWA, 92, 34, 10.1002/j.1551-8833.2000.tb08957.x · DOI
- Mollah, 2004, Fundamentals, present and future perspectives of electrocoagulation, J. Hazard. Mater., 114, 199, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.08.009 · DOI
- Nikolaev, 1982, Treating natural waters in small water systems by filtration with electrocoagulation, Soviet J. Water Chem. Technol., 4, 244
- Novikova, 1982, Purification of effluents from the production of synthetic detergents by electrocoagulation, Soviet J. Water Chem. Technol., 4, 353
- Osipenko, 1977, Electrocoagulation neutralization of chromium containing effluent, Metallurgist, 21, 44
- Parga, 2005, Characterization of electrocoagulation for removal of chromium and arsenic, Chem. Eng. Technol., 28, 605, 10.1002/ceat.200407035 · DOI
- Pouet, 1995, Urban wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation and flotation, Water Sci. Technol., 31, 275, 10.2166/wst.1995.0536 · DOI
- Samanta, 2005, Preservation of inorganic arsenic species in groundwater, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 8877, 10.1021/es051185i · DOI
- Scott, 1995, Arsenic removal by coagulation, J. AWWA, 87, 114, 10.1002/j.1551-8833.1995.tb06347.x · DOI
- Tong, J., 1997. Development of an Iron(III)-Coagulation–Microfiltration Process for Arsenic Removal from Groundwater. Masters thesis, Dept. Of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston.
- Tsouris, 2000, Electrocoagulation for magnetic seeding of colloidal particles, Colloid. Surface Physicochem. Eng. Aspect., 177, 223
- Tyrina, 1982, Electrochemical treatment of industrial wastewaters containing copper cyanide and thiocyanate complexes, Soviet J. Water Chem. Technol., Vol.4, 462
- Vik, 1984, Electrocoagulation of potable water, Water Res., 18, 1355, 10.1016/0043-1354(84)90003-4 · DOI
- Zhu, 2005, Comparison of electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation pretreatment for enhanced virus removal using microfiltration membranes, Water Res., 39, 3098, 10.1016/j.watres.2005.05.020 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shankar, S., Shanker, U., & Shikha (2014) · The Scientific World Journal · doi:10.1155/2014/304524 · Cited by 616
Metadata
- Authors
- Lakshmanan, D., Clifford, D. A., & Samanta, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Houston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lakshmanan, Divagar
- ORCID
- Samanta, Gautam
- Venue
- Water Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-11
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 5641-5652
- ISSN
- 0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2066018751
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 6.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Water Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- American Water Works Association Research Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Arsenic contamination and mitigation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Coagulation and Flocculation Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Water Treatment and Disinfection
- Keywords
- arsenic removal, electrocoagulation, chemical coagulation, arsenite oxidation, As(V) adsorption, iron oxyhydroxide, ferrous iron, chlorine demand, graphite anode, silica interference, phosphate interference, pH effect, two-stage treatment, drinking water treatment, membrane filtration, adsorption capacity, arsenic speciation
- MeSH terms
- Adsorption, Arsenic, Chlorine, Electrochemistry, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Iron, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Purification
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