Evaluation of Arsenic Removal from Water Using Activated Carbon Produced from Agricultural Walnuts & Almonds Wastes

آب و خاک

Article 13, Volume 34, Issue 4 - Serial Number 72, September 2020, Pages 947-960   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v34i4.85942

Authors

F. Hashemzadeh¹; S. Parsa^{* 2}

¹Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

²Graduate Faculty of Environment, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Increasing freshwater consumption caused to reduce renewable freshwater resources in recent years, and one of the basic strategies would be use of non-conventional water resources. Arsenic is one of the natural elements widely distributed in the Earth’s crust. It is commonly found in compounds with oxygen, chlorine, or sulfur, which generally contain inorganic arsenic compounds. Arsenic organic compounds also contain hydrogen and arsenic carbon. There are several methods that can limit the amount of arsenic in water and wastewater; one of these methods is surface adsorption. In this process, any solid that tends to absorb the fluid environment on its surface is considered as an adsorbent. Absorption capacity, selectivity, reproducibility, kinetics, compatibility, and cost are the most essential characteristics of the adsorbent.
Materials and Methods: In this study, activated carbon derived from agricultural waste was used as tertiary treatment. The heated coal powder used in this study was obtained from the almond and walnut peel waste (from Tuyserkan city of Hamedan province). Activated carbon powder was used in laboratory-scale experiments and was performed for arsenic removal from synthetics samples. Physically activated carbon was obtained and then chemically activated by acidification. Characterization tests (i.e., XRD, FT-IR, BETand SEM tests) were carried out on both types of the adsorbent. Arsenic removal was carried out in batch experiments. The effect of laboratory parameters (i.e., contact time, pH, adsorbent dose, and initial concentration) on the removal process was studied. Experiments are carried out step by step, and after optimizing each parameter and keeping the other parameters constant, all the parameters are optimized accordingly.
Results and Discussion: The contact time for the adsorption process was considerably decreased in comparison with previous studies. Kinetic and equilibrium studies showed that the adsorption process followed by Langmuir isotherm and second-degree kinetic models. Chemical activation, improved performance, and characteristics of the adsorbent. Acidified charcoal and raw charcoal were compared, and it was found that acidic charcoal had the finest cavities and had a uniform distribution. Although the volume of the cavities has not changed significantly, the structure of the cavities has changed substantially, with the most enormous volume of cavities (0.5 cm3 / g) being less than 5 nm in diameter and the average diameter of the cavities Decreased by 2 nm. According to the results of the Coal Structure Morphological Survey (SEM), in crude coal, the cavities have large openings. Their number is small, but in acidified coal, the number of cavities is increased, and the surface area of the coal is high. The high internal surface area and the presence of microstructural cavities lead to high adsorption of arsenic at the acid-adsorbed sites. With increasing contact time from 0 to 3 minutes, the removal rate of arsenic increases, and after 3 minutes to 10 minutes, it grows with a low gradient and then the removal percentage slightly. In other words, after 10 minutes, there is a balance between the solid and liquid phases. The arsenic removal rate reaches 90% at the third minute and 100% in approximately 13 minutes. As the retention time increases, the contact time of the arsenic with the adsorbent increases, and the adsorption rate increases as the opportunity for contact with the adsorption sites increases. Due to the high specific surface area of the adsorbent and its morphological characteristics, the removal rate reaches 100% with time.
Conclusion: The XRD experiment shows that improved coal is closer to the stable structure than the raw coal. According to the FT-IR experiment, the acidified charcoal decreased the oxygen and aliphatic functional groups and increased the hydrophobicity of the charcoal. The BET experiment revealed that the cavity surface size increased, and the cavity diameter decreased. The cavity distribution was such that the largest volume of cavities was in the range of nanomolecular size. The SEM image also shows an increase in the fine cavities. As a result, the adsorbent has a good morphology and reduces the adsorption time. Also, its special surface is high and has uniform cavities distribution, which can be one of the main causes of high removal percentage. The results showed that at concentrations of less than 120 µg / L and 10 min retention time, the removal rate was 100%. At higher concentrations, drinking water standards can be reached by increasing the retention time or adsorbent dose. The rate of uptake depends on both the concentration of arsenic and the amount of the adsorbent

Keywords

walnut shell; Water treatment; Arsenic; adsorption

References

1- Abedin M.J., Cottep-Howells J., and Meharg A.A. 2002. Arsenic uptake and accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.) irrigated with contaminatedwater. Plant Soil 240: 311-319.

2- Baharvand S., Mirbei Sabzevari K., and Fatahpour M. 2006. Effects of arsenic on the environment and human health in: Proceedings of 1st Ecological and Medical Geology Conference. Tehran, Shahid Beheshti University. (In Persian)

3- Bansal R.C.G. 2005. Activated Carbon Adsorption, CRC Press.

4- Bhattacharya, A.K., Naiya, T.K., Mandal, S.N. and Das, S.K., 2008. Adsorption, kinetics and equilibrium studies on removal of Cr (VI) from aqueous solutions using different low-cost adsorbents. Chemical Engineering Journal 137(3): 529-541.

5- Budinova T., Savova D., Tsyntsarski B., Ania C.O., Cabal B., Parra J.B. and Petrov N. 2009. Biomass waste-derived activated carbon for the removal of arsenic and manganese ions from aqueous solutions. Applied Surface Science 255(8): 4650-4657.

6- Cetin S., and Pehlivan E. 2007. The use of fly ash as a low cost, environmentally friendly alternative to activated carbon for the removal of heavy metals from aqueous solutions. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 298(1-2): 83-87.

7- Chammui Y., Sooksamiti P., Naksata W., Thiansem S., and Arqueropanyo O.A. 2014. Removal of arsenic from aqueous solution by adsorption on Leonardite. Chemical Engineering Journal 240: 202-210.

8- EPA. 2003. "Arsenic Treatment Technology Evaluation Handbook for small Systems." http://www.Epa. gov/safewater. 816-R-03-014.

9- Foroutan R., and Mostafapour F. 2014. The effect of adsorbent on the efficiency of arsenic adsorption by pine bark powder at pH 7 and dose of adsorbents (5.3 and 6 g / l) in: procciding of 3rd International Conference on Environment, Energy and Biological Defense, Tehran, Mehran Arroud Institute of Higher Education, Promotion Group for Environmental Lovers.

10- Gray N.F. 2008, Drinking water quality, Cambridge University press.

11- Lorenzen L., Van Deventer J.S.J., and Landi W.M. 1995. Factors affecting the mechanism of the adsorption of arsenic species on activated carbon. Minerals Engineering 8(4-5): 557-569.

12- Maji S.K., Pal A., and Pal T. 2008. Arsenic removal from real-life groundwater by adsorption on laterite soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials 151(2-3): 811-820.

13- Mirhosseini M,. Saeb K., and Biazar E. 2012. A Comparative Study of Arsenic Removal from Water by Different Concentrations of Microparticulate Adsorption of Hydroxyapatite in: procciding of National Conference on Environmental Research, Hamadan, Shahid Mofattah University. (In Persian)

14- Mohan D., and Pittman Jr C.U. 2007. Arsenic removal from water/wastewater using adsorbents—a critical review. Journal of Hazardous Materials 142(1-2): 1-53.

15- Mopoung S. 2008. Surface image of charcoal and activated charcoal from banana peel. Journal of Microscopy Society of Thailand, 22, pp.15-19.

16- Omri A., and Benzina M. 2012. Characterization of activated carbon prepared from a new raw lignocellulosic material: Ziziphus spina-christi seeds. Journal de la Societe Chimique de Tunisie 14: 75-183.

17- Rezaee A., Dehestani H.G., and Khavanin S.A. 2008. Application of impregnated almond shell activated carbon by zinc and zinc sulfate nitrat removal from water. Iranian Journal of Health and Environment.

18- Roy P., Mondal N.K., and Das K. 2014. Modeling of the adsorptive removal of arsenic: a statistical approach. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2(1): 585-597.

19- Saqib A.N.S., Waseem A., Khan A.F., Mahmood Q., Khan A., Habib A., and Khan A.R. 2013. Arsenic bioremediation by low cost materials derived from Blue Pine (Pinus wallichiana) and Walnut (Juglans regia). Ecological Engineering 51: 88-94.

20- WHO. 2004. Guidelines for drinking water quality, Geneva: 1-22.

21- Zabihi M., Ahmadpour A., and Asl A.H. 2009. Removal of mercury from water by carbonaceous sorbents derived from walnut shell. Journal of Hazardous Materials 167(1-3): 230-236.