Next Article in Journal
Piston-Type Optical Modulator for Dynamic Thermal Radiation Tuning Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
Facile Fabrication of Novel NiFe2O4@Carbon Composites for Enhanced Adsorption of Emergent Antibiotics
Previous Article in Journal
A Comparative Study of Cytotoxicity of PPG and PEG Surface-Modified 2-D Ti3C2 MXene Flakes on Human Cancer Cells and Their Photothermal Response
Previous Article in Special Issue
Zinc-Containing Effluent Treatment Using Shewanella xiamenensis Biofilm Formed on Zeolite
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/ma14164371
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of the Different Type of Materials Used for Removing Phosphorus from Wastewater

by
Claudiu Cepan
1,
Adina-Elena Segneanu
2,*,
Oana Grad
1,
Maria Mihailescu
1,
Melinda Cepan
1 and
Ioan Grozescu
1
1
Department of Applied Chemistry and Engineering of Inorganic Compounds and the Environment, University Politehnica Timisoara, 300006 Timisoara, Romania
2
Faculty of Chemistry, Biology, Geography, West University of Timisoara, 300223 Timisoara, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2021, 14(16), 4371; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164371
Submission received: 14 July 2021 / Revised: 29 July 2021 / Accepted: 30 July 2021 / Published: 4 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmentally-Friendly Materials in Wastewater Treatment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Reducing the costs associated with water management, improving water quality and the environment are fundamental requirements of sustainable development. Maintaining the optimal level of phosphorus has a direct impact on water quality and the biological system. Current methods used in tertiary wastewater treatment for phosphorus removal present several disadvantages that influence the final water processing cost. Therefore, it is essential for water quality and food safety to develop ecological, cheap and highly efficient materials. This study reported the first comparative assessment of three different types of materials (magnetic, semiconductors and composite) as environmentally friendly, cheap adsorbents for phosphorus removal from wastewater. Several experiments were done to investigate the influence of adsorbent type, dosage and contact time on the efficiency of the processes. The adsorption process was fast and equilibrium was reached within 150 min. We found that the phosphorus adsorption efficiency on of these materials was higher than the chemical method. The obtained results indicated that specific surface area directly influences the performance of the adsorption process. EDS analysis was used to analyze adsorbents composition and analyze the type and content of elements in the substrate before and after reaction with wastewater.

1. Introduction

The constant growth of the world’s population, the expansion of urban areas and excessive industrialization including agriculture are just some of the most important causes that have had a strong negative impact on non-renewable natural resources and the environment, dramatically affecting water quality, soil productivity, security food and quality of life.
According to a recent estimation, about one-fifth of the world’s population has limited water resource. The pollutants in surface waters come mostly from industrial activity: heavy metals, dyes, fats, antibiotics, hormones and other pollutants [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24].
Water management and sustainable management of natural resources directly influences the quality of life and food security. In this context, remedying water problems and streamlining water resources to protect natural ecosystems is a necessity [1,2,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].
In recent years, mainly due to anthropological activities, there has been a continuous decline in non-renewable natural resources and an increase in environmental damage (water quality, soil productivity), both reflected implicitly in food security.
However, the prevention of the food crisis by expanding intensive industrialized agriculture and excessive soil fertilization (over 50% more than necessary) have affected the natural ecosystem.
Phosphorus and nitrogen are water pollutants with a negative impact on the biological diversity of ecosystems but have a positive effect on agricultural production [1,2,6,8,9,11,12,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65].
The discharge of these pollutants in excessive amounts causes eutrophication of water, which manifests, at first, in overgrown algae, aquatic plants and cyanobacteria. That water becomes hypoxic and reduces the natural habitat of fish. The process is then followed by the decomposition of flora with the production of carbon dioxide and decreasing pH, which affects the growth and development of the respective fauna (fish, molluscs).
Eutrophication is a phenomenon that affects the ecosystem, as well as economic, social and recreational activities, over time.
The substantial decrease effect of modern agricultural industrialization make it possible to design and develop sustainable technologies for efficient recovery and recycling of the nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater [1,3,6,8,9,11,12,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65].
In the last half-century, the concentration of phosphorus in wastewater that has reached effluents has reached alarming levels, causing deterioration in water quality. Its presence causes many water quality problems, including increased purification costs, decreased leisure and conservation value of accumulation, animal losses, and the possibly lethal effect of algae toxins in drinking water [4,6,8,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,34,35,36,37,38,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,63,64,65,66,67,68,69].
It is noteworthy that phosphorus is an essential, non-renewable resource, which cannot be produced or replaced by chemicals and which has a worldwide price that is trending upward due to the expansion of agricultural demand and limited supply.
On the other hand, worldwide, the phosphorus consumption to fertilize soil represents approximately 85% (15 million tons/year) of the entire amount of extracted phosphate rock (Ca5(PO4)3(F,Cl,OH)), and it is appreciated that the globally natural reserves will be depleted in the next 50–100 years [5].
It is estimated that a period of about 10–15 million years to regenerate the natural reserve of phosphorus is necessary [1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. The main sources of phosphorus production are of the biotic or abiotic types (fertilizers), which contribute to the increase of its concentration in the water reserves and implicitly to their eutrophication. Controlling the concentration of phosphorus discharged from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants is a key factor in preventing eutrophication of surface water.
Municipal wastewater has an average total content of 5–20 mg/L phosphorus, in which 1–5 mg/L has an organic nature and the rest of it has an inorganic nature [1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,65,66,67,68,69].
Consequently, it is necessary to develop and improve methods of phosphorus removal [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,65,66,67,68,69].
Phosphorus removal can be achieved by physical (membrane separation technologies), chemical or biological methods [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,65,66,67,68,69].
The most commonly used method is the chemical precipitation of phosphorus with iron and aluminum salts, or lime. However, chemical dephosphorization results in high operational costs and increases the volume of sludge by over 40% [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,65,66,68,69].
The disadvantage of chemical precipitation consists of reagent consumption, the cost of which varies. Moreover, the phosphate recovery from the resulting sewage sludge is not effective yet [70,71].
Phosphorus removal can be performed using a biological method or combined with a chemical treatment. Compared to the chemical removal of phosphorus, biological phosphorus removal is more advantageous, efficient and ecological but leads to the formation of large quantities of sludge whose further processing is reflected in the cost of wastewater treatment [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,65,66,67,68,69].
Worldwide, intense efforts are being made to identify high-performance and efficient materials that will ensure not only the reduction of water treatment costs but also the reuse of nutrients recovered from wastewater [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,65,66,67,68,69].
At present, several more or less efficient wastewater treatment technologies are known and applied in the world, which, in most cases, often affect water quality and, moreover, do not allow the removal of nutrients. In this respect, we can mention the following methods: water chlorination, ozonation, different types of membranes, osmosis, etc. [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,65,66,67,68,69].
The latest studies in the field of water treatment have focused on the development of nanotechnology, which are estimated to have a major impact in the very near future [26,27,66]. Due to their special properties, the field of use of nanoparticles is extremely diverse: environmental protection, medicine, IT, energy, biotechnology, agriculture, construction, etc.
The implications of developing efficient nanotechnology for the tertiary stage of wastewater treatment are particularly promising, especially due to the minimization of the number of by-products resulting from the process [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,55,65,66,67,68,69,72,73].
Currently, four types of nanomaterials are used for wastewater treatment: dendrimeric compounds, metallic nanoparticles, zeolites and respectively carbon-based nanomaterials.
A recent development in nanomaterials means that they are especially effective in removing heavy metals (ferrite, magnetite or zinc oxide). A particular interest was paid to magnetic nanoparticles due to their properties and large specific surface area, which determines unique adsorption properties that allow easily removing the pollutants from wastewater [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,64,65,66,67,68,69,74,75,76,77].
Most research in the wastewater decontamination field used semiconductor materials to obtain various photocatalysts. There are limited studies on the use of semiconductors as adsorbents [72,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82].
The literature describes different studies on zeolite and magnetite nanoparticles, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxides adsorbent capacity to remove pollutants from wastewater (heavy metals, compounds with nitrogen, dyes, organic compounds) [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82].
The use of adsorbent materials with high efficiency in removing phosphorus can be a simple and more environmentally friendly option than the chemical method. A particularly important aspect of this is the synthesis method efficiency. So far, phosphorus removal/recovery studies have demonstrated the increased capacity of magnetic nanomaterials. However, they have the disadvantage of the high cost of synthesis. Therefore, cheap and very efficient adsorbents represent the essential condition for a possible large-scale technical implementation of this method in wastewater treatment plants. In this study, a comparative evaluation of phosphorus removal capacity and efficiency of three different adsorbents—magnetic materials (magnetite, cobalt ferrite), semiconductors (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) and composite material (mordenite zeolite)—was conducted for the first time. Subsequently, series of experiments have been conducted to explore the effect of adsorbent dosage, and the contact time as well as the adsorption isotherm were also evaluated.
Furthermore, studies on the use of cobalt ferrite for phosphorus removal are relatively few and mainly refer to various materials that contain cobalt ferrite. To our best knowledge, this study is the first to report on the possible use of cobalt ferrite to remove phosphorus from wastewater [83,84,85].
Another novelty of this study is that, for the first time, these materials are evaluated together with two classical reagents used for phosphorus precipitation. Each of the materials selected for this study is environmentally friendly and allows the simultaneous removal of other organic or biological pollutants (zeolite, ZnO, TiO2) and even the possibility of recovery and reuse of phosphorus in the case of magnetic materials. The adsorbents’ phosphorus removal capacity under similar operational conditions with coagulation agents was investigated using synthetic wastewater.
The proposed materials were characterized in terms of composition and specific surface area. Subsequently, a series of experiments have been conducted to explore the effect of adsorbent type, dosage and contacting time on the adsorption efficiency.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals

All used reagents and solvents were analytical grade and were acquired from commercial sources (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany, WWR, Wien, Austria, Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) and used without a further purification. Magnetite (nanoparticle size: 23 nm) was offered by the National Research & Development Institute for Non-ferrous and Rare Metals, Romania. Mordenite zeolite (chemical structure: (Na2,Ca,K2)4(Al8Si40)O96·28H2O, nanoparticle size: 42 nm and specific surface area > 400 m2/g) was obtained from Clariant International, Switzerland ZnO (nanoparticle size: 37 nm). Titanium dioxide nanoparticle (nanoparticle size: 54 nm) and cobalt ferrite nanoparticles (nanoparticle size: 16 nm) were offered by the Research Institute for Renewable Energies, Timisoara.
In this study, a synthetic phosphorus solution was prepared for the adsorption test. A stock phosphorus solution of 400 mg/L was prepared by dissolving the chemically pure phosphate salt (Na2HPO4∙2H2O) in an appropriate amount of distilled water. The pH of the solution was adjusted until at pH 7.5. Standard 0.1 M HCl and 0.1 M NaOH solutions were used for pH adjustment.

2.2. Experimental Procedure

The specific procedure used to investigate the influence of different types of materials was as follows: For each set of analysis, five different samples (S1 = 0.01 g; S2 = 0.03 g; S3 = 0.05 g; S4 = 0.07 g and respectively S5 = 0.1 g) were weighed from every type of material: coagulants (FeCl3 and AlCl3) or adsorbents (cobalt ferrite, maghemite, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide and zeolite). To each material sample (S1–S5) 10 mL of sodium phosphate solution (synthetic wastewater) was added. The resulting suspended solutions were stirred at room temperature (23 °C) for 24 h. Then, they were centrifuged, decantated and filtered (Φ185 mm filter paper), and solid residues obtained were dried in an oven at 105 °C for 24 h. Initial and final phosphate concentration after the precipitation or adsorption were analyzed using the colorimetric method with ammonium molybdate and ascorbic acid on a UV-VIS-NIR spectrometer (950 Lambda UV-Vis-NIR Perkin Elmer) at a wavelength of 880 nm [71,86]. All testing was performed with water at room temperature and a pH 7.5 [87].
The dry residues from each sample were characterized by SEM/EDAX scanning electron microscope (Quanta 400 FEG, FEI, Holland) to determinate the presence of phosphorus on the surface of materials investigated. The resulting solutions after filtration were centrifuged (450 r/min). UV–Vis analysis was conducted using a UV-VIS-NIR spectrometer (950 Lambda UV-Vis-NIR Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) to determine the efficiency of phosphate precipitation versus adsorption using different materials [87]. In order to obtain reproducible experimental results, the adsorption experiments were carried out at least 3 times and averaged, and the obtained data and the result is accurate to 0.01%.
Statistically significant differences between the adsorbents used in this study: magnetic materials (magnetite, cobalt ferrite), semiconductors (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) and composite (mordenite zeolite) were conducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The level of accepted statistical significance was p < 0.001 [88].
All standard phosphorus solutions with the selected concentration were prepared by diluting the stock phosphorus solution (synthetic wastewater, 400 mg/L) with distilled water.
The UV-VIS calibration curve of eight standards was plotted in the phosphorus concentration range of 0.0 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L (0.25 mg/L, 0.50 mg/L, 0.75 mg/L, 1.00 mg/L, 1.25 mg/L, 1.50 mg/L, 1.75 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L) at wavelength 880.00 nm. The correlation coefficient R2 = 0.9951 demonstrates the accuracy of this linear line. Function: Y = 0.5431X + 0.0209.

2.3. Effect of Adsorbent Dosage

To determine the effect of adsorbent dosage, we carried out a series of experiments. For each set of analysis, five different samples (S1 = 0.01 g; S2 = 0.03 g: S3 = 0.05 g; S4 = 0.07 g and respectively S5 = 0.1 g) from every type of adsorbent material were weighed. To each adsorbent sample (S1–S5), 15 mL phosphorus solution with concentration of 400 mg/L was added. The mixture was stirred at 200 rpm at room temperature for 24 h and then filtered (0.45 μm). The final phosphorus concentration was analyzed using the colorimetric method with ammonium molybdate and ascorbic acid on a UV-VIS-NIR spectrometer (950 Lambda UV-Vis-NIR Perkin Elmer) at a wavelength of 880 nm [86]. In order to obtain reproducible experimental results, the adsorption experiments were carried out at least 3 times.

2.4. Adsorption Isotherms

Freundlich and Langmuir isotherms were selected to evaluate the five selected materials’ phosphorus adsorption behavior. A batch equilibrium adsorption test was conducted as follows: in 50 mL covered Erlenmeyer flasks, 25 mL working solution and 0.05 g of adsorbent with various phosphate concentrations (5–400 mg/L) was stirred at 180 rpm for 24 h to ensure approximate equilibrium. After phosphorus adsorption, the solution was filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter and then analyzed for P concentration.
Langmuir and Freundlich models were used for the analysis of adsorption isotherms (Equations (1) and (2)).
A e   = Q m − K L   C e 1 + K L C e
A e   = K F K L 1 / n
where Ae represents the adsorption removal capacity (mg/g), Ce is the phosphorus concentration in the solution at equilibrium (mg/L), Qm is maximum adsorption capacity in Langmuir isotherm, KL = adsorption constant in Langmuir isotherm, KF = the constant of Freundlich isotherm, n = heterogeneity factor of Freundlich isotherm.
Phosphorus adsorption capacities and phosphorus removal efficiency, R, (%) were determined from the Equations (3) and (4) respectively:
q = V ( C 0 − C e ) m   ( mg   P / g )
P r   ( % ) = 1 − C e C 0   100 %
where V (mL) represents the working solution volume, C0 and Ce (mg/L) are the concentrations in the working solution (initial phosphorus concentration) and filtrate (equiibrum phosphorus solution), respectively, and m (g) is the adsorbent amount [89].
Furthermore, using the Langmuir model, it was determined that the separation factor, RL, from the next Equation (5) is as follows:
R L = 1 1 + K L C 0
(C0 is the initial phosphorus concentration).

2.5. Phosphorus Adsorption Capacity

The specific procedure was as follows: 0.1 g of each adsorbent material was weighed into a 50 mL Erlenmeyer flask, 15 mL of a set concentration of phosphorus solution was added, and the pH of the solution was adjusted to 7.5 with 0.1 mol/L hydrochloric acid or 0.1 mol/L sodium hydroxide solution. The solution was shaken in a constant temperature shaker at 180 r/min and 25 °C for 24 h. A syringe was used to take out 10 mL of the supernatant from the Erlenmeyer flask and filter it with a 0.45 µm filter membrane; the phosphorus concentration in the filtrate was determined by ammonium molybdate spectrophotometry (950 Lambda UV-Vis-NIR Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA), and the removal capacity of phosphorus and phosphorus removal efficiency of each adsorbent was calculated according to Equations (3) and (4) [83,89]. A single-factor analysis method was used and blank and two parallel experiments were carried out.

2.6. Effect of Reaction Time on Adsorption Capacity

For each adsorbent material the following procedure was used: 150 mL of a 400 mg/L phosphate solution was mixed with 0.1 g of adsorbent (adsorbent to solution ratio = 1:25) size in a series of 200 Erlenmeyer flasks. The pH of solution was 7.5 (adjusted with 0.1 mol/L hydrochloric acid or 0.1 mol/L sodium hydroxide solution) [83,89]. The flasks were kept at room temperature (25 °C) and 180 rpm, and samples were collected at different time intervals; phosphorus concentration was determined by ammonium molybdate spectrophotometry, and the corresponding removal capacity was calculated [83]. The calculation formula used to determine the phosphorus removal capacity (mg/g) is Equation (3).

2.7. Effect of Contact Time on Phosphorus Removal Efficiency

The effect of contact time on phosphorus adsorption was observed for each adsorbent material according to the following procedure: in five different Erlenmeyer flasks (250 mL) 0.1 g adsorbent material was added; the phosphorus solution was added in 15 mL phosphorus solution with concentration of 400 mg/L and pH 7.5 (adjusted with 0.1 mol/L hydrochloric acid or 0.1 mol/L sodium hydroxide solution) [83]. The flasks were kept at room temperature (25 °C) and 180 rpm, and samples were collected at different times (0–400 min). After the water sample was left and centrifuged, the phosphorus content in the solutions was determined by ammonium molybdate spectrophotometry, and the corresponding removal capacity was calculated [83]. The calculation formula used to determine the removal efficiency (%) is Formula (4).

3. Material Characterization

Nitrogen adsorption/desorption isotherms were recorded at 77K on a NOVA 2200 apparatus. The specific surface area was calculated by Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) theory from multi-point regression in the 0.08–0.3 relative pressure range [85,90,91]. The results are shown in Table 1.

3.1. UV-VIS Spectroscopy

The evaluation of the efficiency of each material used for phosphorus removal was done by Perkin Elmer, Lambda UV-Vis spectroscopy 950 (colorimetric method with ammonium molybdate). Phosphate reacts with ammonium molybdate in the presence of a reducing agent (ascorbic acid) to form a colored complex (blue), the intensity of which is directly proportional to the concentration of phosphate in the solution to be analyzed. The color was measured at 800 nm [86].

3.2. Energy-Dispersive Spectrometry (EDS)

The study of adsorbents morphology was performed through scanning electron microscopy (FEI Quanta 250 FEG) using the energy dispersive X-ray analysis detector (EDX). EDX facility was used for the semiquantitative elemental analysis.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Characterization of Adsorbents before and after P-Adsorbtion

4.1.1. Specific Surface Area

Table 1 lists the specific surface area of each adsorbent used in this study. The specific surface area values determined experimentally correspond with the data in the literature [72,73,74,78,79,80,82,83,84,85,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97].

4.1.2. Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis

Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 present EDX graphs of the adsorbents before (Figure 1a, Figure 2a, Figure 3a, Figure 4a and Figure 5a) and after the phosphorus adsorption (Figure 1b, Figure 2b, Figure 3b, Figure 4b and Figure 5b). The EDAX spectrum of adsorbents’ particles after phosphate adsorption were also analyzed, and the P element occurred in the each EDAX spectrum (Figure 1b, Figure 2b, Figure 3b, Figure 4b and Figure 5b), indicating that it was fixed on the surface of the adsorbents after phosphorus adsorption.
Comparative experimental studies have been performed on the conventional (precipitation) and alternative dephosphorization method (adsorption). The chemical precipitation of phosphorus was performed comparatively by means of two usual reactants in the tertiary stage of wastewater treatment: ferric chloride and aluminum chloride respectively. In parallel, the phosphorus removal capacity has been studied on three different types of materials: magnetic (cobalt ferrite, magnetite), semiconductors (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) and composite (zeolite).
Two different methods were proposed to determine the phosphorus removal performance efficiency of these materials: the colorimetric assay method and a chemical microanalysis technique based on energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX).

4.1.3. Investigation Adsorbents Performance through UV-Vis Spectroscopy

The colorimetric assay method based on molybdenum blue phosphorus is a sensitive and highly accurate technique [86,98]. The determination of phosphorus was performed by the colorimetric method with ammonium molybdate. Phosphorus reacts with ammonium molybdate in the presence of the reducing agent (ascorbic acid solution) to form a blue complex. The blue color intensity of which is directly proportional to the content of phosphorus in final wastewater solutions (after adding coagulants or adsorbents) measured with UV-Vis spectrometer.

4.1.4. Influence of Magnetic Materials on Phosphorus Removal

In the next figure (Figure 6), the influence of the conventional method (chemical precipitation with AlCl3 and FeCl3) versus adsorption on magnetic materials (cobalt ferrite and magnetite) is shown.
The results show that the highest performance of phosphorus removal was achieved for adsorption method with magnetite. The lowest absorbance value was achieved with the aluminum chloride. According to the Figure 6, the phosphorus removal performance of cobalt ferrite was slightly lower than that of magnetite. This is due to the difference between the specific surfaces of the two magnetic materials used in this study. Magnetite has a specific surface area higher than that of cobalt ferrite (Table 1) and consequently has more adsorption sites than this [90,99].

4.1.5. Influence of Semiconductor Materials on Phoshorus Removal Performance

In Figure 7, the comparative results of phosphorus removal performance obtained for coagulant agents and semiconductor type adsorbents (zinc oxide/titanium dioxide) are presented.
The results show that the highest performance of phosphorus removal was achieved for the adsorption method with titanium dioxide. And the lowest yield was achieved with the aluminum chloride. According to Figure 7, the phosphorus removal performance of zinc oxide was slightly lower than of titanium dioxide. This is due to the difference between the specific surfaces of the two semiconductor materials used in this study. The specific surface area of titanium dioxide is about three times larger than that of zinc oxide (Table 1). This may explain the difference of phosphorus removal performance between these semiconductors [75,86,97].

4.1.6. Influence of Composite Material on Phosphorus Removal Performance

The difference of phosphorus removal performance between the coagulation agents and adsorption on mordenite zeolite is depicted in Figure 8.
It can be seen from Figure 8 that phosphorus adsorption on zeolite was more efficient than both conventional coagulation agents used in this study. It is well known that zeolite is one of the most effective adsorbents. In fact, it is used successfully in the process of removing various heavy metals or nitrogen compounds from wastewater. Moreover, the crystalline, highly porous structure of zeolite represent key factors in adsorption process efficiency [81,95,96].

4.1.7. Effect of Different Type of Adsorbents on Phosphorus Removal Performance

To investigate how the performance of the phosphorus adsorption process depended on the absorbers’ type, a series of adsorption experiments were conducted on three distinct categories of materials: magnetic, semiconductors and composite (Figure 9).
The adsorption curves shown in Figure 9 indicate that the yield of the adsorption is directly proportional to the specific surface area of the adsorbent material. It is known that a material with a large specific surface area can act as an effective adsorbent. And according to the adsorption curves depicted in Figure 9, this fact is confirmed. Thus, the best efficiency was obtained for zeolites, followed by magnetite and cobalt ferrite. And the lowest performance was for zinc oxide. The phosphorus adsorption performance for TiO2 was slightly higher than for zinc oxide.

4.1.8. Effect of Adsorbent Dosage

The influence of adsorbent dosage is shown in Figure 10. The adsorbent mass was varied from 0.01 g to 0.1 g.
It was found that increasing the adsorbent dosage lead increased the P-adsorption removal yield. The maximum yield was obtained for mordenite zeolite, followed by magnetic materials semiconductors and coagulation agents.
These results suggest that the optimal dosage of adsorbents can efficiently remove phosphorus from wastewater. At the same time, it interesting to note that magnetic materials could favorably influence the effectiveness of phosphorus recovery and reuse as a fertilizer in agriculture. A high dosage addition of the other adsorbents used, such as zinc oxide, titanium dioxide or zeolite, could be beneficial considering their antibacterial properties.

4.2. Adsorption Isotherms

The Langmuir and Freundlich models were employed to obtain information on the characteristics of the adsorption process as well as on the optimum use of each adsorbent used in this study. Table 2 summarizes the results.
The results indicate that both Langmuir and Freundlich models fitted the experimental data well. Nevertheless, the higher value of the correlation coefficient R2 is shown by the Langmuir model, which suggests that this model is more appropriate to describe the adsorption on the five materials investigated in the study (magnetite, cobalt ferrite, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and mordenite zeolite). Simultaneously, the constant n in Freundlich model has super unit values for all five adsorbents used, indicating that the phosphorus adsorption is nonlinear. Moreover, the separation factor values, RL, for all adsorbents used in these studies falls within the range 0.00101 < RL < 0.00322 indicated the favorability of the adsorption process [85,100].
The adsorption isotherms of the three types of materials investigated in this study are presented in Figure 11.
The results suggest that the phosphorus adsorption capacity increases directly in proportion to the adsorbent concentration. A maximum adsorption capacity of 1.31 mg/g of the composite material (zeolite) used was obtained at the initial phosphorus concentration of 400 mg/L. The adsorption capacity of magnetite at the same experimental condition is 1.16 mg/g, and the lowest value (0.89 mg/g) was obtained for zinc oxide.

4.2.1. ANOVA Test

Table 3 presents the results of the ANOVA single factor test.
The results (F = 8.015178 and p = 1.57 × 10−4) showed a value for F higher than 4, and the p-value is lower than 0.05, which suggests that the differences in in phosphorus removal (mg P/g) differed significantly across the adsorbents used [100].

4.2.2. Phosphorus Adsorption Capacity

The relationship between initial concentration and adsorbents’ phosphorus adsorption capacity is depicted in the Figure 12.
As can be seen from Figure 12, with the increase in the initial phosphorus concentration, the overall adsorption capacity of adsorbents showed an upward trend. Compared to the previous figure (Figure 11), a slight increase in the adsorption capacity manifested by all adsorbents investigated was found. This can be explained by the fact that it worked with a double amount of adsorbent (0.1 g) and thus has more adsorption sites [101].
Thus, at the initial phosphorus concentration of 400 mg/L., it was found that the maximum adsorption capacity of zeolite is 1.58 mg/g, followed by magnetite with a maximum of 1.39 mg/g. And, in this case, the semiconductor materials confirmed that they have a lower phosphorus adsorption capacity compared to the zeolite and magnetic materials used. However, from the shared analysis of the two figures (Figure 11 and Figure 12), a small variation of the maximum of the adsorption capacity in the case of semiconductor materials was found even under conditions in which the initial amount of adsorbent was higher. These results indicate that the adsorption is dependent on the chemical composition and morpho-structural properties of the adsorbent (specific surface, porosity) [85,90].

4.3. Effect of Time of P-Removal Capacity of Adsorbants

Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 show that for all adsorbent materials, the best performance was obtained at the highest amount used (0.1 g). In order to determine the effect of contacting time on P-adsorption, further experiments were carried out using 0.1 g of each adsorbent, at room temperature and pH 7.5, with the contacting time varying in the range of 2–12 h (Figure 13).
Figure 13 shows the effect of contacting time on the phosphorus removal capacity of magnetite, cobalt ferrite, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and mordenite zeolite. In the early stage, the removal capacity of each absorbents increases. And then, after 8 h, the removal capacity of three of the adsorbents evaluated (magnetite, cobalt ferrite and titanium dioxide) reach the set stage, and after 10 h, a slight decrease occurs. However, zinc oxide removal capacity was slightly lower than that of the other adsorbents in the whole range of time investigated. It can also be observed that only the removal capacity of zeolite was extremely high and remained constant in the whole range of the time investigated. Hence, prolonged time may promote the access of ions to active sites on the surface of adsorbent. And it is obvious that the efficiency of phosphorus removal will decrease in proportion to the adsorbents’ specific surface. Under the above-mentioned conditions, the maximum removal capacity was obtained for zeolite followed by magnetite, cobalt ferrite, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.

4.4. Effect of Contact Time on Phosphorus Removal Efficiency

The variation in phosphorus removal efficiency with contact time at 400 g/L initial phosphorus concentration is presented in Figure 14.
It may be observed from the figure above (Figure 14) that for zeolite and magnetite, the rapid phosphorus adsorption took place within 90 min; then adsorption becomes slow and almost attains equilibrium after 150 min. Significant change in the extent of adsorption was not observed (>1%) for an even further increase in contact time of up to 360 min. Instead, in the case of the other materials used, (cobalt ferrite, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) it can be it can be seen that there is a rapid adsorption that takes place up to 150 min, after which the process becomes very slow close to equilibrium and only >4% changes in adsorption efficiency occur. Therefore, the rest of the experiments were conducted for 3600 min. A total of 96% adsorption for zeolite was obtained, and 88% for magnetite. The phosphorus percentage removal decreases for semiconductors: 71% for titanium dioxide and only 58% for zinc oxide. This indicates that the rate of phosphorus removal increases rapidly in proportion to the specific surface area of the material, and as time proceeds, the number of active sites were decreased and then ad-sorption becomes increasingly slowed down.

5. Conclusions

In the present study, the possibility of removing phosphorus from wastewater using nanomaterials or composite materials was investigated: magnetite, cobalt ferrite, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide and mordenite zeolite under identical experimental conditions. The efficacy of some adsorbents (selected for this study) and conventional coagulation agents used in the tertiary wastewater treatment were compared. The effects of different reaction parameters: the initial phosphorus concentrations, reaction time, adsorbents dosage on phosphorus adsorption capacity and efficiency were investigated through different analytical techniques: UV-Vis spectroscopy, BET and EDS analyses. Present results suggest that the efficiency of the adsorbent of phosphorus removal was superior compared to ferric chloride and aluminum chloride. Under the experimental conditions (temperature (23 °C) with pH 7.5), phosphorus adsorption was strongly dependent on the surface area of adsorbent, adsorbent dosage and contact time. Mordenite zeolite and magnetic materials exhibit high phosphorus adsorption capacity and adsorption efficiency compared with the semiconductor materials used in this study. The phosphorus adsorption efficiency decreases in the following order: composite material (mordenite zeolite 96%), magnetic materials (magnetite 88%, cobalt ferrite 80%) and semiconductor materials (titanium dioxide 71% and 51% zinc oxide). At room temperature (25 °C), both the Langmuir and Freundlich equation can reasonably describe the adsorption, and the maximum adsorption capacity fitted by the Langmuir equation was 1.31 mg/g for zeolite, which decreased at 1.16 mg/g for magnetite, 1.05 mg/g for cobalt ferrite, 0.99 mg/g for titanium dioxide and 0.89 mg/g for zinc oxide. The proposed adsorbents present the possibility of recovering phosphorus and reusing it as a fertilizer (adsorbents of a magnetic nature) or other organic or biological pollutants removal (TiO2, ZnO and zeolites). Adsorption performance analysis can provide valuable information, representing the practical value of these materials as an effective, convenient alternative within the circular economy model for water pollution mitigation and management.

Author Contributions

Conception and design of study, A.-E.S. and I.G.; investigation, methodology, A.-E.S.; acquisition of data, C.C., O.G. and M.M.; analysis and interpretation of data, A.-E.S. and C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.; investigation, writing—review and editing, A.-E.S.; investigation C.C., O.G. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Breisha, G.Z. Bio-removal of nitrogen from wastewaters—A review. Nat. Sci. 2010, 8, 508–528. [Google Scholar]
  2. Butusov, M.; Jernelöv, A. Phosphorus: An Element That Could Have Been Called Lucifer; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Cornel, P.; Schaum, C. Phosphorus recovery from wastewater: Needs, technologies and costs. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Czemiel-Berndtsson, J. Urban Wastewater Systems: From Disposal to Reuse—An Analysis of the Performance of Different Systems with Focus on Water and Nutrients Flows. Ph.D. Thesis, Report No 1031. Department of Water Resources Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  5. Damian, C.; Barbul, A. Tehnologii noi Pentru Încadrarea în Normativul NTPA 001, Nitrificare, Denitrificare, Defosforizare în Treapta Biologică, Seminar Ştiinţific–Tehnologii Pentru Reţinerea Azotului şi Fosforului din Apele Uzate şi Necesitatea Dezinfectării Apelor Epurate; U.T.C.: Bucureşti, Romania, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  6. Department of the Army. Biological Nutrient Removal, Public Works Technical Bulletin 420-49-39; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  7. Faby, J.A.; Brissaud, F.; Bontoux, J. Wastewater reuse in France: Water quality standards and wastewater treatment technologies. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gubin, S.P.; Koksharov Yu, A.; Khomutov, G.B.; Yurko, G.Y. Magnetic nanoparticles: Preparation, structure and properties. Russ. Chem. Rev. 2005, 74, 489–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heckenmüller, M.; Narita, D.; Klepper, G. Global Availability of Phosphorus and Its Implications for Global Food Supply: An Economic Overview; Kiel Working Paper No.1897; Kiel Institute for the World Economy: Kiel, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  10. Van Kauwenbergh, S. World Phosphate Rock Reserves and Resources, IFDC Technical Bulletin 75; International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC): Muscle Shoals, AL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  11. Marchal, V.; Dellink, R.; van Vuuren, D.; Clapp, C.; Château, J.; Lanzi, E.; Magné, B.; van Vliet, J. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, Climate Change Chapter, Pre-Release Version; OECD Environment Directorate (ENV) and the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL): Hague, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  12. Margeta, K.; Zabukovec Logar, N.; Šiljeg, M.; Farkaš, A. Natural Zeolites in Water Treatment–How Effective Is Their Use, Water Treatment; Elshorbagy, W., Chowdhury, R.K., Eds.; Chapters Published; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2013; pp. 81–112. ISBN 978-953-51-0928-0. [Google Scholar]
  13. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm (accessed on 24 April 2021).
  14. Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Surampalli, R.Y.; Zhang, T.C. Green Technologies for Sustainable Water Management; American Society of Civil Engineers: VR, Reston, VA, USA, 2016; ISBN 9780784479780. [Google Scholar]
  15. Robescu, D.; Verestoy, A.; Lányi, S.; Robescu, L.D. Fiabilitatea Proceselor, Instalaţiilor şi Echipamentelor de Tratare şi Epurarea Apei; Tehnică Bucureşti: Bucuresti, Romania, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sedlak, R.I. (Ed.) Phosphorus and Nitrogen Removal from M unicipal Wastewater, Principles and Practice, 2nd ed.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FI, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  17. Stark, K.; Plaza, E.; Hultman, B. Phosphorus release from ash, dried sludge and sludge residue from supercritical water oxidation by acid or base. Chemosphere 2006, 62, 827832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Statutory Instruments, S.I. No. 106, European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulations. 2007. Available online: http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/esi/2007/B25111.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2020).
  19. Syers, K.; Bekunda, M.; Cordell, D.; Corman, J.; Johnston, J.; Rosemarin, A.; Salcedo, I.; Lougheed, T. UNEP Year Book, Phosphorus and Food Production; United Nation Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tan, C.M.; Kong, J.C. FTIR spectroscopy as a tool for nano-material characterization Infrared. Phys. Technol. 2010, 53, 434–438. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F.L.; Stensel, H.D. Wastewater Engineering—Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill Series in Civil and Environmental Engineering; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tiwari, D.K.; Behari, J. Prasenjit Sen, Application of nanoparticles in waste water treatment. World Appl. Sci. J. 2008, 3, 417–433. [Google Scholar]
  23. UN. The Millennium Development Goals Report; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  24. UN. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  25. Akpor, O.B.; Muchie, M. Bioremediation of polluted wastewater influent: Phosphorus and nitrogen removal. Rev. Sci. Res. Essays 2010, 5, 3222–3230. [Google Scholar]
  26. Banerjee, S.; Gautam, P.K.; Jaiswal, A.; Chattopadhyaya, M.C. Recent Trends and Advancement in Nanotechnology for Water and Wastewater Treatment: Nanotechnological Approach for Water Purification. In Materials Science and Engineering: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; Information Resources Management Association; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 1745–1779. [Google Scholar]
  27. Balica, S.F.; Popescu, I.; Beevers, L.; Wright, N.G. Parametric and physically based modelling techniquesfor flood risk and vulnerability assessment: A comparison. J. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 41, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Begum, R.; Farooqi, Z.H.; Naseem, K.; Madeeha, F.A.; Batool, J.X.; Irfan, A. Applications of UV/Vis spectroscopy in characterization and catalytic activity of noble metal nanoparticles fabricated in responsive polymer microgels: A Review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2018, 48, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cho, R. Phosphorus: Essential to Life-Are We Running Out? State of the Planet Columbia University. 2013. Available online: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-are-we-running-out/ (accessed on 15 February 2019).
  30. Clesceri, L.S.; Eaton, A.D.; Greenberg, A.E. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. In 19th Edition Supplement, American Public Health Association, American Water Works Assocation; Water Environment Federation: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cohre, WaterAid, SDC and UN-HABITAT, Sanitation: A Human Rights Imperative; United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Water, Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch (WSIB): Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
  32. Comisia Europeană Bruxelles, 8.7.2013 Com. 517 Final Comunicare A Comisiei către Parlamentul European, Consiliu, Comitetul Economic si Social European Și ComitetulRegiunilor Comunicare Consultativă Privind Utilizarea Durabilă a Fosforului; European Commission, Secretariat-General (European Commission): Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
  33. Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.O.; White, S. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Damian, D.; Grozescu, I.; Segneanu, A. Use of nanoparticles in water management. In Conferinta Internationala Multidisciplinara “Profesorul Dorin Pavel Fondatorul Hidroenergeticii Romanesti”; Fondatorul Hidrotehnicii Romanesti: Sebes, Romania, 6 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  35. de Graaff, M.S.; Temmink, H.; Zeeman, G.; Buisman, C.J.N. Energy and phosphorus recovery from black water. In Proceedings of the IWA 12th Wold Congress on Anaerobic Digestion, Guadalajara, JA, Mexico, 30 October–4 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
  36. Dinh, N.Q.; Balica, S.; Popescu, I.; Jonoski, A. Climate change impact on flood hazard, vulnerability and risk of the Long Xuyen Quadrangle in the Mekong Delta. J. River Basin Manag. 2012, 10, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Driver, J.; Lijmbach, D.; Steen, I. Why recover phosphorus for recycling, and how? Environ. Technol. 1999, 20, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gligor, E.; Blaga, A.C. Techniques for removing nitrogen and phosphorus through chemical addition. An. Univ. Din OradeaFascicula De Energetică 2009, 15, 232–239. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kang, S.J.; Olmstead, K.; Takacs, K.; Collins, J. Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies Reference Document Vol. 1; EPA 832-R-08-006; Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  40. Hermann, H.H.; Hoffmann, E.; Odegaard, H. Chemical Water and Wastewater Treatment. In Proceedings of the 8th Gothenburg Symposium, Prague, Czech Republic, 7–9 September 1998. [Google Scholar]
  41. Holba, M.; Škorvan, O.; Maršálková, E.; Maršálek, B. Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater via Environmentally Friendly Technologies, Nanocon, 23-25.10; EU: Brno, Czech Republic, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  42. Imran, A. New generation absorbents for water treatment. Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 5073–5091. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ionescu, G.C. Sisteme de Epurare a Apelor Uzate; MatrixRom: Bucuresti, Romania, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  44. Klapetek, P.; Valtr, M.; Nečas, D.; Salyk, O.; Dzi, P. Atomic force microscopy analysis of nanoparticles in non-ideal conditions. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Directiva 98/83/CE a Consiliului din 3 Noiembrie 1998 Privind Calitatea Apei Destinate Consumului Uman. Jurnalul Oficial al Comunităţilor Europene nr, 12 May 1998; 330.
  46. Luo, H.B.; Li, F.; Li, H.; Zeng, Y.M.; Zhang, K.; Huang, B. Adsorption control performance of phosphorus removal from agricultural non-point source pollution by nano-aperture lanthanum-modified active alumina. Adv. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 4, 337–343. [Google Scholar]
  47. Magnaye, F.A.; Gaspillo, P.D.; Auresenia, J.L. Biological nitrogen and COD removal of nutrient-rich wastewater using aerobic and anaerobic reactors. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2009, 1, 376–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Mohamed, E.A. El-sayed. Nanoadsorbents for water and wastewater remediation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 139903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Muste, M.; Quinn, P.F.; Hewett, C.J.M.; Popescu, I.; Basu, N.B.; Kumar, P.; Franz, K.; Merwade, V.; Arnold, W.; Potter, K. Initiation of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Observatory. Proc. ASCE Innov. Watershed Manag. Land Use Clim. Chang. 2010, 39, 1270–1281. [Google Scholar]
  50. Machado, A.V.; Nogueira, R. Phosphorus Removal from Eutrophic Waters with an Aluminium Hybrid Nanocomposite. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 4831–4840. [Google Scholar]
  51. Parsons, S.; Smith, J.A. Phosphorus removal and recovery from municipal wastewaters. Elements 2008, 4, 109112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pesetskii, S.S.; Bogdanovich, S.P.; Myshkin, N.K. Polymer nanocomposites with thermoplastic matrices-Processing and Tribology. J. Macromol. Sci. Part B 2013, 52, 1784–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Petrea, N.; Iordache, P.Z.; Lungu, R.M.; Petre, R.; Pretorian, A. New methods and new types of functionalised nanocomposites intended for the ecological depollution of waters. In Nanocomposites; Intech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; ISBN 978-953-307-913-4. [Google Scholar]
  54. Schmidt, I.; Sliekers, O.; Schmid, M.; Bock, E.; Fuerst, J.; Kuenen, J.G.; Jetten, M.S.M.; Strous, M. New concepts of microbial treatment processes for the nitrogen removal in wastewater. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 27, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. UN. General Assembly Resolution 66/288: The Future We Want; A/RES/66/28, 11 September 2012; UN: New York, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  56. UN. World Urbanization Prospects—The 2011 Revision—Highlights; United Nations, Population Division: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  57. UN. Water Analytical Brief on Water Security and the Global Water Agenda; United Nations University, Institute for Water, Environment & Health (UNU-INWEH): Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  58. Fact Sheets on Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and and Costs; Epa-823-R-07-002; Usepa: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  59. van Haandel, A.; van der Lubbe, J. Handbook Biological Waste Water Treatment Design and Optimisation of Activated Sludge Systems; Quist Publishing: Leidschendam, The Netherlands, 2007; ISBN 978-90-77983-22-5. [Google Scholar]
  60. Van Kauwenbergh, S.J. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Outlook Forum 20–21 February; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Arlington, VA, USA, 2014.
  61. Van, P.D.T.; Popescu, I.; van Griensven, A.; Solomatine, D.; Trung, N.H.; Green, A. A study of the climate change impacts on fluvial flood propagation in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 4637–4649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Vesilind, P.A. Wastewater Treatment Plant Design. Water Environment Federation; IWA Publishing: Alexandria, VR, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  63. Vimonses, V. Development of Multifunctional Nanomaterials and Adsorbtion-Photocatalysis Hybrid System for Wastewater Reclamation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  64. WHO (World Health Organization). Health through Safe Drinking Water and Basic Sanitation. 2008. Available online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/mdg1/en/index.html (accessed on 19 April 2020).
  65. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. United Nation UNWater UN World Water Development Report: 2012; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2012; ISBN 9789210047098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Abosede, S. Use of Low Cost Materials to Remove Chemicals of Emerging Concern from Wastewater Effluents, Effects of Emerging Chemical Contaminants on Water Resources and Environmental Health; Shikuku, V., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 157–171. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wu Quanguo, W.; Changzhong Jiang, H. Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: Synthesis and surface functionalization strategies. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2008, 3, 397–415. [Google Scholar]
  68. Xu, P.; Zeng, G.M.; Huang, D.L.; Feng, C.L.; Hu, S.; Zhao, M.H.; Lai, C.; Wei, Z.; Huang, C.; Xie, G.X.; et al. Use of iron oxide nanomaterials in wastewater treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 424, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yang, K.; Li, Z.; Zhang, H.; Qian, J.; Chen, G. Municipal wastewater phosphorus removal by coagulation. Environ. Technol. 2010, 31, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Baldi, M.; Martinotti, A.; Sorlini, S.; Katsoyiannis, I.A.; Abbà, A.; Carnevale Miino, M.; Collivignarelli, M.C. Extraction and purification of phosphorus from the ashes of Incinerated biological sewage sludge. Water 2021, 13, 1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kleemann, R.; Chenoweth, J.; Clift, R.; Morse, S.; Pearce, P.; Saroj, D. Comparison of phosphorus recovery from incinerated sewage sludge ash (ISSA) and pyrolysed sewage sludge char (PSSC). Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Schröder, J.J.; Cordell, D.; Smit, A.L.; Rosemarin, R. Sustainable Use of Phosphorous; Report No. 357; Plant Research International, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands, and Stockholm Environment Institute, DLO Foundatio, Plant Research International, Business Unit Agrosyste: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhigalina, O.M.; Mishina, E.D.; Sherstyuk, N.E.; Vorotilov, K.A.; Vasiljev, V.A.; Sigov, A.S.; Lebedev, O.I.; Grigoriev, Y.V.; De Santo, M.P.; Barberi, R.; et al. Crystallization of PZT in porous alumina membrane channels. Ferroelectrics 2006, 336, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Lowell, S.; Shields, J.E.; Thomas, M.A.; Thommes, M. Characterization of Porous Solids and Powders: Surface Area, Pore Size and Density; Springer Science+Business Media, B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; ISBN 978-1-4020-2303-3. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sadovnikov, S.I.; Gusev, A.I. Effect of particle size and specific surface area on the determination of the density of nanocrystalline silver sulfide Ag2S powders. Phys. Solid State 2018, 60, 877–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Peshev, O. Adsorption on Semiconductors in Relation to Their Degree of Dispersity. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 1974, 13, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kiser, M.A.; Westerhoff, P.; Benn, T.; Wang, Y.; Pérez-Rivera, J.; Hristovski, K. Titanium Nanomaterial Removal and Release from Wastewater Treatment Plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6757–6763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shtyka, O.; Shatsila, V.; Ciesielski, R.; Kedziora, A.; Maniukiewicz, W.; Dubkov, S.; Gromov, D.; Tarasov, A.; Rogowski, J.; Stadnichenko, A.; et al. Adsorption and photocatalytic reduction of carbon dioxide on TiO2. Catalysts 2021, 11, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vlasova, N.N.; Markitan, O.V. Adsorption of inorganic phosphates on a titanium dioxide surface. Colloid J. 2020, 82, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Choi, S. Phosphorus Removal Using Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles in Wastewater Treatment. Master’s Thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  81. Erdem, E.; Karapinar, N.; Donat, R. The removal of heavy metal cations by natural zeolites. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2004, 280, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Compagnini, G.; Syzrantsev, V.; Paukshtis, E.; Larina, T.; Chesalov, Y.; Bardakhanov, S.; Nomoev, A. Features of surface structures of alumina and titanium dioxide nanoparticles produced using different synthes. J. Nanomater. 2018, 2018, 2065687. [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhao, J.; Gao, J.; Liu, J. Preparation of a new iron-carbon-loaded constructed wetland substrate and enhanced phosphorus removal performance. Materials 2020, 13, 4739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Karthikeyan, P.; Vigneshwaran, S.; Preethi, J.; Meenakshi, S. Preparation of novel cobalt ferrite coated-porous carbon composite by simple chemical co-precipitation method and their mechanistic performance. Diam. Relat. Mater. 2020, 108, 107922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dey, A.; Singh, R.; Purkait, M. Cobalt ferrite nanoparticles aggregated schwertmannite: A novel adsorbent for the efficient removal of arsenic. J. Water Process Eng. 2014, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Elmer, P. Application note-UV/Visible spectroscopy-Water analysis using Lambda: Total phosphorus (T-P). In Ascorbic Acid Method; Perkin Elmer: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  87. Segneanu, A.E. Advanced Materials—As an Alternative for Phosphate Pollution Removal from Wastewater. Master’s Thesis, West University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  88. Yin, Q.; Wang, R.; Zhao, Z. Application of Mg-Al-modified biochar for simultaneous removal of ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate from eutrophic water. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Luo, Z.; Zhu, S.; Liu, Z.; Liu, J.; Huo, M.; Yang, W. Study of phosphate removal from aqueous solution by zinc oxide. J. Water Health 2015, 13, 704–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Shen, Y.F.; Tang, J.; Nie, Z.H.; Wang, Y.D.; Ren, Y.; Zuo, L. Preparation and application of magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles for wastewater purification. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2009, 68, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, L.; Dan, H.; Bukasa, O.T.; Song, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, J. Low-cost efficient magnetic adsorbent for phosphorus removal from water. ACS Omega 2020, 39, 25326–25333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Panasiuk, O. Phosphorus Removal and Recovery from Wastewater Using Magnetite. Master’s Thesis, Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  93. Amin, M.T.; Alazba, A.A.; Manzoor, U. A Review of removal of pollutants from water/wastewater using different types of nanomaterials. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014, 825910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Borysiewicz, M.A. ZnO as a functional material, A Review. Crystals 2019, 9, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Moshoeshoe, M.; Tabbiruka, N.S.M.; Obuseng, V. A review of the chemistry, structure, properties and applications of zeolites. Am. J. Mater. Sci. 2017, 7, 196–221. [Google Scholar]
  96. Korkuna, O.; Leboda, R.; Skubiszewska-Zieba, J.; Vrublevs’ka, T.; Gun’ko, V.M.; Ryczkowski, J. Structural and physicochemical properties of natural zeolites: Clinoptilolite and mordenite. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2006, 87, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Clariant-Brochure Zeolite Materials; EN: Muttentz, Switzerland, 2017.
  98. Kharat, S.; Pagar, S. Determination of phosphate in water samples of Nashik District (Maharashtra State, India) rivers by UV-Visible spectroscopy. J. Chem. 2009, 6, S515–S521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wu, F.; Yu, Q.; Gauvin, F.; Brouwers, H.; Liu, C. Phosphorus removal from aqueous solutions by adsorptive concrete aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mekonnen, D.T.; Alemayehu, E.; Lennartz, B. Removal of Phosphate Ions from Aqueous Solutions by Adsorption onto Leftover Coal. Water 2020, 12, 1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sun, J.; Gao, A.; Wang, X.; Xu, X.; Song, J. Removal of Phosphorus from Wastewater by Different Morphological Alumina. Molecules 2020, 25, 3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 14 04371 g001 550
Figure 1. EDX analysis of magnetite (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Figure 1. EDX analysis of magnetite (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Materials 14 04371 g001
Materials 14 04371 g002 550
Figure 2. EDX analysis of cobalt ferrite (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Figure 2. EDX analysis of cobalt ferrite (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Materials 14 04371 g002
Materials 14 04371 g003 550
Figure 3. EDX analysis of titanium dioxide (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Figure 3. EDX analysis of titanium dioxide (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Materials 14 04371 g003
Materials 14 04371 g004 550
Figure 4. EDX analysis of zinc oxide (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Figure 4. EDX analysis of zinc oxide (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Materials 14 04371 g004
Materials 14 04371 g005 550
Figure 5. EDX analysis of zeolite (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Figure 5. EDX analysis of zeolite (a) before and (b) after phosphorus adsorption.
Materials 14 04371 g005
Materials 14 04371 g006 550
Figure 6. Comparison of different methods (coagulation agents vs adsorption on magnetic materials) on phosphorus removal performance in wastewater.
Figure 6. Comparison of different methods (coagulation agents vs adsorption on magnetic materials) on phosphorus removal performance in wastewater.
Materials 14 04371 g006
Materials 14 04371 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparison of different method (coagulation agents vs. adsorption on semiconductors materials) on phosphorus removal performance from wastewater.
Figure 7. Comparison of different method (coagulation agents vs. adsorption on semiconductors materials) on phosphorus removal performance from wastewater.
Materials 14 04371 g007
Materials 14 04371 g008 550
Figure 8. Comparison of different method (coagulation agents vs adsorption on composite materials) on phosphorus removal performance from wastewater.
Figure 8. Comparison of different method (coagulation agents vs adsorption on composite materials) on phosphorus removal performance from wastewater.
Materials 14 04371 g008
Materials 14 04371 g009 550
Figure 9. Comparison of different adsorbents used for phosphorus removal.
Figure 9. Comparison of different adsorbents used for phosphorus removal.
Materials 14 04371 g009
Materials 14 04371 g010 550
Figure 10. The effect of adsorbent dosage on phosphorus removal.
Figure 10. The effect of adsorbent dosage on phosphorus removal.
Materials 14 04371 g010
Materials 14 04371 g011 550
Figure 11. The adsorbents Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms.
Figure 11. The adsorbents Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms.
Materials 14 04371 g011
Materials 14 04371 g012 550
Figure 12. Relationship between initial concentration and adsorbents’ phosphorus adsorption capacity.
Figure 12. Relationship between initial concentration and adsorbents’ phosphorus adsorption capacity.
Materials 14 04371 g012
Materials 14 04371 g013 550
Figure 13. The effect of contacting time on the removal capacity of absorbents.
Figure 13. The effect of contacting time on the removal capacity of absorbents.
Materials 14 04371 g013
Materials 14 04371 g014 550
Figure 14. Effect of contact time on phosphorus adsorption efficienc.
Figure 14. Effect of contact time on phosphorus adsorption efficienc.
Materials 14 04371 g014
Table
Table 1. Material specific surface area determinate by Brunauer–Emmett–Teller theory (BET).
Table 1. Material specific surface area determinate by Brunauer–Emmett–Teller theory (BET).
Absorbent TypeCobalt FerriteMagnetiteZinc OxideTitanium DioxideMordernite Zeolite
Specific Surface Area (m2/g)11013029.748.25413.2
Table
Table 2. The adsorbents Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm parameters.
Table 2. The adsorbents Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm parameters.
Adsorbent Material Langmuir ModelFreundlich Model
QmKLR2KnnR2
Magnetite3.9660.001280.9900.01641.3810.988
Cobalt ferrite3.3870.001240.9810.01411.3880.977
Titanium dioxide3.3170.001130.9780.01381.3270.974
Zinc oxide3.2750.001010.9750.00921.2770.973
Zeolite3.8980.003220.9980.01721.3950.996
Table
Table 3. Statistical parameters obtained from the ANOVA test.
Table 3. Statistical parameters obtained from the ANOVA test.
SourceSum of Square (SS)Degree of Freedom (df)Mean Squares (MS)Fp-ValueF Crit
Between Groups 3.16591840.7914798.0151781.57 × 10−42.479015
Within Groups8.393544850.098748---
Total11.5594689----
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cepan, C.; Segneanu, A.-E.; Grad, O.; Mihailescu, M.; Cepan, M.; Grozescu, I. Assessment of the Different Type of Materials Used for Removing Phosphorus from Wastewater. Materials 2021, 14, 4371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164371

AMA Style

Cepan C, Segneanu A-E, Grad O, Mihailescu M, Cepan M, Grozescu I. Assessment of the Different Type of Materials Used for Removing Phosphorus from Wastewater. Materials. 2021; 14(16):4371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164371

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cepan, Claudiu, Adina-Elena Segneanu, Oana Grad, Maria Mihailescu, Melinda Cepan, and Ioan Grozescu. 2021. "Assessment of the Different Type of Materials Used for Removing Phosphorus from Wastewater" Materials 14, no. 16: 4371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164371

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop