Next Article in Journal
Evaluation and Analysis of Influencing Factors of Ecosystem Service Value Change in Xinjiang under Different Land Use Types
Previous Article in Journal
Decomplexation of Ni-EDTA by Three-Dimensional Electro-Fenton
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhanced Ozone Oxidation by a Novel Fe/[email protected]γ−Al2O3 Nanocatalyst: The Role of Hydroxyl Radical and Singlet Oxygen
Article

Comparison of Adsorptive Removal of Fluoride from Water by Different Adsorbents under Laboratory and Real Conditions

Faculty of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Department of Civil, Building and Environmental Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, 00184 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Liuchun Zheng
Water 2022, 14(9), 1423; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091423
Received: 15 March 2022 / Revised: 22 April 2022 / Accepted: 24 April 2022 / Published: 29 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Technologies and Materials for Polluted Water Remediation)
The fluoride removal capability of six different adsorbents (four commercial, i.e., titanium dioxide-TiO2, ArsenXPnp-A33E, granular activated carbon (GAC) and granular ferric hydroxide (GFH), and two laboratory media, i.e., nano-fine media and nano-granular media) was determined under batch conditions using synthetic and real contaminated water containing arsenic and vanadium. The kinetic and equilibrium characteristics of the adsorption process under different operating conditions (pH value, initial fluoride concentration, adsorbent dosage, water composition) were obtained. Among the tested adsorbents, TiO2 showed the highest adsorption capacity; it was also capable of reducing fluoride concentration below the limit set for drinking water without pH control. TiO2 still remained the best adsorbent in the treatment of real contaminated groundwater, where it was also capable of efficiently removing both arsenic and vanadium. The other adsorbents were capable of achieving the same fluoride reduction, although only for acid pH. The nano-sized laboratory media showed an adsorption removal efficiency below that of TiO2 but superior to that of A33E, GAC and GFH. Among the investigated parameters, the removal efficiency was mainly affected by adsorbent dosage and pH. The pseudo-second order model best fitted the kinetic experimental data of all the media. The maximum adsorption capacity predicted by this model was in the following decreasing order: TiO2 > A33E > GAC > GFH. The removal capability of all the media drastically decreased due to the presence of competitive ions and unfavorable pH conditions. The best isotherm model changed depending on the type of adsorbent and pH conditions. View Full-Text
Keywords: adsorbent; adsorption; fluoride; kinetic; isotherm adsorbent; adsorption; fluoride; kinetic; isotherm
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Chiavola, A.; D’Amato, E.; Di Marcantonio, C. Comparison of Adsorptive Removal of Fluoride from Water by Different Adsorbents under Laboratory and Real Conditions. Water 2022, 14, 1423. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091423

AMA Style

Chiavola A, D’Amato E, Di Marcantonio C. Comparison of Adsorptive Removal of Fluoride from Water by Different Adsorbents under Laboratory and Real Conditions. Water. 2022; 14(9):1423. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091423

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chiavola, Agostina, Emilio D’Amato, and Camilla Di Marcantonio. 2022. "Comparison of Adsorptive Removal of Fluoride from Water by Different Adsorbents under Laboratory and Real Conditions" Water 14, no. 9: 1423. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091423

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop