Desalination 281 (2011) 93–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / d e s a l

Arsenic (V) adsorption from aqueous solution onto goethite, hematite, magnetite and
zero-valent iron: Effects of pH, concentration and reversibility
Yannick Mamindy-Pajany a, b,⁎, Charlotte Hurel a, Nicolas Marmier a, Michèle Roméo b
a
University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Laboratoire de Radiochimie, Sciences Analytiques et Environnement (LRSAE), Faculty of Sciences, Parc Valrose, 06108 Nice Cedex 02, France
b
University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Laboratoire des Ecosystèmes marins côtiers et réponses aux stress (ECOMERS/EA 4228), Faculty of Sciences, Parc Valrose, 06108 Nice Cedex 02, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, adsorption of arsenic (V) was studied under different physico-chemical conditions onto four
Received 1 April 2011 commercial adsorbents: hematite, goethite, magnetite and zero-valent iron (ZVI). The reversibility of
Received in revised form 20 July 2011 adsorption process was also studied using chlorides and phosphates as competing ions. Results show that
Accepted 21 July 2011
arsenate adsorption is related to the iron content of adsorbents, and adsorption rate increases in the following
Available online 17 August 2011
order: goethite b hematite b magnetite b ZVI. The modeling of adsorption isotherms by empirical models show
Keywords:
that arsenate adsorption is fitted by the Langmuir model for almost all adsorbents, suggesting a monolayer
Arsenic adsorption of arsenic onto adsorbents. Desorption experiments show that arsenic is strongly adsorbed onto
Adsorption hematite and ZVI. Among adsorbents, hematite appears to be the most suitable for removing arsenate in
Desorption natural medium since it is effective over large ranges of pH and arsenic concentration.
Iron oxides © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Zero-valent iron
Batch experiments

1. Introduction leached in the biosphere). According to Hopenhayn [5], arsenic is

Arsenic is widely distributed in aquatic ecosystems due to the
release from As-enriched minerals and anthropogenic sources
including mining and smelting, industrial processes, and agricultural
practices. Recent studies have shown that arsenic concentrations in
port sediments are higher than recommended level (N50 mg/kg of
dried sediment) in Mediterranean region such as Marseilles, Toulon,
Cannes [1–3]. Dredging activities from this region can provide large
amount of As-contaminated sediments that must be treated before
storage in terrestrial disposal site. Within the framework of dredged
sediment management, a French expert group proposed sediment
quality guidelines (N1 and N2) for arsenic and metals in marine
sediments [4]. Below the level N1, the ecological impact is view as
negligible. Between N1 and N2, chemical analyses must be supple-
mented with toxicity tests. When their contamination level is higher
than N2, dredged sediments cannot be discharged into the sea and
must be treated or stored on terrestrial environment. The terrestrial
management of contaminated sediments is a significant issue since
the storage or beneficial reuse requires stabilization treatment and
risk assessment for environment (contaminants should not be
⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Laboratoire de
Radiochimie, Sciences Analytiques et Environnement (LRSAE), Faculty of Sciences, Parc
Valrose, 06108 Nice Cedex 02, France. Tel.: + 33 4 92 07 63 70; fax: + 33 4 92 07 63 64.
E-mail address: mamindy@unice.fr (Y. Mamindy-Pajany).
probably the contaminant that induces the highest risk of morbidity
and mortality worldwide, due to its toxicity level and the number of
exposed people. For example chronic toxicity due to drinking arsenic
contaminated water has been one of the worst environmental health
hazards for several countries like Bangladesh, Taiwan, India, Canada,
USA and China [6].
The storage of contaminated sediments can release arsenic in
surface or subsurface waters and provoke toxic effects on living
organisms [7]. In this context, it is necessary to provide treatment
techniques that are technically effective and economically feasible for
immobilizing contaminants in sediments [8]. The aim of immobiliza-
tion technique is to reduce pollutant mobility by adding a stabilization
agent [9]. As an example, the Solvay Company patented a treatment
using phosphoric acid to form apatite in contaminated sediments to
immobilize pollutants. Although this technique can stabilize several
metals [10], it increases leaching of anionic pollutants such as As, Cr
(VI) and Mo [11]. Arsenic stabilization has been well studied in soil
remediation and the most studied amendments are oxides of Fe and
to a lesser extent Al and Mn. Zero-valent iron has been widely studied
since Fe (0) oxidizes in soil, forming poorly crystalline Fe hydroxides
that reduce the mobility of As by formation of amorphous FeAsO4.H2O
and/or soluble secondary oxidation minerals such as scorodite
(FeAsO4.2H2O). Arsenic occurs mainly as As (III) and As (V) in fresh
port sediments [3,11], however, As (V) is the major chemical form in
oxidized sediments [11]. In this paper, arsenate adsorption onto iron-
based minerals was studied since these materials have shown
interesting properties like adsorbents for arsenic [12–14]. The

0011-9164/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.07.046
94 Y. Mamindy-Pajany et al. / Desalination 281 (2011) 93–99

Table 1 were measured under the same experimental conditions for all
The main physico-chemical properties of studied adsorbents. minerals using an apparatus Coulter SA 3100 [16].
Mineral additives Hematite Goethite Zero-valent Magnetite For iron oxy-hydroxides, the surface charge occurs by direct proton
iron transfer, since the surface hydroxyl group (≡SOH) is amphoteric.
Supplier Johnson Matthey Aldrich Fluka Alfa Aesar Surface ionization (protonation and deprotonation) reactions can be
D50 (μm) 53 10 17 – formulated as follows:
Specific area (m2/g) 1.66 ± 0.02 11.61 ± 0.19 0.20 ± 0.03 1.60 ± 0.01
– þ þ
pKa1 6.38 5.69 4.60 ≡SOH2 ↔≡SOH þ H Ka1
pKa2 9.81 8.12 – 8.20
pHZPC 8.1 6.9 – 6.40  þ
≡SOH↔≡SO þ H Ka2

Potentiometric titrations, at constant ionic strength (0.1 M

behavior of As (V) onto four mineral adsorbents containing iron
(hematite, goethite, magnetite and zero-valent iron) has been studied
as a function of pH, arsenic concentration and reversibility effects of
chlorides and phosphates to select the most appropriate mineral
adsorbent for stabilization of arsenic in contaminated sediments.
2. Experimental section
2.1. Materials
Sorption experiments were conducted with four commercial
mineral adsorbents: hematite (Fe2O3), goethite (FeOOH), zero-valent
iron (Fe) and magnetite (Fe3O4). The main physico-chemical
properties (particle size, specific surface area and acid-base surface
acidity constants) of adsorbents are displayed in Table 1.
The size of particles (for hematite, goethite and zero-valent iron)
was characterized by measuring the average particle diameter (D50 in
micrometer) in aqueous suspension with a laser particle sizer
Mastersizer 2000 (Malvern). The laser particle size gives the radii of
particles between 0.05 and 900 μm with an accuracy of 1% on D50
value.
Specific surface area was measured by N2 adsorption onto minerals
using BET method developed by Brunauer, Emmett and Teller [15].
After degassing under vacuum at 60 °C, the amount of adsorbed N2 is
determined at constant temperature (77 K). Specific surface areas
NaNO3), were performed with hematite, goethite and magnetite to
calculate acidity constants and the point of zero charge (pHZPC) [17].
Experiments were carried out using titration techniques described in
previous works [18,19]. A computer program (FITEQL) was used to
determine chemical equilibrium constants from experimental data.
The point of zero charge (pHZPC) is the average of pKa1 and pKa2. The
protonation of mineral surface is enhanced at pH lower than pHZPC
(positive surface charge), while deprotonation is promoted at pH
greater than pHZPC (negative surface charge).
2.2. Adsorption experiments
Adsorption experiments were carried out at room temperature in
polypropylene tubes (50 mL). A constant mass of solid (0.2 g) was put
in contact with 50 cm 3 of arsenate solution at 100 μg L − 1 or
500 μg L − 1. The arsenate As (V) stock solution was prepared by
dissolving Na2HAsO4. 7 H2O (Fluka). NaNO3 (0.01 M) was used as
background electrolyte. The pH of suspensions was adjusted between
2 and 12 using HNO3 or NaOH (0.01 M). The pH values were measured
by WTW pH meter using a combined pH electrode. Calibration was
performed with two buffer solutions (pH 4.01 and pH 7.00) at room
temperature. Suspensions were elliptically shaken until the adsorp-
tion equilibrium is reached [20]. After that, suspensions were
centrifuged and filtered through 0.45 μm pore size filters. Acidified
supernatants were analyzed for total arsenic concentration using
inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS–Elan DRC II–

A 120 B 120
% As(V) adsorbed
% As(V) adsorbed

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40
500 µg/L 500 µg/L
20 20 100 µg/L
100 µg/L
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
pH pH

C 120 D 120
100
% As(V) adsorbed
% As(V) adsorbed

100

80 80

60 60

40 40
500 µg/L 500 µg/L
20 20
100 µg/L 100 µg/L
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
pH pH

Fig. 1. Adsorption of As(V) onto hematite (A), goethite (B), zero-valent iron (C) and magnetite (D) as a function of pH at two initial concentrations: 100 and 500 μg As(V) /L.
Experimental conditions: I = 0.01 M NaNO3, adsorbent concentration: 4 g/L.
 Y. Mamindy-Pajany et al. / Desalination 281 (2011) 93–99 95

µmol/m2 for hematite, goethite and

Perkin Elmer). The amount of As (V) adsorbed was calculated by 8 30
subtracting final concentration in aqueous solution to the initial arsenic

µmol/m2 for zero-valent iron

concentration. The adsorbed percentage was calculated as follows:

6
½As0 −½As
% As adsorbed = × 100 20

magnetite
½As0

[As]0 Concentration introduced initially 4

[As] Concentration remaining in aqueous solution after adsorp-
tion equilibrium 10
2

2.3. Adsorption isotherms

Adsorption isotherms were performed at pH 6 and room temper-
ature (25 °C) in NaNO3 0.01 M as background electrolyte. In the
experiments, a constant mass of solid (0.2 g) was mixed with 50 mL
solutions containing As (V) concentrations in the range of 1–200 μmol/
L. Suspensions were shaken until adsorption equilibrium was reached.
After that, samples were centrifuged, filtered through 0.45 μm pore size
acetate filters, acidified, and analyzed for arsenic concentrations
remaining in solution.
Among the empirical models, Langmuir and Freunlich models are
the most used to describe the adsorption isotherms. These represen-
tations allow calculating thermodynamic values induced by the
adsorption process. Arsenate adsorption was modeled with Langmuir
adsorption isotherm using the following equation:
 
½A  ½A  1
= +
Γ Γ max Γ max × Kads
where, Γ is the amount of adsorbate per unit of surface area (μmol/
m 2), [A] is the concentration of adsorbate (μmol/L) in the solution
after equilibrium, Γmax (μmol/m 2) is the maximum adsorption density
and Kads (mol/L) is the equilibrium constant for the overall adsorption
process.
The Freundlich relationship was also used to model arsenic
adsorption by reporting log Γ versus log [A] according to the following
equation: Γ = KF × [A] n
Where KF is the Freundlich constant, and n represents the degree
of nonlinearity in the relationship between Γ and [A].
2.4. Reversibility experiments with MgCl2 and Na2HPO4
Reversibility of As (V) adsorption onto mineral adsorbents was
studied using MgCl2 (0.01 M) and Na2HPO4 (0.001 M). These chemicals
are usually used in the selective metal extraction protocols to evaluate
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200
[As(V)] µmol/L
hematite goethite magnetite zero-valent iron
Fig. 3. Adsorption isotherms of As (V) onto hematite, goethite, zero-valent iron and
magnetite. Experimental conditions: I = 0.01 M NaNO3, pH = 6, adsorbent concentra-
tion: 4 g/L.
exchangeable (with MgCl2) [21] and strongly adsorbed (with Na2HPO4)
fractions [22]. After adsorption experiments, described in Section 2.3,
saturated adsorbents were re-suspended successively with MgCl2 and
Na2HPO4 for 24 h. The pH of MgCl2 and Na2HPO4 solutions was set at 6
by adding HNO3 or NaOH. After each desorption step, suspensions were
centrifuged and filtered through 0.45 μm pore size acetate filters. Total
arsenic concentrations were analyzed in acidified supernatants to
determine the amount of As (V) desorbed.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effects of pH on arsenic adsorption
Arsenate adsorption onto hematite, goethite, magnetite and zero-
valent iron (ZVI) was studied as a function of pH at initial
concentration of 100 μg As (V) L − 1 (Fig. 1). Arsenate adsorption
rate onto hematite reaches 100% in the pH range 2–11 and decreases
until 50% above pH 11. For other adsorbents, amount adsorbed arsenate
is equal to 100% for pH ranging from 2 to 8. When pH is higher than 8, the
percentage of adsorbed arsenate decreases until 20%. These results are
in good agreement with literature since they show that As (V)
adsorption is pH dependent [20,23–25]. The pH dependence of As (V)
adsorption is usually explained in terms of ionization of both adsorbates
and adsorbents. According to aqueous arsenate speciation (Fig. 2),
negatively charged species (H2AsO4- , HAsO42− , AsO43−) are predominant
for pH in the range 2–12. The surface charge of adsorbents is controlled
by the transfer reactions of proton between the solution and the mineral
surface, the charge can be positive, negative or equal to zero, depending

160
hematite goethite magnetite zero-valent iron

120
[As(V)]/

80

40

0
0 40 80 120 160 200
[As(V)] µmol/L

Fig. 2. Arsenate speciation in aqueous solution calculated using the software Fig. 4. Representation of the linear Langmuir relationship for adsorption isotherms of As
Hydrochemical equilibrium-constant database (HYDRA). (V) onto hematite, goethite, zero-valent iron and magnetite.
96 Y. Mamindy-Pajany et al. / Desalination 281 (2011) 93–99

hematite goethite

magnetite zero-valent iron

1

Log
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

-1

-2
Log [As(V)]

Fig. 5. Representation of the linear Freundlich relationship for adsorption isotherms of As (V) onto hematite, goethite, zero-valent iron and magnetite.

on the pH value. Iron oxides are characterized by their point of zero
charge corresponding to a particular value of pH (pHZPC: pH at the zero
point of charge) where the mineral surface charge is equal to zero.
Arsenate adsorption is promoted when surface charge of adsorbents is
positive (e.g. when pH values are lower than pHZPC of adsorbents). At pH
values close to pHZPC (for hematite pHZPC = 8.1, goethite pHZPC = 6.9,
and magnetite pHZPC = 6.40), the positive charge density of adsorbents
becomes low and arsenate adsorption rate is decreased. At alkaline pH
values, the surface of mineral adsorbents is negative (pH N pHZPC of
adsorbents) and coulombic repulsions between the negatively charged
ion (Fig. 2) and negatively charged surface decrease significantly
arsenate adsorption rate. Arsenate adsorption onto ZVI is explained by
formation of Fe (II) and Fe (III) corrosion products onto iron particles.
Bang et al. [26] showed that arsenic adsorption is favored at pH values
lower than 8 because the amount of iron hydroxide formed is high in acid
medium. Indeed, in the presence of oxygen, iron particles can rapidly
oxidize to form iron hydroxides according to the following reactions:
0 þ 2þ
2Fe þ 4H þ O2 ¼ 2Fe þ 2H2 O
2þ þ 3þ
4Fe þ 4H þ O2 ¼ 4Fe þ 2H2 O
3þ þ
Fe þ 3H2 O ¼ FeðOHÞ3 þ 3H
3.2. Effects of initial arsenic concentration
Arsenate adsorption was studied at two initial concentrations (100
and 500 μg.L− 1) and results are displayed in Fig. 1. At 100 μg As (V) L− 1,
hematite is the most effective adsorbent over a wide pH range between 2
and 11 while other adsorbents are effective over a narrow pH range (pH
ranging from 2 to 8). At 500 μg As (V) L− 1, arsenate adsorption rate onto
iron oxides is similar (100% of As (V) adsorbed) in the pH range between 2
and 6. At this initial arsenate concentration, ZVI is the least effective
adsorbent since adsorption rate is equal to 100% in the pH range 2–5.
Initial arsenate concentration has negligible effect on adsorption reactions
onto goethite and magnetite due to their high specific surface areas.
Hematite and ZVI have the lowest specific surface areas, and their
adsorption profiles are related to the initial arsenic concentration. This
result is consistent with literature since several works have showed that
the initial arsenic concentration can modify arsenate adsorption rate as a
function of pH values for various adsorbents [23,27].
3.3. Adsorption isotherms
Adsorption isotherms of hematite, goethite, ZVI and magnetite are
displayed in Fig. 3. Results show that adsorption isotherms reach a
stable level, for all adsorbents except hematite, when equilibrium
arsenate concentration in solution is higher than 100 μM. At very high
arsenate concentration in solution, adsorption processes are
explained by the formation of surface precipitated between arsenate
and surface sites of hematite. Adsorption above the monolayer is
generally explained by surface precipitation of arsenate which was
highlighted by several authors at the surface of ferrihydrite [28,29]
and schwertmannite [30] in acidic medium. In addition, Duc et al. [31]
have showed that selenite (HSeO3−/SeO32−) can precipitate onto
hematite at high concentration when all surface sites are saturated.
Maximum adsorption capacities were estimated graphically, and
results show that ZVI has a maximum adsorption capacity five times
higher (Γ max = 26 μmol m − 2 ) than other adsorbents (Γmax
magnetite = 5.4 μmol m − 2 N Γ max hematite = 3 μmol m − 2 N Γ max

Table 2
Freundlich and Langmuir parameters obtained from the modeling of arsenate adsorption isotherms onto hematite, goethite, zero-valent iron and magnetite at pH 6 and I = 0.01 M
NaNO3.

Model Freundlich model Langmuir model

Parameters KF n R2 Γmax Log Kads −ΔG0 R2

−2 −1 −2 −1 −1
Units μmol m μmol L μmol m mol L kJ mol

Hematite 1.31 0.186 0.9859 3.3 5.12 29.23 0.9945

Goethite 0.56 0.201 0.9811 1.4 5.56 31.76 0.9918
Zero-valent iron 4.83 0.356 0.9773 30.1 4.75 27.14 0.9928
Magnetite 0.76 0.374 0.9892 7.1 4.21 24.05 0.9847
 Y. Mamindy-Pajany et al. / Desalination 281 (2011) 93–99 97

6,0E+00 1,6E+00
A B
1,2E+00

µmol/m2

µmol/m2
4,0E+00

8,0E-01

2,0E+00
Langmuir model 4,0E-01 Langmuir model
experimental data experimental data
0,0E+00 0,0E+00
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200
[As (V)] µmol/L [As (V)] µmol/L

3,0E+01
C D 6,0E+00
µmol/m2

µmol/m2
2,0E+01 4,0E+00

Langmuir model
1,0E+01 2,0E+00 experimental data
Langmuir model

experimental data Freundlich model

0,0E+00 0,0E+00
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250
[As (V)] µmol/L [As (V)] µmol/L

Fig. 6. Langmuir adsorption isotherms of As(V) onto hematite (A), goethite (B), zero-valent iron (C) and magnetite (D) at 0.01 M NaNO3 and pH = 6. Symbols represent experimental
results and dotted line (Langmuir model) or solid line (Freundlich model) represents theoretical results.

goethite = 1.4 μmol m − 2). The maximum adsorption capacity is
related to the iron content of adsorbents since it decreases in the
following order: ZVI N magnetite N hematite N goethite. Adsorption iso-
therms were modeled using Langmuir and Freundlich models, and
results are given in Figs. 4 and 5. The thermodynamic parameters
were calculated for both models (Langmuir and Freundlich) and are
displayed in Table 2. Adsorption equilibrium data are fitted well by
the Langmuir model for hematite, goethite and ZVI whereas the
Freundlich model is more suitable for magnetite (Fig. 6). These results
are consistent with several published studies that described adsorp-
tion of As (V) onto iron oxides with Langmuir and Freundlich models
[32–36]. Although these empirical models fit well experimental data,
lateral interactions between adsorbed species are not considered to
determine equilibrium constants [37].
3.4. Reversibility of arsenic (V) adsorption in presence of chlorides and
phosphates
Arsenate desorption isotherms are displayed in Fig. 7 for all
adsorbents. Desorption isotherms were modeled using the Langmuir
model to determine the maximum adsorption capacities (Table 3). The
amount of As (V) desorbed with chlorides (MgCl2) decreases in the
following order: magnetite (24%)N hematite (10%)N ZVI (8%)N goethite
(4%). Arsenate desorption rate with phosphates (Na2HPO4), decreases in

A B
As (V) adsorbed µmol/m2

As (V) adsorbed µmol/m2

6 2

1
2 adsorption isotherm
adsorption isotherm
after desorption with MgCl2 after desorption with MgCl2
after desorption with Na2HPO4 after desorption with Na2HPO4
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200
[As (V)] µmol/L [As (V)] µmol/L

C D
6
As (V) adsorbed µmol/m2

As (V) adsorbed µmol/m2

30

20 4

adsorption isotherm adsorption isotherm

10 2
after desorption with MgCl2 after desorption with MgCl2
after desorption with Na2HPO4 after desorption with Na2HPO4
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250
[As (V)] µmol/L [As (V)] µmol/L

Fig. 7. Adsorption and desorption isotherms of As(V) onto hematite (A), goethite (B), zero-valent iron (C) and magnetite (D). Arsenate was successively desorbed with chlorides
(MgCl2) and phosphates (Na2HPO4) at pH = 6.
98 Y. Mamindy-Pajany et al. / Desalination 281 (2011) 93–99
Table 3
Langmuir parameters ( Γmax ) obtained from the modeling of adsorption isotherms of
As (V) onto hematite, goethite, zero-valent iron and magnetite, and after desorption
experiments with chlorides (MgCl2) and phosphates (Na2HPO4) at pH 6.
Mineral additives Ligands Γmax μmol/m2
Hematite Without 3.30
MgCl2 2.95
Na2HPO4 2.50
Goethite without 1.41
MgCl2 1.36
Na2HPO4 0.93
Zero-valent iron without 30.10
MgCl2 27.70
Na2HPO4 25.64
Magnetite without 7.10
MgCl2 5.37
Na2HPO4 4.47
the following the order: magnetite (37%)N goethite (34%)N hematite
(24%)N ZVI (15%). Desorption isotherms demonstrate that chlorides and
phosphates can decrease maximum arsenate adsorption capacities onto
adsorbents. Chlorides have a low effect (maximum arsenate adsorption
capacities are decreased by 10%) on As (V) desorption for ZVI, goethite and
hematite. This result is consistent with published studies showing a low
effect of chlorides on arsenic desorption rate [38–40]. The desorption rate
is higher with phosphates since 40% of As (V) is desorbed from magnetite
and goethite [40]. For goethite, desorption rate is similar with the work of
O'Reilly et al. [41] showing that 35% of As (V) are desorbed by a solution of
phosphates (HPO4:0.006 M) at pH 6 after 24 h. These results can be
explained by the similar chemical structure of arsenates and phosphates.
Phosphates are tetrahedral anions that form inner sphere complexes with
surface functional groups of iron oxides. Competition between phosphates
and arsenates for surface adsorption sites decreases adsorbed arsenic
[42,43]. Arsenic desorption experiments from ZVI show that a large
amount of arsenic (desorption rateb 15% with phosphates) would be
strongly adsorbed, suggesting that arsenic is co-precipitated or specifically
adsorbed onto ZVI [44,45]. Jain et al. [46] showed that arsenate was
specifically adsorbed onto iron oxides, forming inner sphere complexes by
ligand exchange with surface hydroxyl groups. Other studies based on
chemical and spectroscopic techniques have also revealed specific
interactions between arsenic and iron on the surface of amorphous iron
hydroxide [47–49].
4. Conclusions
Preliminary study of arsenate adsorption onto adsorbents is the first
step before considering stabilization tests with contaminated wastes.
For this purpose, adsorption experiments were performed under
different physico-chemical conditions (pH, initial arsenic concentration)
on four commercial adsorbents: hematite, goethite, magnetite and ZVI.
Results showed that arsenate adsorption rate is related to pH values and
initial arsenic concentrations. Arsenate adsorption is favored under acidic
pH values and rapidly decreases in basic medium. Studied adsorbents are
effective over large ranges of pH and arsenic concentration. At 500 μg As
(V) L− 1, adsorption reactions are effective over a more limited pH range.
Arsenate adsorption rate is related to iron content of adsorbents and it
increases in the following order: goethite b hematiteb magnetiteb ZVI.
The modeling of adsorption isotherms with empirical models revealed
that the Langmuir model is suitable for almost all adsorbents (hematite,
goethite, ZVI), indicating a monolayer adsorption. Hematite is the most
suitable adsorbent over natural pH (pH 6–9) at high arsenic concentra-
tions. Desorption isotherms revealed that arsenic was stronger attached
onto hematite than other adsorbents (goethite or magnetite). Zero-
valent iron is also an interesting adsorbent for arsenic stabilization in
solid wastes since it has high adsorption capacity and a low arsenate
desorption rate. Arsenate adsorption onto ZVI is promoted when the
number of active surface sites is increased by the oxidation of iron
particles.
R2
Acknowledgement
0.9945
The authors thank Jean-Luc Aqua and Laurent Sannier from the
0.9868
0.9798 SEDIMARD framework and Pierre Boissery from the “Agence de l'eau
0.9918 PACA” for their financial contributions to this research study.
0.9925
0.9942
0.9928 References
0.9959
0.9949 [1] D. Grosdemange, F. Leveque, D. Drousie, J.L. Aqua, J. Méhu, C. Bazin, The
0.9847 SEDIMARD project: presentation and results, International Symposium on
0.9942 Sediment Management –I2SM, Lille (France), 2008.
0.9947 [2] L. Mancioppi, A. Bénard, P. Hennebert, B. Hazebrouck, Dredged sediments:
variability of sediment, feedback on dredging practices and the terrestrial
management in France, Coastal and Maritime Mediterranean Conference,
Hammamet (Tunisia),2009, pp.133.
[3] F. Battaglia-Brunet, C. Joulian, A.G. Guezennec, P. Bataillard, N. Marmier, C. Hurel,
A. Barats, V. Philippini, Y. Mamindy-Pajany, M. Roméo, P. Bertin, S. Koechler, F.
Séby, A. Moulin, Arsenic in marine sediments: Modeling the link between
Biogeochemistry, Bioavailability and Ecotoxicology, Third International Congress
on “Arsenic in the Environment”, Taiwan, 2010.
[4] C. Alzieu, F. Quiniou, Geodrisk, in CD-ROM Geodrisk, Software to assess risks
related to dumping of dredged sediments from maritime harbours, 2001.
[5] C. Hopenhayn, Arsenic in drinking water: impact on human health, Elements 2
(2006) 103–107.
[6] T.S.Y. Choong, T.G. Chuah, Y. Robiah, F.L. Gregory Koay, I. Azni, Arsenic toxicity,
health hazards and removal techniques from water: an overview, Desalination
217 (2007) 139–166.
[7] M. Shafiquzzaman, M.S. Azam, J. Nakajima, Q.H. Bari, Arsenic leaching character-
istics of the sludges from iron based removal process, Desalination 261 (2010)
41–45.
[8] E.O. Kartinen, C.J. Martin, An overview of arsenic removal processes, Desalination
103 (1995) 79–88.
[9] C.N. Mulligan, R.N. Yong, B.F. Gibbs, An evaluation of technologies for the heavy
metal remediation of dredged sediments, J. Hazard. Mater. 85 (2001) 145–163.
[10] L. Zoubeir, S. Adeline, C.S. Laurent, C. Yoann, H.T. Truc, L.G. Benoît, A. Federico, The
use of the Novosol process for the treatment of polluted marine sediment, J.
Hazard. Mater. 148 (2007) 606–612.
[11] F. Séby, C. Benoît-Bonnemason, E. Tessier, C. Alzieu, J.L. Aqua, L. Sannier, O.F.X.
Donard, Evolution of metals and their chemical forms in land-disposed dredged
marine sediments, Paralia 2 (2009) s3.1–s3.12.
[12] V. Zaspalis, A. Pagana, S. Sklari, Arsenic removal from contaminated water by iron
oxide sorbents and porous ceramic membranes, Desalination 217 (2007) 167–180.
[13] L. Ruiping, S. Lihua, Q. Jiuhui, L. Guibai, Arsenic removal through adsorption, sand
filtration and ultrafiltration: in situ precipitated ferric and manganese binary
oxides as adsorbents, Desalination 249 (2009) 1233–1237.
[14] P. Sabbatini, F. Rossi, G. Thern, A. Marajofsky, M.M.F. de Cortalezzi, Iron oxide
adsorbers for arsenic removal: a low cost treatment for rural areas and mobile
applications, Desalination 248 (2009) 184–192.
[15] S. Brunauer, P.H. Emmett, E. Teller, Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers, J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 60 (1938) 309–319.
[16] N. Jordan, C. Lomenech, N. Marmier, E. Giffaut, J.J. Ehrhardt, Sorption of selenium(IV)
onto magnetite in the presence of silicic acid, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 329 (2009) 17–23.
[17] P. Van Cappellen, L. Charlet, W. Stumm, P. Wersin, A surface complexation model
of the carbonate mineral-aqueous solution interface, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta
57 (1993) 3505–3518.
[18] N. Marmier, A. Delisée, F. Fromage, Surface complexation modeling of Yb(III), Ni
(II), and Cs(I) sorption on magnetite, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 211 (1999) 54–60.
[19] N. Marmier, F. Fromage, Comparing electrostatic and nonelectrostatic surface
complexation modeling of the sorption of lanthanum on hematite, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 212 (1999) 252–263.
[20] Y. Mamindy-Pajany, C. Hurel, N. Marmier, M. Roméo, Arsenic adsorption onto
hematite and goethite, C. R. Chim. 12 (2009) 876–881.
[21] P. Quevauviller, G. Rauret, J.F. López-Sánchez, R. Rubio, A. Ure, H. Muntau,
Certification of trace metal extractable contents in a sediment reference material
(CRM 601) following a three-step sequential extraction procedure, Sci. Total.
Environ. 205 (1997) 223–234.
[22] N.E. Keon, C.H. Swartz, D.J. Brabander, C. Harvey, H.F. Hemond, Validation of an
arsenic sequential extraction method for evaluating mobility in sediments,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (2001) 2778–2784.
[23] S. Dixit, J.G. Hering, Comparison of arsenic(V) and arsenic(III) sorption onto iron
oxide minerals: implications for arsenic mobility, Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (2003)
4182–4189.
[24] J. Giménez, M. Martínez, J. de Pablo, M. Rovira, L. Duro, Arsenic sorption onto
natural hematite, magnetite, and goethite, J. Hazard. Mater. 141 (2007) 575–580.
[25] L. Weng, W.H. Van Riemsdijk, T. Hiemstra, Effects of fulvic and humic acids on
arsenate adsorption to goethite: experiments and modeling, Environ. Sci. Technol.
43 (2009) 7198–7204.
[26] S. Bang, M.D. Johnson, G.P. Korfiatis, X. Meng, Chemical reactions between arsenic
and zero-valent iron in water, Water Res. 39 (2005) 763–770.
 Y. Mamindy-Pajany et al. / Desalination 281 (2011) 93–99
[27] X. Sun, H.E. Doner, Adsorption and oxidation of arsenite on goethite, Soil Sci. 163
(1998) 278–287.
[28] R. Stanforth, Comment on arsenite and arsenate adsorption on ferrihydrite:
surface charge reduction and net OH− release stoichiometry, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 33 (1999) 3695–3696.
[29] Y. Jia, L. Xu, Z. Fang, G.P. Demopoulos, Observation of surface precipitation of
arsenate on ferrihydrite, Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (2006) 3248–3253.
[30] L. Carlson, J.M. Bigham, U. Schwertmann, A. Kyek, F. Wagner, Scavenging of As
from acid mine drainage by schwertmannite and ferrihydrite: a comparison with
synthetic analogues, Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (2002) 1712–1719.
[31] M. Duc, G. Lefèvre, M. Fédoroff, Sorption of selenite ions on hematite, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 298 (2006) 556–563.
[32] P. Lakshmipathiraj, B.R.V. Narasimhan, S. Prabhakar, G. Bhaskar Raju, Adsorption
of arsenate on synthetic goethite from aqueous solutions, J. Hazard. Mater. 136
(2006) 281–287.
[33] L. Sigg, P. Behra, W. Stumm, Chemistry of Aquatic Ecosystems: Natural water
chemistry and interfaces in environment, Paris, 2000.
[34] S. Kundu, A.K. Gupta, Adsorption characteristics of As(III) from aqueous solution
on iron oxide coated cement (IOCC), J. Hazard. Mater. 142 (2007) 97–104.
[35] J.C. Hsu, C.J. Lin, C.H. Liao, S.T. Chen, Removal of As(V) and As(III) by reclaimed
iron-oxide coated sands, J. Hazard. Mater. 153 (2008) 817–826.
[36] M. Habuda-Stanic, B. Kalajdzic, M. Kules, N. Velic, Arsenite and arsenate sorption
by hydrous ferric oxide/polymeric material, Desalination 229 (2008) 1–9.
[37] Y. Jeong, M. Fan, S. Singh, C.L. Chuang, B. Saha, J. Hans van Leeuwen, Evaluation of
iron oxide and aluminum oxide as potential arsenic(V) adsorbents, Chem. Eng.
Process. 46 (2007) 1030–1039.
[38] C. Su, R.W. Puls, Arsenate and arsenite removal by zerovalent iron: effects of
phosphate, silicate, carbonate, borate, sulfate, chromate, molybdate, and nitrate,
relative to chloride, Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (2001) 4562–4568.
99
[39] K.H. Goh, T.T. Lim, Arsenic fractionation in a fine soil fraction and influence of
various anions on its mobility in the subsurface environment, Appl. Geochem. 20
(2005) 229–239.
[40] J. Youngran, M. Fan, J. Van Leeuwen, J.F. Belczyk, Effect of competing solutes on
arsenic(V) adsorption using iron and aluminum oxides, J. Environ. Sci. 19 (2007)
910–919.
[41] S.E. O'Reilly, D.G. Strawn, D.L. Sparks, Residence time effects on arsenate adsorption/
desorption mechanisms on goethite, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65 (2001) 67–77.
[42] B.A. Manning, S. Goldberg, Modeling competitive adsorption of arsenate with
phosphate and molybdate on oxide minerals, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60 (1996)
121–131.
[43] B.P. Jackson, W.P. Miller, Effectiveness of phosphate and hydroxide for desorption
of arsenic and selenium species from iron oxides, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64 (2000)
1616–1622.
[44] J.A. Lackovic, N.P. Nikolaidis, G.M. Dobbs, Inorganic arsenic removal by zero-valent
iron, Environ. Eng. Sci. 17 (2000) 29–39.
[45] N.P. Nikolaidis, G.M. Dobbs, J.A. Lackovic, Arsenic removal by zero-valent iron:
field, laboratory and modeling studies, Water Res. 37 (2003) 1417–1425.
[46] A. Jain, K.P. Raven, R.H. Loeppert, Arsenite and arsenate adsorption on
ferrihydrite: surface charge reduction and net OH− release stoichiometry,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 33 (1999) 1179–1184.
[47] M.L. Pierce, C.B. Moore, Adsorption of arsenite and arsenate on amorphous iron
hydroxide, Water Res. 16 (1982) 1247–1253.
[48] T.H. Hsia, S.L. Lo, C.F. Lin, D.Y. Lee, Characterization of arsenate adsorption on
hydrous iron oxide using chemical and physical methods, Colloids Surf. A 85
(1994) 1–7.
[49] G.A. Waychunas, B.A. Rea, C.C. Fuller, J.A. Davis, Surface chemistry of ferrihydrite:
Part 1. EXAFS studies of the geometry of coprecipitated and adsorbed arsenate,
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 57 (1993) 2251–2269.