Breakthrough column studies for removal of iron ii from groundwater using

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308
(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 4, July-August (2013), © IAEME
289
BREAKTHROUGH COLUMN STUDIES FOR REMOVAL OF IRON (II)
FROM GROUNDWATER USING WOODEN CHARCOAL AND SAND
Ahmed Hasan Nury1
, Syed Mustakim Ali Shah2*
1
(Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science and
Technology, Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh)
2
(Department of Civil Engineering, Leading University, Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh)
ABSTRACT
Groundwater is an attractive and easily accessible resource of water in Bangladesh. All rural
water supplies and most of urban water supplies rely on groundwater for potable supplies. Though
groundwater is much less prone to bacterial contamination but in many parts of country has a severe
problem with metal contamination particularly higher concentration of iron. Many iron removal units
are available but most of these methods are not feasible in the rural and semi-urban areas. As a part
of low cost iron removal strategy, this study used processed wooden charcoal (PWC) and processed
sand (PS) as filter media and evaluates adsorptive capacity of them for dissolved iron removal
through continuous mode column studies. The experiments were carried out using synthetic water
containing Fe (II) at a fixed pH of 5.5 and zero dissolved oxygen levels. Different bed depth used to
obtain the adsorption breakthrough curves. An increase of breakthrough time and adsorption bed
capacity were found with the increase in bed depths, while breakthrough time and uptake of Fe (II)
ions onto the adsorbent decreases when the linear flow rate through the bed increases. At different
bed depths, PWC shows higher adsorption capacity for Fe (II) as compared to PS. Breakthrough
profiles of up-scaled columns and indigenous unit models indicate that for same bed heights and
flow rate, the up-scaled columns perform better than indigenous unit models and yield higher
breakthrough throughputs. In the meanwhile, the up-scaled columns also performed reasonably well
to remove fluoride, turbidity, sulfate and alkalinity at breakthrough point of Fe (II).
Keywords: Adsorption, Ground water, Iron removal, Low cost approach, Water treatment
1. INTRODUCTION
The effective development of quality water and sustenance is one major way of securing the
food security and good health of the populace. Water is essential for growing food, household uses,
industrial processes and the sustenance of natural cycles (Rosegrant et al. 2002). In Bangladesh, all
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 4, Issue 4, July-August (2013), pp. 289-303
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCIET
© IAEME

290
rural water supplies and most of urban water supplies are ground water based. In addition,
groundwater resources are also being utilized excessively for irrigation and industrial purposes
(Jahan H. and Ahmed M. F, 2010). According to the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) Report 2002, water stress or scarcity will affect more than 2.8 billion people in 48 countries
by 2025. This water scarcity affects many developing and emerging countries so that appropriate
technologies are needed for purification of groundwater to enable safe use (UNEP, 2002).
Several contaminants including heavy metal ions, pesticide residues, phthalate esters,
polychlorobiphenyls, micro-organisms etc are capable of compromising the positive applications of
water. Removal of various metals from water has been subjected to severe studies in the recent years.
However, most of such studies fail to provide a cost effective method (Igwe et al., 2008; Gharbani,
2008; Goyal et al., 2008; Shah et al., 2009; Zvinowanda et al., 2009; Labidi, 2008; Lori et al., 2008;
Murugesan et al., 2008; Nabi Bidhendi et al., 2007; Rahmani et al., 2009; Sahmoune et al., 2009;
Salim and Munekage, 2009; Shetty and Rajkumar, 2009; Singanan et al., 2008).
Iron removal from groundwater has been a subject of intensive research for the last couple of
decades in developing countries like Sri Lanka, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Argentina, South Africa,
Uganda and India (Ahamad, 2005; Andersson and Johansson, 2002; Chibi, 1995). Aeration and
separation is the most widely used method for removal of iron from groundwater in public water
supply systems, which is however, not so popular amongst rural and semi-urban communities
lacking piped water supply. Other methods available for iron removal from groundwater are ion-
exchange (Vaaramaa and Lehto, 2003), oxidation with oxidizing agents such as chlorine and
potassium permanganate (Ellis et al., 2000; Varner et al., 1996), adsorption on activated carbon and
other adsorbents (Munter et al., 2005; Berbenni et al., 2000; Ewa et al., 2007; Oztas et al., 2008;
Prasenjit et al., 2007) and treatment with limestone (Aziz et al., 2004). But most of these methods
and configurations of iron removal units are not feasible in the rural and semi-urban areas either at
community levels or at an individual household level due to high capital costs and complicated
operation and maintenance requirements of these methods and units. Therefore, efforts have to be
directed to look for such techniques for iron removal from the groundwater which is acceptable and
easily adaptable to communities especially for rural and semi-urban area lacking piped water supply,
so as to ensure acceptable quality potable water on a sustainable basis at an affordable cost. Iron is a
common household contaminant in Bangladesh. It is predominantly an aesthetic concern because
iron precipitates as insoluble ferric hydroxide at higher pH and settles as red colored silt. It is visible
on staining, enameled surfaces such as baths, hand basins, etc. It also gives an offensive taste and
odor to water (Reddy and Chakraborty, 2009). The quantity of iron in the groundwater of
Bangladesh is more than the WHO’s limit (0.3 mg/L). A field survey was carried out in Moulvibazar
district of Bangladesh, where the groundwater contains 1-10 mg/L or more of iron. However, the
population in the iron contaminated areas has black colored teeth (WHO, 2004). Other health effects
include: acute poisoning in infants and chronic iron poisoning, haemochromatosis. So it is a matter
of concern now to ensure low cost methods/ techniques for iron removal from the groundwater in
this region. Adsorption is widely accepted as low-cost water treatment applications throughout the
world. Present study used community prepared brick chips (CPBC) and river sand (RS) as filter
media since wooden charcoal and river sand are easily available, eco-friendly and easy to prepare in
Bangladesh. The objective of this study is to develop the knowledge of low cost treatment
technology for producing potable water as well as ensuring sustainable availability of safe and
hygienic drinking water at individual household levels to both rural and urban areas of country. As a
part of low cost iron removal approach, present work estimates Fe (II) uptake capacity of the wooden
charcoal and sand through continuous mode column studies to find out the influences of bed depth,
linear flow rate and concentration of inlet Fe (II) on the performance of Fe (II) adsorption onto
adsorbent media.

291
2. MATERIALS & METHOD
The community prepared wooden charcoal (CPWC) was collected from a local market called
‘Madina Market’, located about 2 km away from Leading University campus on the north bank of
Surma River in Sylhet. River sand (RS), the second filter media is a local construction material was
procured from Shahjalal University’s Engineering Materials laboratory, which was mined from the
river-beds of Sari Ghat, about 50 km away from Sylhet City. Collected CPWC samples having
individual pieces of 2 cm × 1.5 cm × 1.5 cm to 4 cm × 2.5 cm × 1.5 cm in size range were processed
into smaller sizes, washed with distilled water and dried at 105°C in a drying oven at Leading
University laboratory. Sieve analysis was performed using dried wooden charcoal as per IS 2720
(1975). Particles passing through 450 µm sieve openings but retaining over 300 µm sieve openings
were selected as study material which were termed as processed wooden charcoal (PWC). The
collected RS contains many foreign materials like floating debris, dirt, clay etc since they are
available natural construction material. Sample sand was washed until all foreign materials removed
and then dried at 105° C in the drying oven. Sieve analysis was also carried out for river sand as per
IS 2720 (1975) and particles passing through 300 µm sieve openings but retaining over 150 µm
sieve openings were selected for this study which were termed as processed sand (PS). The scanning
electron microscopy of PWC indicated presence of numerous pores while that of PS indicated
absence of pores (Ahamad and Jawed, 2008). However, the properties of PWC and PS are presented
in Table 1.
Table1. Properties of processed wooden charcoal (PWC) and processed sand (PS)
Properties PWC PS
Particle size range 425 µm – 300 µm
300 µm – 150 µm
Bulk density 290 kg/m3
1523 kg/m3
Moisture content 10%
0.5%
Ash/Inert content 8%
94%
Generally, the dissolved ferrous iron [Fe (II)] turned into insoluble ferric hydroxide [Fe (III)]
at higher pH and settles as red colored silt. Therefore, experiment was organized to assess the
solubility of Fe (II) in pH range of 2 to 12. To prepare a Fe (II) stock solution of 200 mg/mL ferrous
sulfate (FeSO4.7H2O) was used. Required amount of stock solution was taken in a 100 mL
specimen tube and pH was adjusted by mixing appropriate acid (0.2N HNO3) or lime (Rao and
Rekha, 2004). A digital pH meter was used to check solution’s pH accuracy. The final volume was

292
made up to 100 mL with distilled water to give a final Fe (II) concentration of 5 mg/L. Whole
specimen tubes were shacked manually (5-8 min) for proper mixing, with (»40-50 rpm).
Phenanthrolinthe method was used to estimate remaining Fe (II) concentration in the solution
(APHA, 1998). Later the solubility of Fe (II) in the presence of DO was assessed at room
temperature (24±1°C) via separate experiment.
A plastic bucket with 10–12 L of distilled water was taken and 0.2N HNO3 was used to fix a
pH value at 5.5 in the presence of DO. Initial DO level was estimated as per Standard Methods
(APHA, 1998) and then brought down to zero by adding slightly more than the stoichiometric
requirement of sodium sulfite (Na2SO3). The liquid volume was made up to 15L by adding required
amount of Fe (II) stock solution to achieve an initial Fe (II) concentration of 6.5 mg/L. A normal air
pump was used to ensure aeration. A Buffer system was developed using acetic acid and sodium
acetate (1 mL of 0.2M acetic acid and 9 mL of 0.2M sodium acetate mixed to give 10 mL of buffer
solution) (Jeffery, 1996) to monitor pH fluctuation. Samples were drawn at regular intervals for
estimation of Fe (II) and DO.
A glass column having 38 mm internal diameter was used for this experiment as shown in
Fig. 1. The column was filled up to a desired depth with adsorbing media (PWC or PS), mounted up
and kept submerged throughout the runs to avoid air entrapment in the beds. A multi-channel
peristaltic pump was used at two different flow rates of 2 and 3 mL/min to ensure continuous down
flow through the column. The column studies were carried out at the room temperature (29±1°C)
with Fe (II) concentration of 6.5 mg/L at a fixed pH of 5.5 and zero dissolved oxygen (DO). Samples
from the column were collected at regular intervals till the bed exhausted or yielded effluent with
90% of initial Fe (II) concentration.
To compare the performance of up scaled columns fabricated using PWC and PS with the
models of indigenous units using PWC and RS, a PVC tubes of 10 cm internal diameter were used
with different bed combinations. This study considered two combinations of layered bed for the up-
scaled columns: (i)10 cm bed depth of PWC on top and 10 cm bed depth of PS at bottom, and (ii)10
cm bed depth of PS on top and 10 cm bed depth of PWC at bottom. Similarly, two combinations of
layered bed were selected for the models of indigenous units: (i) 10 cm bed depth of CPWC on top
and 10 cm bed depth of RS at bottom, and (ii) 10 cm bed depth of RS on top and 10 cm bed depth of
CPWC at bottom.
Total bed depth for up-scaled column and indigenous units became 20 cm where the overall
height of the PVC tube used for fabrication was restricted to 30 cm. The selection of bed depth was
dictated by the height of PVC tube. Whole experimental system including up-scaled columns and
models of indigenous units were operated in parallel at a flow rate of 11.53 mL/min (16.6 L/d) in
down flow mode with initial Fe (II) concentration of 6.5 mg/L. The solution pH was adjusted to 5.5
and DO level made to zero. The up-scaled columns were also operated with actual ground water at a
flow rate of 6 mL/min using selected two different bed arrangements. Mass balance of the packed-
bed reactor is carried out and its variation during the reaction could be illustrated by Fig. 1.
The equation of mass balance material is: input flow = output flow + flow inside pores
volume + matter adsorbed onto adsorbent material. For this system, the balance could be expressed
according to the following equation,
QvC0 = QvC+Vp
ௗ஼
ௗ௧
൅ ݉
ௗ௤
ௗ௧
……………………………………….(1)
Where Qv is the volumetric flow of the solution in the column (L/min), C0 and C respectively the
inlet and outlet solute concentrations (mg/L), QvC0 the inlet flow of solute in the column (mg/min),
QvC the outlet flow of solute leaving the column (mg/min), Vp the pore volume (Vp =
ଵ
ଵିԪ
Va ; where
Va is the bulk volume and ε the porosity), Vp
ୢେ
ୢ୲
the flow rate through the column bed depth

293
(mg/min) and m
ୢ୯
ୢ୲
the amount of solute adsorbed onto column media (mg/min) where m is the mass
of adsorbent material and
ୢ୯
ୢ୲
the adsorption rate. According to Eq. (1), the determining factors of the
balance for a given bed depth of the column are the linear flow rate (u =
୕୴
ୗୡ
, where Sc is the column
section, m2
), the initial solute concentration, the adsorption potential and the pore volume even if
previous studies (Costodes et al., 2005) showed that the latter parameter may be neglected.
Therefore, in order to optimize the adsorption process in a packed bed column, it is necessary to
examine these parameters and to estimate their influence.
Fig.1. Schema of packed-bed reactor (Where u is the linear flow rate and also the average rate of the
liquid flow when the column is empty)
The breakthrough curve represents the evolution of the solution concentration in function of
adsorption parameters like adsorbent depth, contact time between liquid and solid phase, solvent
concentration and so on. A typical breakthrough profile of a column study is shown in Fig. 2.
Normally the top portion of adsorbent layer adsorbs pollutant more quickly during its first contact
with the fluid. Thus at early time the fluid leaving the column is partially free from pollutants then
other times (points P1, P2 and P3 in Fig. 2.). As the polluted water flow through column bed
increases, adsorption zone gradually decreases called zone of mass transfer (MTZ). In this MTZ,
adsorption is complete and the concentration of pollutant in the bed column varies from 100% of Co
(corresponding to total saturation) to approximately 0% of Co (corresponding to the virgin
adsorbent). Additionally, the height of mass transfer zones ‫ܪ‬ெ்௓ was estimated using the relation
(Tchobanoglous et al., 2003).
‫ܪ‬ெ்௓ ൌ
௏ಶି௏ಳ
௏ಶି଴.ହሺ ௏ಶି௏ಳሻ
…………………………………….. (2)
Where Z = height of the adsorption column, ܸ஻= throughput volume to breakthrough and ܸா=
throughput volume to exhaustion.

294
Fig. 2. Typical breakthrough profiles from a column study (Source: Tchobanoglous et al., 2003)
As the filtering period increases the adsorption zone moves downwards through the bed
column until the breakthrough occurs. When this zone reaches the bottom of the bed the pollutant
dissolved in the solution could not be adsorbed any longer. This moment is called “breakpoint”. The
plot obtained after this point gives the concentration history and is called breakthrough profile or
breakthrough curve. Practically, breakthrough point determines the solute concentration in the
effluent and also expresses the treated volume known as throughput volume (VB). For most
adsorbent–pollutant systems, the breakthrough curve is obtained after an effluent concentration of
50% has been reached. To facilitate the calculations of the bed adsorption capacity, the breakthrough
curve is often fixed at 50% (P4, Fig. 2), sometimes at 10% (P3, Fig.2) of the inlet concentration
according to the target quality of the final effluent (Tchobanologus et al., 2003). When MTZ reaches
to the column bottom (P5, Fig. 2), the adsorption bed became completely saturated. In this condition
adsorption in the bed does not occur and the effluent which leaves the column has the same
concentration as the one that enters. The quantity of adsorbed pollutant at breakpoint (qB in mg/g)
could be estimated for a single column from the following relation suggested by Tchobanologus et
al. (2003) with known breakthrough time (tB) using:
‫ݍ‬஻ ൌ ቀ
௫
௠
ቁ
஻
ൌ ቀ
௫ಳ
௠ೌ೏ೞ೚ೝ್೐೙೟
ቁ ൌ ܳ௏ ቀ‫ܥ‬଴ െ
஼ಳ
ଶ
ቁ
௧ಳ
௠ೌ೏ೞ೚ೝ್೐೙೟
……………… (3)
Where ቀ
௫
௠
ቁ = breakthrough adsorption capacity (mg/g), xB = mass of adsorbate adsorbed in the
column at breakthrough (mg), madsorbent = mass of adsorbent in the column (g), Qv = flow rate
(mL/min), Co = influent adsorbate concentration (mg/L), CB = breakthrough adsorbate concentration
(mg/L) and tB = time to breakthrough (min).
The important assumptions associated with the development of Eq. (3) were: Co taken as constant
and that the effluent concentration increased linearly with time from 0 to CB. The term ቀ‫ܥ‬଴ െ
஼ಳ
ଶ
ቁ
represented the average concentration of the adsorbed up to the Breakthrough point.

295
3. RESULT & DISCUSSION
The variation in Fe (II) remaining in solution with pH and DO levels is presented in Fig. 3(a)
and 3(b) respectively. Iron remained in soluble form at pH < 6, but at pH > 7 almost all iron turned
into insoluble form shown by Fig. 1(a).
Fig. 3. Variation in Fe (II) solubility with (a) pH and (b) DO level at fixed pH 5.5.
[Initial Fe (II) conc. = 6.5 mg/L, Temp = 29±1 o
C]
The effect of DO levels on the solubility of Fe (II) observed at DO levels > 1 mg/L. When the
DO level reached a steady value of 6.8 mg/L, the Fe (II) decreased to the lowest level. Therefore,
further experiments were carried out at a fixed pH of 5.5 with zero DO levels to ensure availability
of iron in Fe (II) form.
A breakthrough curves was plotted by the concentration ratio of Ct/Co versus throughput
volume to represent Fe (II) adsorption onto PWC and PS. Two different bed depth of PWC and PS;
15 and 20 cm, at a constant linear flow rate of 2 mL/min were considered to obtain breakthrough
curves which are illustrated in Fig.4 while a summary of results are presented in Table 2.
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fe(II)conc.(mg/L)
pH
Series1
Series2
(a)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fe(II)conc.(mg/L)
Time (min)
(b)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DO(mg/L)
Time (min)
(b)

296
Fig. 4. Effect of bed depth on the breakthrough curves for Fe(II) adsorption through columns of (a)
PWC alone and (b) PS alone [Qv= 2 mL/min; Co =6.5 mg/L]
PWC and PS were used separately as column beds for different depth to produce an ideal
adsorption system. Resulting breakthrough curves shows “S” shaped profile. Mass transfer
phenomena that take place in this process could be used to explain the displacement of the front of
adsorption with the increase in depth. When the bed depth is reduced, axial dispersion phenomena
predominate in the mass transfer and reduce the diffusion of metallic ion and hence solute [Fe (II)
ion] has no enough time to diffuse into the adsorbent mass. Therefore, the volume of solution at the
breakthrough point reduced considerably when the bed depth in the column decreases from 20 to 15
cm represented by Fig. 4 and Table 2. In addition, adsorbent mass increases with bed depth while an
increase in the bed adsorption capacity (qB) is also noticed at the breakthrough point [Table 2].
Table 2. Summary of breakthrough results for Fe (II) adsorption on columns of different bed depths
Column Bed
Bed
Depth
(cm)
Adsorbent
Mass
(g)
Throughput
Vol.
VB (mL)a
Breakthrough
time
tB (min)a
HMTZb
(cm)
Adsorption bed
capacity
qB (mg/g)c
PWC alone
15 0.853 128 65 16.7 0.789
20 1.392 215 80 21.9 1.432
PS alone
15 11.004 230 95 15.78 0.278
20 17.645 450 198 22.18 0.457
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Ct/Co
Throughput Volume (mL)
Bed Depth 15 cm (a)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Ct/Co
Bed Depth 20 cm
(a)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Bed Depth 15 cm
(b)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Bed Depth 20 cm
(b)

297
Fig. 5. Effect of variation in linear flow rates for breakthrough curves of Fe(II) adsorption through
column of (a) PWC alone and (b) void space of PWC filled with PS [Z = 10 cm; Co = 6.5 mg/L,
mc(PWC) = 4.65 g]
It may occur be due to the increase in the specific surface of the adsorbent which supplies
more fixation binding sites. The breakthrough time also increases with the height of the bed.
Therefore, as the breakthrough point delayed the adsorbent get more time to adsorb pollutants. So the
larger breakthrough time, the better are the intra particulate diffusion phenomena and the bed
adsorption capacity. The initial solute concentration and bed depth were kept constant (Co = 6.5
mg/L, Z = 15 cm) with a linear flow rate 2 mL/min to examine the effect of linear flow rate through
the column beds. The resulting breakthrough curves are presented in Fig. 5 while results are
summarized in Table 3.
The linear flow rate of solution through the filter bed has an effect on all breakthrough
parameters. Throughput volume reduces until breakthrough point as the flow rate changes from 2 to
3 while height of mass transfer zone increases. This is due to the decrease in contact time between Fe
(II) ions and the adsorbent at higher linear flow rates. A reduction in bed adsorbent capacity also
found from breakthrough profile. It is occurred due to the contact time between Fe (II) ions and
adsorbents. At low flow rate Fe (II) get more time to diffuse amidst the particles of adsorbent. At a
higher linear flow rate, the adsorbent gets saturated early because of a reduced contact time which
leads to a lower diffusivity of the Fe (II) amidst the particles of the adsorbent Cost odes et al. (2005).
The effect of variation in inlet Fe (II) concentrations of 6.5 and 10 mg/L was tested with a linear flow
rate of 2 mL/min using bed depth of 15 and 20 cm for PWC and PS respectively. The breakthrough
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Q=2 (mL/min)
PWC
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Q=3 (mL/min)
PWC
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Q=2 (mL/min)
PWC with PS
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Q=3(mL/min)
PWC with PS

298
profiles are presented in Figure 6 while a summary is given in Table 3. A rise in inlet Fe (II)
concentration yields reduced throughput volume before the packed bed got saturated. An increase in
inlet metal concentration develops extra pressure on adsorbent media which results quick saturation
of filter bed, thereby decreasing the breakthrough time. Adsorption capacity also reduced by increase
metal concentration as illustrated in Table. The saturation of the adsorbent required much more time
and the breakthrough was reached before all the active sites of the adsorbent were occupied by the
metal ions. The PWC column showed higher affinity for Fe (II) as compared to PS column under the
experimental conditions of this study. The breakthrough profiles obtained through upscale columns
as well as models of indigenous unit are presented in Fig.7 while results are summarized in Table 5.
Table 3: Summary of breakthrough results for Fe (II) adsorption with variation in linear flow rates
Column
Bed
Flow rate
Qv
(mL/min)
Throughput
Vol.
VB (mL)a
Breakthrough
time
tB (min)a
HMTZb
(cm)
Adsorption
bed
capacity
qB (mg/g)c
PWC
2 128 52 16.70 0.789
3 100 45 17.32 0.734
PWC
(Voids
filled
2 250 75 17.87 0.678
3 185 56 18.24 0.483
Fig. 6. Effect of variation in inlet Fe (II) concentration on breakthrough curves through column of
PWC and PS [ZPWC = 10 cm, ZPS = 10 cm, mc(PWC) = 4.65 g, mc(PS) =32.8 g, Qv = 2 mL/min]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Inlet Fe (II) conc. 6.5 mg/L
PWC
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Inlet Fe (II) conc. 10 mg/L
PWC
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Inlet Fe (II) conc. 6.5 mg/L
PS
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Ct/Co
Inlet Fe (II) conc. 10 mg/L
PS

299
Fig. 7. Comparison of breakthrough profiles of up-scaled columns and indigenous unit models [Co =
6.5 mg/L, Temp = 24±1 oC, mPWC = mCPWC = 14.1 g and mPS = mRS = 205 g]
Fig. 8. Breakthrough profile of up-scaled columns obtained with actual groundwater samples [Co =
6.5 mg/L, Temp = 24±1 o
C, mPWC = 14.1 g, mPS = 205 g]
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ct/Co
Up-Scaled:PWC at top & PS at
bottom
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ct/Co
Indigenous:CPWC at top & RS at
bottom
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ct/Co
Up-Scaled: PS at top & PWC at
bottom
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ct/Co
Indigenous:RS at top & CPWC at
bottom
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ct/Co
PWC at top & PS at bottom
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ct/Co
PS at top & PWC at bottom

300
Table 4: Summary of breakthrough results for Fe (II) adsorption through PWC and
PS beds with variation in inlet metal concentrations
Column Bed Inlet Conc.
Co (mg/L)
Throughput Vol.
VB (mL)a
Breakthrough point
tB (min)a
Adsorption
bed capacity
qB (mg/g)b
PWC 6.5 650 126 0.948
10 430 78 0.764
PS 6.5 720 138 0.267
10 400 86 0.176
a
Obtained from Figure 6; b
Calculated using Eq. (3)
Table 5: Performance summary of up-scaled columns and indigenous unit models
Column/Unit Bed arrangement Fe (II)
conc.
(mg/L)
Throughput
Vol.
VB (L)a
Breakthrough
time, tB (min)a
Up-scaled PWC at top & PS at bottom 6.5 13 1535
PS at top & PWC at bottom 8 1348
Indigenous CPWC at top & RS at bottom 6.5 9 978
RS at top & CPWC at bottom 6 856
a
Obtained from Fig. 7.
Table 6: Performance summary of up-scaled columns with actual groundwater
Bed Arrangement Throughput volume, VB (L)
PWC at top & PS at bottom 8.5
PS at top & PWC at bottom 7.6
It is apparent from the results that the up- scaled columns yielded higher volume of
throughput as well as enhanced service time at the breakpoint compared to models of indigenous
units indicating possibility of enhancing the performance of indigenous household iron filter units by
selecting the filter media of appropriate size ranges.
Table 7: Performance of up-scaled column in terms of other water quality parameters with actual
groundwater
Water Quality Parameters
Groundwater
Sample
Treated by up-scaled columns with #
PWC at top &
PS at bottom
PS at top &
PWC at bottom
Fe(II) (mg/L) 8.20 0.257 0.257
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.58 0 0
pH 6.20 6.89 7.10
Turbidity (NTU) 22.00 0.4 0.95
Sulfate (mg/L) 8.00 1.285 1.30
Nitrate-N (mg/L) 2.7 2.7 2.7
Nitrite-N (mg/L) 0 0 0
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 0.21 0.115 0.098
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3 ) 240 240 215
Calcium (mg/L) 56.25 56.10 54.25
Potassium (mg/L) 2.43 2.43 2.43
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 290 109 115
# monitored after breakthrough with Fe (II)

301
Groundwater samples containing various other ionic species in addition to Fe (II) were taken
to evaluate the performance of up-scaled columns. The breakthrough profiles are presented in Figure
8, while the summary of breakthrough throughput is presented in Table 6. It was evident that up-
scaled columns were able to perform effectively with actual groundwater also and yield appeared to
be reasonable and comparable in both the bed arrangements In addition to monitoring the
performance for Fe (II) removal and the breakthrough profiles, the performance of up-scaled
columns were also monitored for other water quality parameters at the breakthrough, which is
presented in Table 7. The up-scaled columns were able to remove fluoride, turbidity, sulfate as well
as alkalinity along with Fe (II).
4. CONCLUSION
The solubility of Fe (II) was significantly affected by the pH and DO levels particularly when
pH>7. In addition, the dissolved ferrous iron [Fe (II)] turned into insoluble ferric hydroxide [Fe (III)]
at higher pH and settles as red colored silt (precipitate). Obtained breakthrough profiles for different
bed depths shows that the volume of solution at the breakthrough point reduced considerably when
the bed depth in the column decreases. Besides, an increase in adsorbent mass and bed adsorption
capacity also noticed at the breakthrough point. A reduction of throughput volume was found until
breakthrough point due to the change of linear flow rate from lower to higher. The effect of variation
in inlet Fe (II) concentrations was also observed from breakthrough profile. A rise in inlet Fe (II)
concentration yields reduced throughput volume before the packed bed got saturated. Comparison of
breakthrough profiles of up-scaled columns and indigenous unit models found higher affinity of
PWC for Fe (II) as compared to PS. Besides, the up-scaled columns yield higher volumes of
throughput compared to models of indigenous units. However, the up-scaled columns perform
reasonably well with actual ground water containing various other ionic species and indicate its
ability to remove fluoride, turbidity, sulfate and alkalinity at breakthrough point of Fe (II).
REFERENCES
1. Rosegrant M.W., Cai X. and Cline S.A. (2002) “World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with
Scarcity”, IFPRI Brief, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
2. Jahan H. and Ahmed M. F., Participatory management of low-cost water supply and
sanitation (ITN-BUET, Centre for Water Supply and Waste Management, Dhaka, 2010).
3. UNEP (2002), “Vital Water Graphics, Freshwater Stress”, available at
http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/ecosystems/water/vitalwater21.htm#21b. Accessed on
January 23, 2009.
4. Igwe J. C., Abia A. A. and Ibeh C. A., Adsorption kinetics and intra particulate diffusivities of
Hg, As and Pb ions on unmodified and thiolated coconut fiber, International Journal of
Environmental Science Technology, 5 (1), 2008, 83-92.
5. Gharbani P., Tabatabaii S. M. and Mehrizad A., Removal of Congo red from textile
wastewater by ozonation. International Journal of Environmental Science Technology, 5 (4),
2008, 495-500.
6. Goyal P., Sharma A., Srivastava S., and Srivastava M. M., Saraca indica leaf powder for
decontamination of Pb: removal, recovery, adsorbent characterization and equilibrium
modeling, International Journal of Environmental Science Technology, 5 (1), 2008, 27-34.
7. Shah B. A., Shah A. V. and Singh R. R., Sorption isotherms and kinetics of chromium uptake
from wastewater using natural sorbent material, International Journal of Environmental
Science Technology, 6 (1), 2009, 77-90.

302
8. Zvinowanda C. M., Okonkwo J. O., Shabalala P. N. and Agyei N. M., A novel adsorbent for
heavy metal remediation in aqueous environments, International Journal of Environmental
Science Technology, 6 (3), 2009, 425-434.
9. Labidi N. S., Removal of Mercury from Aqueous Solutions by Waste Brick, International
Journal of Environmental Science Technology, 2 (3), 2008, 275-278.
10. Lori J. A., Lawal A. O. and Ekanem E. J., Active Carbons from Chemically Mediated
Pyrolysis of Agricultural Wastes: Application in Simultaneous Removal of Binary Mixture of
Benzene and Toluene from Water, International Journal of Environmental Research, 2 (4),
2008, 411-418.
11. Murugesan A. G., Maheswari S. and Bagirath G., Biosorption of Cadmium by Live and
Immobilized Cells of Spirulina Platensis, International Journal of Environmental Research, 2
(3), 2008, 307-312.
12. Nabi Bidhendi Gh. R., Torabian A., Ehsani H., Razmkhah N. and Abbasi M., Evaluation of
Industrial Dyeing Wastewater Treatment with Coagulants, International Journal of
Environmental Research, 1 (3), 2007, 242-247.
13. Rahmani K., Mahvi A. H., Vaezi F., Mesdaghinia A. R., Nabizade R. and Nazmara Sh.,
Bioremoval of Lead by Use of Waste Activated Sludge, International Journal of
Environmental Research, 3(3), 2009, 471-476.
14. Sahmoune M.N., Louhab K. and Boukhiar A., Biosorption of Cr (III) from Aqueous Solutions
Using Bacterium Biomass Streptomyces rimosus, International Journal of Environmental
Research, 3 (2), 2009, 229-238.
15. Salim M. and Munekage Y., Removal of Arsenic From Aqueous Solution Using Silica
Ceramic: Adsorption Kinetics and Equilibrium Studies, International Journal of
Environmental Research, 3 (1), 2009, 13-22.
16. Shetty R. and Rajkumar Sh., Biosorption of Cu (II) by Metal Resistant Pseudomonas sp.
International Journal of Environmental Research, 3 (1), 2009, 121-128.
17. Singanan M., Singanan V. and Abebaw A., Biosorption of Cr (III) from aqueous solutions
using indigenous biomaterials, International Journal of Environmental Research, 2 (2), 2008,
177-182.
18. Ahamad K. U., Iron (II) Adsorptive capacity evaluation of wooden charcoal and sand media
used in indigenous household iron filtration units of rural and semi urban Assam, Master’s
Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India, 2005.
19. Andersson A. and Johansson J., Iron removal from groundwater in Rakai District, Uganda,
Master’s Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, 2002.
20. Chibi C., Design and performance of a community level iron removal plant, Waterlines, 10
(2), 1995, 9-10.
21. Vaarama K. and Lehto J., Removal of metals and anions from drinking water by ion exchange,
Desalination, 155, 2003, 157-170.
22. Ellis D., Bouchard C. and Lantagne G., Removal of iron and manganese from groundwater by
oxidation and microfiltration, Desalination, 130, 2000, 255-264.
23. Varner D., Skipton S., Hay D. and Jasa P., Drinking Water: Iron and Manganese, Institute of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, Published by University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extensitin,
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1996. Retrieved October 16, 2001
from http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/g1714/build/g1714.pdf.
24. Munter R., Ojaste H. and Sutt J., Complexed iron removal from groundwater, Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 131, 2005, 1014-1020.
25. Berbenni P., Pollice A., Canziani R., Stabile L. and Nobili F., Removal of iron and manganese
from hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater, Bioresource Technology, 74, 2000, 109-114.

303
26. Ewa O., Joanna L., Malgorzata K. and Ewa N., The removal of manganese, iron and
ammonium nitrogen on impregnated activated carbon. Desalination, 206, 2007, 251-258.
27. Oztas N. A., Karabakan A. and Topal O., Removal of Fe(III) ion from aqueous solution by
adsorption on raw and treated clinoptilolite samples, Microporous and Mesoporous Materials,
111 (1-3), 2008, 200-205.
28. Prasenjit M., Chandrajit B. and Bikash M., A laboratory study for the treatment of arsenic,
iron, and manganese bearing ground water using Fe3+ impregnated activated carbon: Effects
of shaking time, pH and temperature, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 144 (1-2), 2007, 420-
426.
29. Aziz H. A., Yusoff M. S., Adlan M. N., Adnan N. H. and Alias S., Physicochemical removal
of iron from semiaerobic landfill leachate by limestone filter, Water Manag., 24, 2004, 353-
358.
30. Reddy G R and Chakraborty T., “High Concentration of Iron in Groundwater and
Management Practices in West Tripura District, Tripura”, Regional Workshop of CGWA and
CGWB-NER, 2009, pp. 106-112.
31. World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (3rd Ed.), WHO, Geneva,
2004.
32. Ahamad K. U. and Jawed M., Evaluation of media used in indigenous household iron filters of
rural and semiurban Assam, Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution 5, 2008,
23-28.
33. Rao G. V. R. S. and Rekha D. S., A study of the removal of dissolved iron from ground water
using bio-filtration technique, J. Indian Pub. Health Engg., 1, 2004, 29-31.
34. APHA, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (20th Ed.), American
Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment
Federation, Washington DC, USA, 1998.
35. Jeffery G. H., Bassett J., Mendham J. and Denney R. C., Vogel’s text book of quantitative
chemical analysis (5th Ed., Addison Wesley Longman Ltd., 1996).
36. Costodes V. C. T., Fauduet H., Porte C. and Ho Y. S., Removal of lead (II) ions from
synthetic and real effluents using immobilized Pinus sylvestris sawdust: Adsorption on a fixed
bed column, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 123 (1-3), 2005, 135-144.
37. Tchobanologus G., Burton F. L. and Stensel H. D., Wastewater Engineering Treatment and
Reuse (Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 2003).
38. Dr. P. Mariappan, “Wastewater Management in a Dwelling House- a Case Study”,
International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012,
pp. 16 - 24, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
39. R Radhakrishanan and A Praveen, “Sustainability Perceptions on Wastewater Treatment
Operations in Urban Areas of Developing World”, International Journal of Civil Engineering
& Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 45 - 61, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308,
ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
40. C. P. Pise and Dr. S. A. Halkude, “Blend of Natural and Chemical Coagulant for Removal of
Turbidity in Water”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET),
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 188 - 197, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

Breakthrough column studies for removal of iron ii from groundwater using

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Breakthrough column studies for removal of iron ii from groundwater using

Similar to Breakthrough column studies for removal of iron ii from groundwater using (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Breakthrough column studies for removal of iron ii from groundwater using