Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwpe

Review

Recent strategies for the removal of iron from water: A review MARK
a,⁎ a b
Nitasha Khatri , Sanjiv Tyagi , Deepak Rawtani
a
Gujarat Environment Management Institute, Department of Forest and Environment, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
b
Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Iron is the 4th most abundant element on Earth and is found naturally in the water in diverse forms. It is a vital
Iron removal mineral nutrient, which acts as a co-factor for many enzymes and plays role in the maintenance of energy
Ion exchange metabolism. According to WHO standards, the permissible limit of iron in drinking water is 0.3 mg/L. However,
Electrocoagulation the dumping of domestic and industrial wastes in the water bodies is responsible for elevated levels of iron in the
Bioremediation
water. The continuous consumption of such water with high iron content may lead to various health problems.
Nanotechnology
Bad odor, unpleasant taste, red color of water and stains on laundry and plumbing fixtures are also some of the
issues related with high iron content in water. A variety of techniques have been adapted for the remediation of
iron from different water sources. This review summarizes the different approaches used worldwide till date for
the removal of high iron content from water. These methods have been classified into 4 different categories:
conventional strategies, biological strategies, membrane technology-based strategies and nanotechnology-based
strategies. The conventional strategies involve 11 different remediation techniques for removing iron from
water, which have different iron removal efficiencies. The review also classifies the diverse types of iron
available in water based on its mineral form, solubility and chemical nature.

1. Introduction
Metals are the inorganic substances found naturally in the water
bodies. An optimum concentration of some of these metals is required
by different organisms for their proper growth and maintenance. Water
acts as a major source for such metals. These metals enter into the water
bodies naturally when rain water percolates through rocks, thereby
dissolving trace quantities of metals into the water. This water comes
into bigger water bodies, which are used by people for different pur-
poses. Iron is one such metal found naturally in water. It ranks fourth
among the most abundant elements on earth, while in earth’s crust, it
ranks second [1]. It is found in large quantities in rocks and soil systems
around the world. It is a vital mineral nutrient, which plays role in the
maintenance of energy metabolism. It is an important element in he-
moglobin, myoglobin as well as in several types of enzymes. Low levels
of iron in the body may cause iron deficiency, anemia, fatigue and in-
creased susceptibility to different infections [2].
Water bodies receive iron either through geogenic sources or via
dumping of domestic waste and industrial effluents [3]. The sources of
iron in surface water are mainly pollution from iron and steel in-
dustries, mining and metal corrosion [4]. Apart from surface water, iron
is also present in ground water. The major reason behind the presence
of iron in groundwater is due to leaching from iron bearing rocks and
minerals [5]. The concentration of iron in surface and ground water
varies from 3 to 4 mg/L to 15 mg/L [6]. Its concentration in the
groundwater of West Bengal, India was in the range of 2–10 mg/L [7].
Concentrations of iron up to 6 mg/L have been reported in the Ganga
river near the Fazalpur industrial area in Moradabad district of Uttar
Pradesh, India [8]. The groundwater in Assam, the eastern state of India
is highly contaminated with elevated levels of iron [9–11]. However,
the permissible limit for drinking water is 0.3 mg/L [12,13]. Initially,
concentrations above this level, in drinking water may not have adverse
health effects. However, continuous consumption of such water with
elevated levels of iron may result in a condition called iron overload
[14]. Excessive iron intake may lead to the impairment of hematopoi-
esis by destroying the progenitor cells as well as the microenvironment
for hematopoiesis. If iron overload is left untreated, it may lead to
hemochromatosis, which damages different organs of the body
[15–20]. Initial symptoms include weight loss, joint pain and fatigue.
Eye disorders such as retinitis, conjunctivitis and choroiditis, cancer
and heart diseases are also some of the common health issues faced due
to high concentration of iron in the water [21]. Apart from these health
related problems, several others issues of high iron content in water
have been reported. The metal imparts an odor, metallic taste and red

⁎
Corresponding author at: Gujarat Environment Management Institute, Office of the Director, 3rd Floor, Block no. 13, Dr. Jivraj Mehta Bhavan, Old Sachivalaya, Sector 10,
Gandhinagar, 382010, Gujarat, India.
E-mail address: nitashakhatri1983@gmail.com (N. Khatri).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.08.015
Received 28 June 2017; Received in revised form 13 August 2017; Accepted 21 August 2017
Available online 08 September 2017
2214-7144/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Khatri et al.
color to the water at elevated concentrations [22]. It also causes stains
and streaks on laundry and plumbing fixtures. Clogging of softeners and
pipeline due to precipitation of iron may also create undesirable si-
tuations in the water distribution systems [23]. The higher concentra-
tions of iron may also act as a substrate for certain bacteria. The sur-
faces of pipes are the most suitable habitat for such bacteria. These
bacteria increase to such high population that they start clogging pipes
and reduce the flow rate of water in the pipeline. It becomes very dif-
ficult to remove such bacterial colonies once they get established in the
pipeline. Moreover, if the pipeline is made up of iron, punctures and
leakages are some of the common problems reported [23,24]. When
these bacteria die, bad odor and unpleasant taste are produced in the
water mains [23].
This calls for the effective treatment of water in order to remove the
elevated levels of iron and produce safe and clean water. A number of
methods have been reported in the past for such purpose. This review
article sorts these methods into 4 categories: conventional strategies,
biological strategy, membrane technology-based strategy and nano-
technology-based strategy as shown in Fig. 1. The conventional stra-
tegies for iron removal have been further divided into different tech-
niques such as oxidation-precipitation-filtration process, zeolite
softening or ion exchange, limestone bed filtration, filter media se-
paration, supercritical fluid extraction, Vyredox technology, solid
sorption separation/adsorption, wetland treatment, electroflotation,
aeration and sequestering or stabilization process. The article also
summarizes the different forms of iron present in water, which have not
been discussed in similar kind of previous articles. The incorporation of
traditional methods for iron removal such as supercritical fluid ex-
traction, Vyredox technology, wetland treatment and sequestration
along with nanotechnology-based strategy provide a novelty to the
article.
2. Forms of iron in water
Iron is present in a number of forms in water. These diverse forms
can be broadly classified into different types based on the mineral form,
solubility and chemical nature of iron [25]. The classification of dif-
ferent forms of iron present in water (Fig. 2) have been discussed as
under:
2.1. Types of iron based on mineral form
Iron exists in different mineral forms in the water bodies. Broadly,
the mineral forms of iron can be classified into 4 different categories
[26] as shown in Fig. 2: oxides, silicates, carbonates and sulphides.
292
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
Fig. 1. Classification of strategies for Iron Removal.
2.1.1. Oxides of iron in water
2.1.1.1. Hematite. The mineral form of iron (III) oxide, having the
chemical formula as Fe2O3 is called hematite. It is usually present in
areas having mineral hot springs or still standing water. Iron from the
mineral gets precipitated out of water and collects in the form of layers
at the bottom of springs, lakes or other standing water bodies.
2.1.1.2. Magnetite. The mineral form of iron (II, III) oxide, having the
chemical formula as Fe3O4 is called magnetite. It is usually present in
the lakes and sediments in marine areas in the form of detrital grains
and as magneto-fossils.
2.1.1.3. Limonite. The mineral form of a combination of hydrated iron
(III) oxide and hydroxide in variable composition, having chemical
formula as FeO(OH)·nH2O is called limonite. The mineral is usually
formed due to the hydration of other mineral forms, viz. magnetite and
hematite. Limonite gets deposited in the run-off streams coming out
from different mining operations.
2.1.2. Silicates of iron in water
2.1.2.1. Pyroxene. The mineral form of aluminum-silicon oxides with
iron substituting for silicon or aluminum is called pyroxene. The
general formula is XY(Si, Al)2O6 (where X represents Fe2+ and Y
represents Fe3+). The mineral is usually present in volcanic lavas and
enters the water bodies when the lava goes into the water system.
2.1.2.2. Amphibole. The dark colored, inosilicate mineral form, having
ions of iron present in the two chains of SiO4 tetrahedra is called
amphibole. These chains are connected at the vertices. It is most
commonly found in metamorphic and igneous rocks and its entry in
water bodies is usually due to rain water percolation.
2.1.2.3. Biotite. The phyllosilicate mineral form, having the general
chemical formula as K(Mg,Fe)3AlSi3O10(F,OH)2 is called biotite. The
mineral is a silicate sheet formed due to weak interactions between iron
and potassium ions. Biotite, like amphibole, is also found in rocks
(generally metamorphic and igneous), which goes into the water bodies
upon mixing with rain water.
2.1.2.4. Olivines. The magnesium-iron silicate mineral form, having
generalized chemical formula as (Mg, Fe)2SiO4 is called olivine. The
mineral is one of the weakest mineral present, which causes its
weathering, thereby ultimately getting mixed into the water body. In
the presence of water, olivine changes into iddingsite, which is a
combination of clay, iron oxide and ferrihydite [27].
N. Khatri et al.
2.1.3. Carbonates of iron in water
2.1.3.1. Siderite. The mineral form of iron (II) carbonate, having
chemical formula as Fe2CO3 is called siderite. The mineral contains
48% iron and is found mostly in sedimentary rocks and hydrothermal
veins.
2.1.4. Sulphides of iron in water
2.1.4.1. Pyrite. The mineral form of iron (II) sulphide, having chemical
formula as FeS2 is called pyrite. The mineral is usually found in
association with other sulphides and oxides present in sedimentary
and metamorphic rocks. Percolation of rain water from these rocks
brings the mineral into the water bodies.
2.2. Types of iron based on solubility
Iron exists either in the soluble or insoluble form in the water [28].
The form in which the iron is present in water depends on the pH and
redox potential [29]. These forms have been discussed as under:
2.2.1. Soluble form
The reduced, divalent, ferrous (Fe2+) form is the soluble form of
iron present in water. Presence of ferrous iron in water does not cause
any physical change in it and keeps the water clear and colorless. The
amount of ferrous iron in water is less since it gets readily oxidized to
ferric iron [28].
2.2.2. Insoluble form
The oxidized, trivalent, ferric (Fe3+) form is the insoluble form of
iron present in water. Upon air exposure, the water containing ferrous
ions becomes cloudy along with the formation of a brownish-red pre-
cipitate in it. This precipitate is the insoluble, ferrous iron present in the
water sample [28]. The conversion of ferrous to ferric iron increases
upon increasing the pH of the water sample [29].
2.2.2.1. Bacterial form. Soluble, ferrous iron acts as a substrate for iron-
oxidizing bacteria such as Flavobacterium sp., Leptothrix sp.,
Janthinobacterium sp., Gallionella sp. [30–32]. These bacteria utilize
the soluble, ferrous form of iron (Fe2+) and oxidize it into the insoluble,
293
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
Fig. 2. Classification of different forms of Iron pre-
sent in Water.
ferric form (Fe3+). A slimy material, produced by these bacteria helps
them to stick to the pipes and plumbing fixtures [23].
2.3. Types of iron based on chemical nature
2.3.1. Inorganic iron
Inorganic iron is usually present in ground water, which is having
low concentration of dissolved oxygen. Such iron gets readily oxidized
to its insoluble form and increases turbidity in water. Filtration is one of
the best methods for the removal of this type of iron [25].
2.3.2. Organic iron
The organic form of iron is present in complexed form in both,
surface as well as ground water. The solubility of such iron gets in-
creased in some waters due to its complexation or chelation with or-
ganic compounds. Such organically complexed iron is resistant to oxi-
dation and is not readily removed by filtration. Due to this process, iron
removal is virtually impossible unless there is a coagulation step prior
to filtration [25].
3. Iron removal strategies
The methods falling in different strategies for iron removal have
been shown in Table 1. Further, the iron removal efficiency, merits and
demerits of each method has been depicted in Table 2.
3.1. Conventional strategies
3.1.1. Oxidation-precipitation-filtration process
The oxidation of soluble, ferrous iron to insoluble, ferric form re-
sults in precipitation of the iron present in water. The precipitated iron
gets removed from the water through a simple process of filtration. This
technique is one of the most conventional techniques used for the re-
moval of iron from water. The process of oxidation-precipitation-fil-
tration has been widely used in past for the removal of excess quantity
of iron from the estuaries. The study was conducted for the estuaries on
the eastern coast of United States. This study aimed to reduce the dis-
solved iron input into the ocean by 90% of the iron present in river
 Table 1
Methods for iron removal from different water sources.

Method Type of Water Material used Iron Concentration pH Variable parameters Removal Efficiency Reference
N. Khatri et al.

Initial Final

Conventional Strategies
Oxidation Precipitation Filtration Estuary Hydroxyl-amine 3–24 μmol/L < 1 μmol/L 6.5 Variable cations during iron removal; 90% [33]
Process Ultrafiltration and ultracentrifugation
GW NaOCl 0.65 0.08 6–9 pH; Concentration of oxidant 88% [35]
GW KMnO4 0.3 to 5 < 0.1 7–7.5 Concentration of oxidant and coagulating 90–95% [37]
agent
Zeolite Softening/Ion exchange WW S930 300 60 5 Contact time; pH 80% [42]
Aqueous model solution Jordanian Natural Zeolite 1000 300 – Contact time; Amount of adsorbent; 70% [44]
Temperature
POME Natural Zeolite 179.105 63.6 7 pH; Contact time; Agitation speed; Dosage of 64.5% [45]
sorbent
WW from olive mill Strong cation exchange resin 20–100 0.04−0.07 2.6 ± 0.1 pH of feed-stream 95% [46]
CCBMs GW PRB 1000 < 0.1 9 pH; Presence of co-existing cations and 99% [56]
Natural Organic Matter (NOM)
GW Limestone/Marble/ 50 < 0.1 6.8 Types of CCBMs; Grain size of reactive 98% [57]
Dolomite/Concrete materials
GW at landfill sites Limestone combined with 50 < 0.3 6.9 Pore volume; Column depth 99% [58]
crushed concrete
GW at landfills PRB 30 2.7 8.6 – 91% [59]
Filter media separation GW in Siwa Oasis Graded Sand 1.14 0.1123 6.8–7.6 Depth of sand filter; Type of filter media 90% [60]
Artificial raw water Aerated granular filter – 1−1.5 6–6.8 pH; Filtration rate; Temperature; Filter media – [61]
GW Constructed Soil Filter 5–10 0.06−0.1 7–7.4 Run time 98% [62]
Removal through supercritical DW spiked with iron TTA and FDC 10 0.2 (TTA) and 1.5 3 Chelating agent; Time for extraction 98% (TTA) and 85% [68]

294
fluid (FDC) (FDC)
DW β-diketone 1000 210 2–3.7 – 79% [69]
Vyredox Technology GW Oxidation through aeration 3–5 – – Number of cycles of injection; Injection time 3.12% [71]
Solid Sorption Separation/ WW from galvanized pipe Bentonite 100 2 3 Initial iron concentration; Different cations 98% [75]
Adsorption making industry during iron removal
Landfill leachate GAC, BM, IF 3.1 – 7.2–9 Type of adsorbent; Operation time > 90% (GAC), 80% [76]
(BM), < 80% (IF)
GW RHAC and SBAC 100 1 – Position of RHAC and SBAC in filter bed; Type 99% [77]
of adsorbent
WW from Nag river, India Green adsorbents – – 6–7 Type of adsorbent; Location of sample 77–90% [78]
collection; Contact time; Amount of adsorbent
Wetland Treatment Alkaline water from Photosynthetic microbes 45 <1 7.79 Sampling point; pH; Time; Filtration 98% [82]
mines
Mine water and Aerobic Wetland System 3 < 0.3 – Co-treatment of water from 2 different 40–80% [83]
secondary sewage sources; Mine water: sewage water ratio
treatment
Industrial WW Constructed wetland 2 0.07−0.27 – Sample collection point 74.1% [86]
Steel WW Manganese ore wetland 2.24 0.05 6.8–7 Temperature; Influent concentration; 97% [87]
Hydraulic retention time
Electro-coagulation and Electro- Tap water Aluminum electrodes 25 0.25 7 Current density; Inter electrode distance 99.2% [91]
coagulation/flotation Drinking water Magnesium and galvanized 25 0.4 6 pH; Current density 98.4% [92]
iron electrodes
Aeration GW Pilot plant scale aeration 0.98−2.45 < 0.3 7–8 Depth of filter media 70–90% [96]
system
GW Aeration combined with VZA 15.7 10.4 6.1–6.7 Type of air sparging; Hydrological conditions 33.7% [97]
GW Airlift reactor 12.5 < 0.3 7.3 Residence time; pH; Air flow rate; Initial iron 97% [99]
concentration
Sequestration Process GW Sequestering agents – – 7–8 Dosage of sequestering agent 66% [101]
Biological Strategy
(continued on next page)
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
N. Khatri et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304

GW: Groundwater; NaOCl: Sodium hypochlorite; KMnO4: Potassium permanganate; WW: Wastewater; S930: Iminodiacetic Resin Purolite; POME: Palm Oil Mill Effluent; PRB: Permeable Reactive Barrier; CCBMs: Calcium Carbonate based
Materials; TTA: Thenoyltrifluoroacetate; FDC: Fluoroether dithiocarbamate; DW: Deionized water; GAC: Granular Activated Carbon; BM: Bone Meal; IF: Iron Fines; RHAC: Rice Husk based Activated Carbon; SBAC: Sugarcane Bagasse based
Reference water [33].

[103]

[104]

[113]
[114]
[115]
[116]
The oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron is a simple process, which

[21]
involves the use of an oxidant. Oxidants generally employed for re-

Activated Carbon; VZA: Vadose Zone Aeration; CA: Cellulose acetate; PP: Polypropylene; UF: Ultrafiltration; MF: Microfiltration; PES: Polyethersulfone; PVDF: Polyvinylidone fluoride; CNT: Carbon Nanotubes; NPs: Nanoparticles.
mediation of iron from water include hypochlorite, potassium per-
manganate (KMnO4), hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, ozone and chlorine
dioxide. An optimal dosage of the oxidant needs to be maintained
Removal Efficiency

during the water treatment [34]. The transfer of electron from Fe2+
iron to the oxidant is the basic mechanism behind the conversion of
Fe2+ to Fe3+. Upon conversion, the Fe3+ form gets readily converted

98.97%
into Fe(OH)3, the insoluble complex of iron hydroxide [34]. The se-
96%

93%

98%
95%
98%
98%
lection of oxidant for the treatment depends on the cost of the oxidant
Feed iron concentration; Volumetric flow rate

and the amount of water to be treated.

Chlorine is an oxidant usually exploited for the remediation of iron
during water treatment. A group of researchers performed a pre-
Co-precipitation with manganese and

liminary study on groundwater for the removal of iron using chlorine

Content of pore generating agent

oxidation and microfiltration. Initially, the water sample containing

Time; Dissolved oxygen in GW

iron was oxidized using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) followed by mi-

pH; Chlorine doze; Time

crofiltration. The oxidized, insoluble form of iron present in the mem-

pH; Adsorbent dosage
Variable parameters

brane used for microfiltration was studied using particle counter. Jar
test was used to investigate the effect of oxidant dose, pH and reaction
Mixing intensity

time on the removal efficiency of iron. The concentration of iron in the

ammonia

raw water was 0.65 mg/L, which drastically dropped to 0.08 mg/L
upon oxidation of iron with NaOCl, followed by filtration in the pH
range of 6–9. The iron removal efficiency of the process increased with
increasing pH and concentration of oxidant [35].
Apart from chlorine, KMnO4 has also been used for the removal of
8.2–8.3

6.5–8.5
7–7.5

iron. However, the cost and chances of development of pink color in the
7.1

8.2
pH

8
–

water systems due to KMnO4 limit its large scale usage [36]. In a recent
study from Assam, India, KMnO4 has been utilized for the removal of
iron from groundwater through oxidation-coagulation process at an
0.11−0.22

optimized pH. Initially, the conditioning of the pH was done using so-
dium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), followed by oxidation and precipitation of
< 0.2

< 0.1
< 0.5

< 0.2
Final

0.2

0.3

the ferrous ions. Ferric chloride (FeCl3) was used as the coagulating
agent. The initial concentration in the groundwater was ranging from
Iron Concentration

0.3 to 5 mg/L, which reduced to less than 0.1 mg/L after oxidation with
KMnO4 followed by filtration. The final pH for the study was in the
range of 7–7.5 [37].
10–20
Initial

1–4

10
15
15

3.1.2. Zeolite softening/ion exchange

5

The process of exchange of ions, either cationic or anionic, between

Trickling filter at pilot scale

Nanocomposite of CNT and

two electrolyte solutions is called ion exchange. The process is helpful

PVDF based UF membrane
PES based UF membrane
PP based MF membrane
CA based UF membrane

in separation, purification and decontamination of solutions containing

ions [38]. Ion exchangers such as zeolites play a major role in the
process. These naturally occurring zeolites are quite suitable for water
iron oxide NPs
Trickling filter
Material used

softening. They are aluminosilicates in complex form in which sodium

acts as the mobile ion [39]. During the process, the ion present on the
exchanger is replaced with the unwanted ion present in the water [40].
The process is deemed to be suitable for the remediation of metal
Initial and final concentration of iron are in mg/L unless specified.

contaminants while treating the wastewater. The process is simple,

Aqueous model solution

effective and involves easy recovery of metals exchanged from the

wastewater [41]. The advantages of ion exchange process over other
purification techniques are low cost of operation, easy handling, low
Type of Water

Potable water

Potable water

chemical consumption and recovery of components via regeneration of

Lakewater

resins [42,43].
Membrane technology-based Strategy

WW

The technique is widely used for the removal of iron from water. In
GW

GW

a study, Imino diacetic Resin Purolite S930 was utilized for the removal
of iron from water. The study showed that maximum percentage of iron
Nanotechnology-based Strategy

removal from wastewater was found at pH 5. It was also observed that

as the initial iron concentration was increased, the efficiency of the
Membrane technology

process for decreased up to 80%. This was because the higher initial
Biological treatment
Table 1 (continued)

concentration reduced the loading capacity of resins [42].

Nano-technology

Jordanian Natural Zeolite (JNZ) has also been utilized as an ion

exchanger and sorbent material for the removal of iron from water. The
Method

effect of contact time, initial iron concentration, amount of adsorbent

and temperature on the iron removal efficiency was studied. The zeolite
showed maximum iron removal efficiency at 30 °C, 40 g/L dosage of the

295
 Table 2
Removal efficiency, merits and demerits of iron removal methods from different water sources.

Method Efficiency (%) Type of Water Merits Demerits Cost

N. Khatri et al.

Conventional Strategies
Oxidation- precipitation- filtration process 90–95 Groundwater and water • Simple operation • Corrosion of parts of the system by the oxidant Low (approx. 4 US
from estuaries $/m3)
• Oxidant used kills the harmful disease causing • Difficult transportation and storage of oxidant
bacteria present in water
Zeolite softening/Ion exchange 65–85 Industrial wastewater • Effective removal of organic iron • Only for the removal of small quantity of iron Low (approx. 0.2 US
$/barrel)
• Zeolite can be reused after regeneration • Clogging due to oxidation
• Labor intensive cleaning of the system after clogging
Calcium carbonate based materials 94–99 Groundwater from landfill No effect of temperature or flow rate on the • Reduced efficiency in the presence of co-cations and natural Low
sites
• efficiency of the process organic matter (NOM), lower pH and large-sized materials
• High removal efficiency
Filter media separation 90–98 Groundwater • Fast rate • Reduced efficiency at high temperature Low
• No need of chemicals • Back washing is a necessity
• Effective for removing pathogenic microbes • Ineffective for removing inorganic iron
• High removal efficiency
Removal through supercritical fluid 79–85 Deionized water spiked • Increased removal efficiency at longer contact • Complex process High
with iron time between chelating agent and iron
• Costly ligands
Vyredox technology 3.12 Groundwater • No use of chemicals • Low removal efficiency High
• Risk of blockage
Solid sorption separation/Adsorption 77–90 Wastewater from rivers and • Low cost • Ineffective to remove pathogenic microbes Low
landfills
• High removal efficiency • Reduced efficiency in the presence of co-cations
operation

296
• Simple
use of chemicals
Wetland treatment 40–80 Industrial wastewater
• No use of chemicals removal efficiency Low
• No efficiency at higher loading rates
• Low
• Increased for co-treatment of water from
• Ineffective for removing high concentrations of iron
• Effective
different sources
Electrocoagulation and Electrocoagulation/ 95–99 Drinking water • Simple equipment • Regular replacement of electrodes is a must Low (approx. 0.22
flotation US $/m3)
• Easy operation • Ineffective at lower pH
• High removal efficiency • Requirement of high current densities
• No requirement of electricity due to attached
solar panel
Aeration 40–90 Groundwater need of chemicals residence time Low
2+
• No mixing
• High oxidation of Fe in the absence of airlift reactor.
• Good mass transfer rates
• Inefficient
capital investment
Sequestration process 66 Groundwater
• High operation
• High efficiency Low
• Easy • Low efficiency with alkaline and hard water
• No production of residues • Reduced
sequestration in the presence of oxidizing agents like
• Low
chlorine
Biological Strategy
Biological treatment with iron-oxidizing 93–96 Potable water • High specificity due to different bacterial • Only suitable for neutral pH condition Low
bacteria strains
• High efficiency • Requirement of long start-up time by microbes on the
biofilter
• No need of chemicals • Loss of microbes during washing
Membrane technology-based Strategy
• Low cost
Membrane-based removal in combination with 95–98 Groundwater and lakewater • Less retentate volume • Membrane fouling High
pre-treatment of ions
• Minimum labor requirement • Reduced efficiency after few cycles of operation (continued on next page)
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
N. Khatri et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304

adsorbent with particle size of 45 mm. The contact time was in the
range of 1–150 min. However, the sorption equilibrium was achieved
between 1 h and 2.5 h [44].
A group of researchers have utilized natural zeolite for the removal
of iron from palm oil mill effluent (POME). The samples of POME were
High
Cost

collected from the aerobic pond of a palm oil factory located in Kuala
Selangor, Malaysia. The effect of pH, dosage of sorbent, contact time
and agitation speed on the iron removal efficiency of the zeolite was
• Difficulty in removal from water due to nano-scale size

investigated during the study. The zeolite showed fast sorption beha-
viour for iron with equilibrium getting attained within 180 min. The
initial concentration of iron present in POME was 179.105 mg/L. The
zeolite showed maximum adsorption capacity for iron at pH 7 and re-
moved 64.501% of iron. It was also observed that the adsorption ca-
pacity of the zeolite for iron increased with increase in pH from acidic
to neutral conditions [45].
In a recent study, a novel fixed bed strong-acid cation exchange
resin was used for the removal of high amount of iron from the was-
• Toxicity of nanoparticles

tewater of olive mill. The use of ferric catalyst during the secondary
treatment of wastewater stream from olive mill increased the load of
iron in the wastewater (sometimes more than 14 mg/L). The strong-
acid cation exchange resin used during the study was Dowex Marathon
C. The initial concentration of iron present in the feed for fixed-bed
Demerits

column was varied from 20 to 100 mg/L. The pH of the feed was
maintained at 2.6 ± 0.1 and the flow rate was 10 L/h. After treatment,
the concentration of iron at the outlet was found to be 0.04-0.07 mg/L.
The study showed that the ion exchange efficiency of resin for iron
specificity due to surface chemistry of

increased at pH 4 and decreased at higher pH because of the formation

of iron hydroxide [46].

3.1.3. Calcium carbonate-based materials

Materials, which are based on calcium carbonate have been utilized
as effective sources for the removal of metals during the treatment of
industrial wastewaters. The technique is cost effective and commonly
surface area
• Highly selective
• High efficiency

used materials include limestone for metal remediation [47]. Such

the nanotubes

Calcium Carbonate-based materials (CCBMs) have been employed for

iron remediation from groundwater [48,49]. The Fe2+ iron gets ad-
• Large
• High

sorbed or precipitated on the surface of calcite, thereby forming cal-

Merits

cium siderite, CaFe(CO3)2 [50].

The performance of these materials during the removal of iron from
water gets affected by pH, natural organic matter (NOM) and co-ex-
isting cations [51]. The charge on the ions of iron and the precipitation
of ferrous hydroxide on the surface of limestone mineral is favored at
higher pH (generally pH value above 9) [52]. NOM is known to chelate
Type of Water

or form complex with the metal ions, thereby decreasing the uptake
Wastewater

capacity of the metal ion. It also decreases the interaction between the
CCBM and the metal ion by attaching on the surface of the mineral
[53,54]. The co-existing cation compete with the metal ion for ad-
sorption on the limestone. These cations increase the ionic strength of
Efficiency (%)

the water sample, which results in reduced efficiency of the limestone

for the removal of metal ion [55].
Permeable reactive barrier or PRB has been utilized at the landfill
99

sites in United States for iron remediation from groundwater. The PRB
was made up of CCBM such as limestone. The effect of pH, NOM and co-
Nanocomposite of carbon nanotubes with iron

existing cation on the iron removal efficiency of limestone was ex-

amined during the study. The adsorbent showed maximum iron re-
moval efficiency at pH 9. The presence of manganese as a co-cation and
NOM decreased the metal removal efficiency of the adsorbent [56]. In
Nanotechnology-based Strategy

another study, different types of CCBMs (limestone, marble, dolomite

and concrete) have been utilized for the in situ removal of iron from
oxide nanoparticles

groundwater. The limestone showed maximum removal efficiency by

Table 2 (continued)

decreasing concentration of iron from 50 to 0.01 mg/L. The particle size

of the CCBM used affected the iron removal efficiency. The smaller size
materials showed higher removal efficiency than large size particles
Method

[57].
A group of researchers have combined limestone with crushed
concrete in the dynamic flow columns for the removal of ferrous ion.

297
N. Khatri et al.
The initial concentration of iron in the feed column was 50 mg/L. After
treatment, the concentration of iron in treated water was lower than
0.3 mg/L. The precipitation of calcium siderite on the surface of ad-
sorbent resulted in decreased iron removal efficiency for the adsorbent
[58]. In a recent study, two in situ PRBs, made up of limestone and
concrete were installed in the down-gradient of a landfill in Florida,
United States. The initial concentration of iron in the influent ground-
water was 30 mg/L. The process showed 91% removal of iron which
decreased up to 64% with time [59].
3.1.4. Filter media separation
This method is applied to remove suspended particles such as clay,
colloidal and precipitated natural organic substances, metal salt pre-
cipitates of coagulation, precipitates of lime softening and micro-
organisms. Granular media is a commonly used filter for water treat-
ment. Sand, crushed anthracite coal and granular activated carbon are
also used as filter media.
A low-cost method included the exploitation of graded sand as filter
media for iron remediation from groundwater in Siwa Oasis. The depth
of the sand was 60 cm and the rate of filtration was 1.44 m3/m2/h.
Concentration of iron decreased from 1.14 mg/L to 0.1123 mg/L after
the process. The advantages associated with such process were low cost,
no requirement of chemicals and less maintenance [60].
Anthracite was also used as a granular filter (aerated) for iron re-
mediation from water that was artificially synthesized in laboratory
during a set of experiments. The iron removal efficiency of the filter
decreased in the absence of aeration. The weakly acidic conditions (pH
6.0-6.8) favored the removal of iron. With increase in temperature of
water, a reduction in the rate of oxidation of Fe2+ and the efficiency of
total iron removal was observed. The iron oxide precipitated on the
filter media was ferrihydrite, which acted as the catalyst during the
oxidation of iron [61].
Another filter media, called Constructed Soil Filter (CSF) has been
utilized by Nemade et al. for iron remediation from groundwater by
setting the preliminary concentrations of iron as 5 and 10 mg/L. This
decreased significantly up to 0.06 and 0.1 mg/L upon using CSF. The
process was carried out for a duration of 10 h and the pH was main-
tained at 7–7.4 [62]. In a recent study, rapid sand filtration based
model has been developed for the removal of iron from water. The
model considered most of the water quality parameters used during
iron removal through filtration such as pH, feed water, initial iron
concentration, kinetics of heterogeneous oxidation and characteristics
of filter media adsorption. The study helped in providing optimal
conditions for the removal of iron from water through rapid filtration
[63].
3.1.5. Removal through supercritical fluid
A fluid when heated and compressed above the critical pressure and
temperature turns into a supercritical fluid (SCF). SCFs can act as sol-
vents since the densities to these fluids are higher than those for gases
but lower than the densities of liquids [64]. Among the various SCFs,
supercritical carbon dioxide (scCO2) has attracted great attention in
various applications due to its non-toxicity, low cost, less critical
pressure and low critical temperature [65]. scCO2 has been widely
utilized for the extraction of different metal ions. However, a limitation
with this technique involves a decrease in the efficiency of the extrac-
tion process of the metal ions due to disturbances caused in the aqueous
solution when CO2 is passed through it [66]. Supercritical Fluid Ex-
traction (SFE) extracts the metal species from a solid or liquid source.
The metal extraction efficiency in such process is dependent on a
variety of factors such as: (a) stability and solubility of ligand; (b) metal
chelate and its solubility; (c) pH of water; (d) pressure and temperature;
(e) Metal species in chemically active form; and (f) matrix [67].
The low solubility of metal ions in CO2 is a major concern during
their extraction. In order to overcome this, a group of researchers have
designed and synthesized highly CO2 soluble chelating agents for the
298
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
removal of iron from water. Thenoyl trifluoroacetate and fluoroether
dithiocarbamate were used as chelating agents during the process. The
aqueous solution along with the chelating agent was added into the cell
and sealed. CO2 was injected into the cell and the pressure was kept
constant for a duration of 20 h at 2000 psi. The iron removal efficiency
for the process was 98% when thenoyl trifluoroacetate was used as
chelating agent and 85% when fluoroether dithiocarbamate was used
[68].
Another limitation of SFE of metal ions from aqueous solutions is
the poor mass transport. This limitation was overcome by using a gas-
liquid entraining rotor to SFE during the removal of iron from water.
2,2,7-trimethyl-3,5-octanedione was used as the chelating agent along
with scCO2 at a pressure of 20.8 MPa and 60 °C temperature. The
process removed 79% of iron from the aqueous system. The in-
corporation of gas-liquid entraining rotor showed a 3-fold increase in
the iron removal efficiency for the process [69].
3.1.6. Vyredox technology
Vyredox technology involves the in situ removal of iron from
groundwater [70]. The method involves the oxidation of soluble form
of iron (ferrous iron, Fe2+) into insoluble form (ferric iron, Fe3+) before
the water is taken out from the well. The oxidation process is achieved
by injecting aerated or oxygenated water into the aquifer [71].
Osuna et al. developed a numerical model for the in situ removal of
iron from the groundwater. The oxygen-rich water having no content of
iron was injected into the water coming from wells in the aquifer. This
step was a critical one for the efficient removal of iron from ground-
water. For the process, the injection wells were placed near the supply
well. After injecting aerated water with the groundwater in the aquifer,
the iron bacteria started growing in the system. These bacteria con-
verted the soluble Fe2+ into the insoluble Fe3+ form of iron. The supply
well was left for a duration of 6–14 h after injecting oxygenated water.
After this period, the water was drawn from the production well, which
exhibited reduced levels of iron than the groundwater. The efficiency of
the process was calculated by the ratio of quantity of water withdrawn
from production well with the quantity of water injected initially. The
water in production well indicated a one-tenth reduction in the amount
of iron from its initial concentration in groundwater. The value of ef-
ficiency greater than one shows the Vyredox process is an economical
one. In this study, the efficiency for iron removal was found to be 3.12
[71]. Similar kind of study by Appelo et al. revealed that increasing the
concentration of oxidant in the injected water does not affect the pre-
cipitation of iron, if present in lower concentrations in groundwater
[72].
3.1.7. Solid sorption separation/adsorption
Solid sorption separation is a process in which fluid solute is accu-
mulated on the adsorbent surface, that may be solid or liquid, and forms
a molecular or atomic film, also known as the adsorbate. The process,
commonly referred to as adsorption is one of the most used processes
for the wastewater decontamination [73,74]. The method is efficient
for metal removal from wastewater even at low concentrations. Various
types of adsorbents such as activated carbon, ash, clay, etc. are
exploited by a number of scientists around the globe for iron re-
mediation from water.
Clay named bentonite was employed as an adsorbent for the iron
remediation from wastewater of an industry which makes galvanized
pipe. The initial concentration of iron in wastewater varied from 80 to
200 mg/L. The maximum adsorption (more than 98%) for iron was
reported at pH 3 with an initial concentration of 100 mg/L. The effect
of different cations on the removal efficiency of iron by bentonite was
also investigated. It was observed that the cations reduced the ad-
sorption of iron on the bentonite [75].
A group of researchers used 3 different adsorbents, viz. granular
activated carbon, bone meal and iron fines for the removal of iron from
landfill leachate. Activated carbon showed maximum iron removal
N. Khatri et al.
efficiency (more than 90%) as compared to that of bone meal (around
80%) and iron fines (less than 80%). Ion exchange, adsorption, fol-
lowed by precipitation was the possible mechanism behind the removal
of iron from water with this process [76].
Activated carbon based on Rice Husk (RHAC) as well as Sugarcane
Bagasse (SBAC) have also been exploited for iron remediation from
water. The column was prepared with the soil samples collected from
the banks of rivers Brahmani, Koel, Sankha and Budhabalanga. These
adsorbents were placed at 3 different locations: upper, centre and
bottom. The depth of these soil columns were varied from 10 to 50 cm.
Both the adsorbents showed good iron removal efficiency. RHAC when
placed at the centre of the column showed 100% iron removal effi-
ciency [77].
Green adsorbents based on waste materials such as sawdust, orange
peel, coconut shell and leaves of Calotropis procera have also been uti-
lized in a recent study. The study focused on developing the easiest and
cheapest adsorbent for the removal of iron from the wastewater sam-
ples of Nag river, India. All the waste materials were kept in muffle
furnace for carbonization, followed by activation through different
chemicals such as hydrochloric acid (HCl), nitric acid (HNO3) and
(H2SO4). Orange peels’ charcoal activated with HCl showed maximum
iron removal efficiency (77–90%) [78].
3.1.8. Wetland treatment
The developments in the mining industry have triggered the advent
of different types of wetlands for acidic and ferruginous mine drainage
[79]. These wetland systems have now been used as well-established
processes for the treatment of wastewater from different sources. These
systems have also been used for the co-treatment of mine waters and
sewage effluents [80]. The possibility of development of synergies
during this co-treatment is a possible advantage of the technique: for
example, the removal of phosphorus (P) from sewage and iron (Fe)
from mine water may occur through precipitation of solids of ferric
phosphate [81]. These wetland systems have been widely used for the
removal of iron from effluents as well as mine water.
A study at Whittle Colliery, UK used wetland treatment system for
the removal of iron. The water samples were taken from the wetland
region for a duration of 24 h and the effect of photosynthetic organisms
on the metal removal was studied. The process showed 98% removal
efficiency for iron. Precipitation of iron into its hydroxides was the
major removal process in the proximal areas of the wetland (initial
spreads of the wetland) while the biotic removal of the metal had im-
portance in the distal areas of the system, having lower concentrations
of iron [82].
An aerobic wetland system was also developed in England for the
co-treatment of polluted mine water and secondary sewage effluent.
The mine water was having approximately 3 mg/L of iron content. The
synergic effect of the suspended solids from sewage water to form iron
flocs with the iron entering from mine water was responsible for the
removal of iron after treatment. The co-treatment showed 40–80% iron
removal efficiency from mine water [83]. Mine waste generally con-
tains acidic waters. In a study, wetland microcosms having horizontal
flow have been utilized for the removal of iron from such acidic waters.
During the treatment, pH of the acidic water was maintained at 2
having an initial iron concentration of 97.3 mg/L. Two different types
of media (zeolite and limestone) were used for reducing the iron con-
tent. Zeolite showed higher iron removal efficiency (96.1%) as com-
pared to limestone (87.3%) [84].
The specificity has been provided to the wetland treatment systems
by using constructed wetlands (CWs) [85]. Such type of system was
used for the removal of iron from industrial wastewater of Gadoon
Amazai Industrial Estate (GAIE) in Swabi, Pakistan. The samples for the
analysis of metals were collected from the outlet, centre and inlet of
every cell of the CW. The system displayed 74.1% removal efficiency
for iron [86]. Manganese ore constructed wetlands have been used in
the reclamation of steel wastewater for the removal of iron. The CW
299
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
from manganese ore showed more stability than the conventional
wetland constructed from gravel. The concentrations of iron decreased
up to 0.05 mg/L from initial concentration of 2.24 mg/L, irrespective of
fluctuations in the influent concentrations, the temperature of water
and hydraulic retention time. It was observed that about half of the
total iron was removed in the first one third of flow path of the wetland
[87]. In a recent study, CWs have been utilized for removing iron from
the livestock wastewater. The wetland was constructed using Phragmites
australis for the treatment of livestock wastewater. The technique ex-
hibited excellent iron removal efficiency (> 80%). The system also
removed antibiotics along with the metal ion, thus emerging as an ef-
fective technique for the treatment of wastewaters from livestock [88].
3.1.9. Electrocoagulation and electrocoagulation/flotation
Electrocoagulation (EC) is a method to destabilize the dissolved or
suspended pollutants present in water by the application of electric
current in the contaminated water. The pollutant gets removed from
water due to the neutralization of its electric charge [89]. The tech-
nique has been widely used for the removal of diverse contaminants
from water. The advantages of the process include no use of chemicals,
less production of sludge and easy operation [90]. The technique is
often combined with electroflotation and termed as electrocoagulation/
flotation (ECF) process. EC as well as ECF have been widely used for the
removal of iron from aqueous systems.
Electrodes of aluminum have been employed during the EC process
for the effective remediation of iron tap water. The amorphous alu-
minum hydroxide complexes formed during the process showed high
sorption capacity. The iron removal process involved the oxidation of
Fe (II) to Fe (III) followed by removal of Fe (III) by the aluminum hy-
droxide complexes through adsorption and precipitation. The initial
concentration of iron was 25 mg/L. The technique showed 99.2% iron
removal efficiency at the end of 35 min of operation. It was observed
that the iron removal increased upon increasing the current density
[91].
The technique has also utilized magnesium and galvanized iron
electrodes (as anode and cathode respectively) for the removal of iron
from drinking water. The maximum iron removal efficiency (98.4%) for
the process was obtained at pH 6 and current density of 0.06 A dm−2.
Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm models were used for the evaluation
of adsorption capacity. The adsorption was spontaneous, endothermic
and followed second order kinetics [92].
In a recent study, flow column reactor (FCR) was utilized for the
electrocoagulation of drinking water to remove iron. The FCR-based EC
process reduced the concentration of iron from 20 mg/L to 0.3 mg/L at
pH 6 in a time duration of 20 min. The combination of FCR with EC
helped to reduce the use of aeration and stirring devices commonly
used during EC operations, due to the excellent mixing and aeration of
water inside the FCR. The process was carried out at an operational cost
of 0.22 US $/m3 [93].
3.1.10. Aeration
Aeration is the method of introducing oxygen or air (rich in oxygen)
into the water systems for the removal of metals. Several studies have
been performed for removing iron from water using this technique. The
oxidation of ferrous (Fe2+) iron to ferric (Fe3+) iron leads to pre-
cipitation of iron in water, which is the basic mechanism behind the its
removal [72]. Aeration is generally used for removing iron from waters
having iron concentrations more than 5 mg/L. The process helps to
shrink the cost of iron removal by avoiding the use of chemicals [94].
The efficiency of aeration for iron removal may be increased by in-
troducing specific microbes into the system [95].
A study from northern Croatia involved this technique for the re-
moval of iron from groundwater. The study was carried out at pilot
plant scale. Four different pilot plants with variable aeration systems
were used in 4 different cities of Croatia. Quartz sand having a layer of
MnO2 and a biofilm of microbes was used as the filter media. The
N. Khatri et al.
concentration of oxygen in aerated water was varied from 8 to 17 mg/L
O2. The concentration of iron in the groundwater of these cities was in
the range of 0.98–2.45 mg/L. After treatment, final concentrations of
iron dropped below drinking water standard (0.3 mg/L) at the filter
media depth of 0.8 m [96].
In another study from Florida, United States, aeration was combined
with Vadose Zone Aeration (VZA) for the removal of iron from
groundwater near a municipal landfill. Vadose zone is the region be-
tween the top of the ground to the groundwater table. The concentra-
tion of iron in groundwater decreased from 15.7 mg/L to 10.4 mg/L.
The technique was not much effective for the removal of iron. The
possible reasons were the ineffective design of the air injection wells.
VZA was found to play no role in reducing the concentration of iron.
However, the technique could be effective for iron removal at lower
temperatures [97].
Even though aeration has been used as a technique for iron removal,
an uncertainty has always been there regarding the mechanism and
performance of oxidation of Fe2+ to Fe3+ [98]. Airlift reactor has found
its application for iron remediation from drinking water in Morocco.
The experiments were carried out under semi-batch as well as con-
tinuous-flow situations. When the preliminary concentration of iron
was fixed at 12.5 mg/L and the pH was maintained at 7.3, the process
exhibited highest iron removal efficiency. It was observed that the re-
cycling of ferric hydroxide particles back into the reactor helped in
reducing the time required to reach the permissible concentration of
iron in drinking water [99].
3.1.11. Sequestration process
The method of sequestration involves the utilization of chemicals
called sequestering agents in the water system (generally groundwater)
for reducing the elevated levels of iron. The process is a low cost al-
ternative for removing iron from the groundwater. Sequestration is best
suited for the groundwater containing iron in the form of ions (Fe2+ or
Fe3+), especially groundwater rich in CO2 where iron exists in the form
of carbonates. Some of the most commonly used sequestering agents
include sodium hexa metaphosphate, tri sodium phosphate and sodium
silicates. Using phosphate containing agents for sequestration may lead
to the bacterial growth in the system. This growth of bacteria can be
controlled by maintaining a disinfectant in the system. However, the
disinfectant should be added after the sequestering agent, if the disin-
fectant possesses abilities of oxidation such as chlorine in order to avoid
the oxidation of iron.
The process of sequestration is generally used for the water systems
having concentrations of iron less than 1 mg/L. The concentration of
sequestering agent (polyphosphate in this case) should be less than
10 mg/L in order to avoid bacterial growth in the water distribution
system. These agents show lower efficiency at higher temperatures
since the polyphosphate loses its dispersing properties and the metal
may come out of the solution. The efficiency of these sequestering
agents may be limited only for 48–72 h. After this time, the aging of
these agents decreases their efficiency and higher doses are required for
achieving that effectiveness again [100].
A study was carried out for the assessment of iron sequestration
from different groundwater sources. The efficiency of 3 different se-
questering agents based on phosphate (Carus Aquamag 9000, Carus
3350 and Imphos TKPP) was investigated at 3 dosages (100%, 150%
and 200%). Around 66% of the iron was sequestered during the process.
The pH of the source water was in the range of 7–8 and contained
variable concentrations of iron. The sequestration of iron was reduced
for waters with high hardness due to complexation between the bigger
cations (Ca2+ and Mg2+) with the Fe2+. The efficiency of sequestration
was reduced at higher pH since the metal was readily oxidized and the
polyphosphate could not sequester the iron before its oxidation. The
dissolved iron after sequestration was converted into the colloidal form.
The sequestration process increased with increasing the dosage of se-
questering agent [101].
300
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
3.2. Biological strategies
Biological strategies, generally termed as bioremediation involve
the utilization of microorganisms for removing different kinds of pol-
lutants from water. Bacteria which oxidize the iron, commonly termed
as iron-oxidizing bacteria have the potential of iron remediation from
various kinds of water sources. These microbes biologically oxidize the
ferrous (Fe2+) iron to ferric (Fe3+) iron and remove it from the water.
Some of the commonly utilized iron-oxidizing bacteria for remediation
of iron from water include Leptothrix sp., Flavobacterium sp., Gallionella
sp., Sphaerotilus sp. and Siderocapsa sp. [30,32].
The process is simple and does not involve the use of chemical
oxidants, thereby reducing the operational cost for the process. These
microbes are grown on the biofilters, which are then utilized for the
iron removal from water. However, the inevitable long start-up dura-
tion for microbes on the biofilter and less iron removal efficiency be-
cause of loss of these microbes during washing are the major drawbacks
of the biological treatment for iron removal [102].
Various research works have employed trickling filter for treating
the water biologically in order to eliminate iron. A group of researchers
removed the iron from potable water by its biological oxidation. The
study investigated the effect of the presence of ammonia and manga-
nese on the removal of iron by the trickling filter. It was observed that
both, ammonia as well as manganese do not affect the iron removal
from the potable water with trickling filter. The initial iron con-
centration in the feed was 5 mg/L, which reduced to 0.2 mg/L after the
biological oxidation in the trickling filter. It was also observed that the
presence of iron negatively affects the removal of manganese and am-
monia from the water [103].
In another study, a trickling filter constructed at the pilot scale was
tested for the removal of iron from potable water. Biological as well as
physico-chemical oxidation was the driving force behind the removal of
iron. The feed concentration of iron was varied from 1 to 4 mg/L and
the system was continuously operated at 14 °C. Upon increasing the
volumetric flow rate from 1000 to 3000 mL/min, a reduction in the
physico-chemical iron removal efficiency was observed from 93 to 80%.
However, the biological oxidation of iron improved the filter’s effi-
ciency by 5–6% [104]. Similar kind of study for iron removal using
trickling filter has shown that the combination of biological oxidation
with physico-chemical oxidation facilitates in reducing the filter depth
by 40% [105].
The advantages associated with this strategy for iron removal in-
clude the simple design of the pilot scale, easy prediction and design for
the system operation and no requirement for an external aeration
source [106]. However, a limitation of this technique could be the
adverse effect of iron-oxidizing bacteria on the health of consumers, if
these microbes get mixed with the water systems.
3.3. Membrane technology-based strategy
Membrane technology-based strategy has attracted attention of
various researchers around the globe for the removal myriad con-
taminants from water. Some of the common techniques, which involve
different types of membranes include ultrafiltration (UF), microfiltra-
tion (MF) and reverse osmosis (RO) [107]. Such techniques have been
widely used for the retrieving or removing different metals from was-
tewater [108,109]. The merits and merits associated with membrane
technology-based strategies are given in Table 2.
Since the size of pores in membranes used for ultrafiltration and
microfiltration are greater than the metal ions, therefore, the ions have
to be pre-treated with surfactants [110] and hydrophilic polymers
[111] in order to increase their size. Such membrane-based strategy has
been used for the removal of iron from soil [112]. Iron present in water
system has also been removed using different techniques based on
membrane technology.
UF systems have been utilized by a group of researchers for the
N. Khatri et al.
Fig. 3. Removal of iron from water using Nanomaterials.
removal of iron from lakewater. The initial concentration of iron in feed
water was 1 mg/L. Maximum iron removal efficiency (98%) was ob-
tained at pH 7.1. The mechanism of iron removal involved the forma-
tion of sparingly soluble iron hydroxide particles due to oxidation of the
metal ion with the dissolved oxygen present in the water. Dead end UF
process showed better iron removal efficiency (90–98%) than crossflow
UF (65–85%) [113]. MF systems have also been used in combination
with oxidation for the removal of iron from groundwater. NaOCl was
used as the oxidizing agent to form iron oxide before passing the iron-
rich groundwater through the MF system. The process showed excellent
iron removal efficiency (> 95%) at pH 8 with 10 mg/L as the initial
concentration of iron in feed water. Enhanced mixing reduced the cake
resistance due to iron oxides and thus, assisted in increasing the effi-
ciency of the MF system [114].
Polymeric membranes modified with different pore generating
agents have also been employed for iron removal from aqueous sys-
tems. Polyethersulfone (PES)-based polymeric membranes modified
with polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) as pore generation agent were used for
the removal of iron from water. The physical properties (permeability,
porosity and equilibrium water content) and chemical properties (pH
and surface oxygen content) of the membranes were affected by varying
the quantity of PVP. Maximum iron removal efficiency (98%) was
achieved at initial iron concentration of 15 mg/L with 1 wt.% PVP.
Upon further increasing the PVP content, a decrease in the removal
efficiency of the process was observed [115]. In contemporary times,
advanced membrane-based techniques such as powdered activated
carbon-amended membrane bioreactors (PAC-MBR) have been devel-
oped for removing iron from water. In a recent study, PAC-MBR system
was used to remove iron (15 mg/L) from groundwater. The porous
structure of PAC provided the contact medium for the oxidation of iron
through the dissolved oxygen present in groundwater. Post treatment,
the final concentration of iron reached below 0.2 mg/L. The system
exhibited maximum iron removal efficiency (98%) when the pH was
maintained between 6.5 and 8.5 [116].
The technology can be a suitable alternative over conventional
techniques for iron removal from aqueous systems. However, draw-
backs such as membrane fouling and cake formation decrease the re-
moval efficiency of the process after few cycles of operation. Such
membrane-based technology still requires improvements in terms of
cost, energy consumption and affordability. With these improvements,
the technology can emerge as an efficient tool for the remediation of
iron from water.
301
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
3.4. Nanotechnology-based strategy
Nanotechnology can be defined as the branch of engineering, which
involves the fabrication of objects smaller than 100 nm in dimension.
These objects are usually termed as nanomaterials or nanoparticles
[117]. These objects are formed either by building them atom by atom,
molecule by molecule or by self-assembly [118,119]. They have been
used for a number of environmental issues including control of water
pollution, remediation of groundwater, treatment of potable water and
control of air quality [120].
Among various nanomaterials, Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs) have at-
tracted huge attention in the field of environment. CNTs are hollow,
well-ordered graphitic nanomaterials, which comprise of sp2-hy-
bridized carbon atoms arranged in a cylindrical manner. They possess
high aspect ratio, high surface area, good thermal and chemical stabi-
lities with great optical and electronic properties [121]. These CNTs
have been widely used in water monitoring, pesticide and heavy metal
detection, water purification and desalination [122]. The nanocompo-
site of Fe3O4 with CNTs has attracted the interest of various researchers
as a novel kind of solid-phase extraction adsorbent [123]. These na-
nocomposites have great response towards the permanent magnet.
They can be separated after adsorption of the pollutants from the so-
lution with the help of an external magnet [124].
In the area of iron remediation from water, the specific and large
surface area, hollow, layered structure and small size of CNTs as com-
pared to other nanomaterials help in the removal of total iron from the
water samples [125]. The technology is new and not much work has
been done in the field of iron removal. However, a recent study has
utilized the CNTs for the removal of total iron from wastewater. The
CNTs were magnetically modified by synthesizing iron oxide (Fe3O4)
nanoparticles on the surface of CNTs. The objective of the work was to
explore the efficiency of Fe3O4/CNT nanocomposite for the removal of
total iron from wastewater. The initial concentration of the iron was
varied from 10 to 20 mg/L. The nanocomposite prepared was well-
dispersed in water, which was easily separated from the solution after
getting loaded with the adsorbate. The Response Surface Methodology
(RSM) model [126] developed for the study revealed that the optimal
total iron removal was 98.97% at pH of 8.2. The study provided a su-
perior and novel adsorbent for removing total iron from the wastewater
[21].
Along with CNTs, various other types of nanomaterials such as na-
noparticles, nanotubes, nanoshells, nanoclusters and nanocomposites
can be used for the effective removal of iron from aqueous systems
N. Khatri et al.
(Fig. 3). The mechanism of removal involves the adsorption of iron on
the surface of these nanomaterials which can be recovered later for
obtaining the clean, iron free water.
4. Future prospects for iron removal
Future research works regarding iron removal need to focus on
using newer technologies such as membrane technology and nano-
technology in combination with conventional techniques for getting
effective results. In recent times, membrane technology and nano-
technology have been combined for remediation of various con-
taminants [127]. Gold and silver nanoparticles have the potential to
replace various oxidizing agents used in conventional techniques for
iron removal. Graphene and carbon-based nanomaterials can be effec-
tive in fabrication of nanoporous membranes for membrane-based
technology. However, these nanomaterials become difficult to recover
from the aqueous system once they get dispersed. Additionally, toxicity
of nanomaterials such as CNTs can also be a major concern. Future
research works need to enhance the recovery of nanomaterials after
iron removal. Heterogeneous chemistry of nanomaterials, in which,
they are immobilized on solid supports and water-insoluble nanoma-
terials such as Halloysite Nanotubes (HNTs) could be helpful for this
purpose. Naturally available nanomaterials such as HNTs can effec-
tively reduce the cost involved in nanomaterial fabrication. They are
non-toxic, biocompatible materials having large surface area [128].
Excellent adsorption capacity [129] and tunable surface chemistry
[130] of HNTs could be utilized in future research for the removal of
iron in a cost-effective and eco-friendly manner.
5. Conclusion
Iron is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust. It is
an important part of different enzymes and plays many roles in the
proper functioning of human body. The metal is found in large quan-
tities in rocks and soil systems around the world. It reaches the water
bodies through geogenic sources as well as dumping of industrial ef-
fluents and domestic wastes into the water bodies. The surface water
receives iron via effluents from iron and steel industries, mining as well
as metal corrosion. The groundwater also receives iron through iron
bearing rocks and minerals. According to WHO standards, iron content
in drinking water is permitted only up to the concentration of 0.3 mg/L.
However, the elevated levels of iron in water have been reported in
different areas around the world due to increasing water pollution.
High iron content in water is associated with various aesthetic concerns
such as metallic taste, odor, discoloration, turbidity and stains on
laundry. Apart from this, various health issues are also linked with
elevated levels of iron in water.
Different strategies discussed in this review have been adapted for
removing the high iron content from water. Among the conventional
strategies used, oxidation-precipitation-filtration process, calcium car-
bonate based minerals, separation through filter media and electro-
coagulation showed high iron removal efficiency above 90%. Similar
kind of efficiency was also observed with the biological treatment of
water as well as with membrane technology-based and nanotechnology-
based strategies. All these techniques were able to remove almost all
forms of iron from different types of water samples, viz. groundwater,
industrial wastewater, drinking water, lake water and wastewater from
landfills. Methods such as ion exchange, supercritical fluid extraction,
adsorption, wetland treatment, aeration and sequestration were less
effective in the removal of iron from the water samples. Their iron re-
moval efficiency was in the range of 40–80%. The iron removal method
involving Vyredox technology exhibited lowest iron removal efficiency
(3.12%).
As far as economy of iron removal is concerned, most of the con-
ventional techniques have shown cost effective removal of iron from
aqueous system except removal through supercritical fluid and Vyredox
302
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
technology. Involvement of costly ligands and instrumentation for su-
percritical fluid-based iron removal and high capital investment in
Vyredox technology have limited the use of these techniques for iron
remediation. On the other hand, methods such as oxidation-precipita-
tion-filtration, filter media separation, EC & ECFs and CCBMs have
emerged as most suitable, cost effective techniques with excellent iron
removal efficiencies for removing iron from water. Other cost effective
methods such as zeolite softening, adsorption, wetlands, aeration and
sequestration have shown comparatively less removal efficiencies.
Biological strategy has also emerged as an economic and suitable al-
ternative to conventional techniques. Methods based on membrane
technology are having high cost, which can be reduced with further
advancements in module design and membrane production. The higher
cost associated with fabrication of nanomaterials in nanotechnology-
based approach can be reduced by using naturally available nanoma-
terials such as HNTs along with green synthesis of nanomaterials with
biological extracts, which significantly cuts down the use of costly and
toxic chemicals.
In the coming future, the advent of newer technologies such as
nanotechnology will enhance the removal of elevated levels of iron
from different water sources. The only nanotechnology-based approach
discussed in this review utilized carbon nanotubes for iron removal and
the process displayed an efficiency of 99%. Such efficiencies can also be
achieved by utilizing the potential of other nanoparticles and nano-
materials. Various clay-based nanomaterials and metal nanoparticles
have been utilized by different researchers for the removal of nitrate,
sulphate, fluoride and heavy metals from water with great removal
efficiencies. Such materials can also be utilized with slight modification
in their surface chemistry for the removal of iron from different water
sources. Combination of these newer technologies with conventional
techniques may become the silver bullet needed for the removal of iron
from water.
References
[1] J. Silver, Chemistry of Iron, first ed., Springer Science + Business Media,
Dordrecht, 1993.
[2] R. Green, R. Charlton, H. Seftel, T. Bothwell, F. Mayet, B. Adams, C. Finch,
M. Layrisse, Body iron excretion in man: a collaborative study, Am. J. Med. 45
(1968) 336–353.
[3] N. Khatri, S. Tyagi, Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on surface and
groundwater quality in rural and urban areas, Front. Life Sci. 8 (2015) 23–39.
[4] A. bin Jusoh, W.H. Cheng, W.M. Low, A. Nora’aini, M.J. Megat Mohd Noor, Study
on the removal of iron and manganese in groundwater by granular activated
carbon, Desalination 182 (2005) 347–353.
[5] A.G. Tekerlekopoulou, S. Pavlou, D.V. Vayenas, Removal of ammonium, iron and
manganese from potable water in biofiltration units: a review, J. Chem. Technol.
Biotechnol. 88 (2013) 751–773.
[6] D. Ellis, C. Bouchard, G. Lantagne, Removal of iron and manganese from ground
water by oxidation and microfiltration, Desalination 130 (2000) 255–264.
[7] A. Sengupta, A. Gupta, A.K. Deb, Arsenic crisis in Indian subcontinent: a local
solution to a global problem, Water 21 (2001) 34–36.
[8] V. Kumar, P.K. Bharti, M. Talwar, A.K. Tyagi, P. Kumar, Studies on high iron
content in water resources of Moradabad district (UP), India, Water Sci. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsj.2017.02.003.
[9] D.B. Mahanta, N.N. Das, R.K. Dutta, A chemical and bacteriological study of
drinking water in tea gardens of central Assam, Indian J. Environ. Prot. 24 (2004)
654–660.
[10] R. Sharma, S. Shah, C. Mahanta, Hydrogeochemical study of groundwater fluoride
contamination: a case study from Guwahati city India, Asian J. Water Environ.
Pollut. 2 (2005) 47–54.
[11] G.J. Houben, Iron oxides in wells. Part 1. Genesis, mineralogy and geochemistry,
Appl. Geochem. 18 (2003) 927–939.
[12] Iron in drinking water. In: Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd ed. Vol. 2.
Health criteria and other supporting information. World Health Organization,
Geneva, 1996.
[13] N. Khatri, S. Tyagi, D. Rawtani, Assessment of drinking water quality and its
health effects in rural areas of Harij Taluka, Patan district of Northern Gujarat,
Environ. Claims J. 0 (2016) 1–24.
[14] Q. Zheng, Y. Zhao, J. Guo, S. Zhao, L. Song, C. Fei, Z. Zhang, X. Li, C. Chang, Iron
overload promotes erythroid apoptosis through regulating HIF-1a/ROS signaling
pathway in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, Leuk. Res. 58 (2017) 55–62.
[15] J. Hartmann, F. Braulke, U. Sinzig, G. Wulf, J.H. Maas, F. Konietschke, D. Haase,
Iron overload impairs proliferation of erythroid progenitors cells (BFU-E) from
patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, Leuk. Res. 37 (2013) 327–332.
N. Khatri et al.
[16] X. Chai, D. Li, X. Cao, Y. Zhang, J. Mu, W. Lu, X. Xiao, C. Li, J. Meng, J. Chen,
Q. Li, J. Wang, A. Meng, M. Zhao, ROS-mediated iron overload injures the he-
matopoiesis of bone marrow by damaging hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells in
mice, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 10181.
[17] Y.Y. Jang, S.J. Sharkis, A low level of reactive oxygen species selects for primitive
hematopoietic stem cells that may reside in the low-oxygenic niche, Blood 110
(2007) 3056–3063.
[18] L. Shao, H. Li, S.K. Pazhanisamy, A. Meng, Y. Wang, D. Zhou, Reactive oxygen
species and hematopoietic stem cell senescence, Int. J. Hematol. 94 (2011) 24–32.
[19] C. Frippiat, J. Dewelle, J. Remacle, O. Toussaint, Signal transduction in H2O2-
induced senescence-like phenotype in human diploid fibroblasts, Free Radic. Biol.
Med. 33 (2002) 1334–1346.
[20] E. Prus, E. Fibach, Effect of iron chelators on labile iron and oxidative status of
thalassaemic erythroid cells, Acta Haematol. 123 (2010) 14–20.
[21] V. Alimohammadi, M. Sedighi, E. Jabbari, Experimental study on efficient removal
of total iron from wastewater using magnetic-modified multi-walled carbon na-
notubes, Ecol. Eng. 102 (2017) 90–97.
[22] B. Das, P. Hazarika, G. Saikia, H. Kalita, D.C. Goswami, H.B. Das, S.N. Dube,
R.K. Dutta, Removal of iron by groundwater by ash: a systematic study of a tra-
ditional method, J. Hazard. Mater. 141 (2007) 834–841.
[23] G.D. Michalakos, J.M. Nieva, D.V. Vayenas, G. Lyberatos, Removal of iron from
potable water using a Trickling filter, Wat. Res. 31 (5) (1997) 991–996.
[24] P. Colvin, V. Filipova, A. Masic, Iron Removal.VVAN01 Decentralized Water and
Wastewater Treatment, (2017) www.chemeng.lth.se/vvan01/Arkiv/ExerciseB_
Ironremoval.pdf2011.
[25] J.T. O'Connor, Chapter 11 Iron and manganese, Water Quality and Treatment—a
Handbook of Public Water Supplies, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York,
1971, pp. 378–396.
[26] E.R. Ramanaidou, M.A. Wells, 13.13 – Sedimentary hosted iron ores, in:
H.D. Holland, K.K. Turekian (Eds.), Treatise on Geochemistry, second ed., Elsevier,
Oxford, 2014, pp. 313–355.
[27] K. Kuebler, A. Wang, L.A. Haskin, B.L. Jolliff, A study of olivine alteration to id-
dingsite using raman spectroscopy, Lunar Planetary Sci. 34 (2003) (2003) 1953.
[28] P.D. Nemade, A.M. Kadam, H.S. Shankar, Removal of iron, arsenic and coliform
bacteria from water by novel constructed soil filter system, Ecol. Eng. 35 (2009)
1152–1157.
[29] P. Berbenni, A. Pollice, R. Canziani, L. Stabile, F. Nobili, Removal of iron and
manganese from hydrocarbon-contaminated ground waters, Bioresour. Technol.
74 (2000) 109–114.
[30] Y.A. Cai, D. Li, Y.W. Liang, Y.H. Luo, H.P. Zeng, J. Zhang, Effective start-up bio-
filtration method for Fe Mn, and ammonia removal and bacterial community
analysis, Bioresour. Technol. 176 (2015) 149–155.
[31] A.Z. Miller, M. Hernández Mariné, V. Jurado, A. Dionísio, P. Barquinha,
E. Fortunato, M.J. Afonso, H.I. Chaminé, C. Saiz Jimenez, Enigmatic reticulate
filaments in subsurface granite, Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 4 (2012) 596–603.
[32] S.Y. Qin, F. Ma, P. Huang, J.X. Yang, Fe (II) and Mn (II) removal from drilled well
water: a case study from a biological treatment unit in Harbin, Desalination 245
(2009) 183–193.
[33] E.A. Boyle, J.M. Edmond, E.R. Sholkovitz, The mechanism of iron removal in es-
tuaries, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 41 (1977) 1313–1324.
[34] S. Vigneswaran, C. Visvanathan, Water Treatment Processes: Simple Options, CRC
Press, New York, NY, 1995.
[35] C. Kan, W. Chen, M. Wan, P. Phatai, J. Wittayakun, K. Li, The preliminary study of
iron and manganese removal from groundwater by NaOCl oxidation and MF fil-
tration, Sustain. Environ. Res. 22 (1) (2012) 25–30.
[36] R.B. Robinson, State-of the-art: iron and manganese control, Proceedings of the
New England Water Works Association Conference and Exhibition, Marlborough,
MA, 1998.
[37] S. Bordoloi, S.K. Nath, S. Gogoi, R.K. Dutta, Arsenic and iron removal from
groundwater by oxidation–coagulation at optimized pH: laboratory and field
studies, J. Hazard. Mater. 260 (2013) 618–626.
[38] V. Shkolnikov, S.S. Bahga, J.G. Santiago, Desalination and hydrogen, chlorine, and
sodium hydroxide production via electrophoretic ion exchange and precipitation,
Phys. Chem. Chem Phys. 14 (32) (2012) 11534–11545.
[39] L.D. Rollmann, E.W. Valyocsik, Zeolite molecular sieves. Inorganic Syntheses,
Inorg. Synth. 30 (1995) 227–234.
[40] Ion Exchange and Demineralization, Env. Tech Brief #DWBLPE56, 1997.
[41] A. Dabrowski, Z. Hubicki, P. Podkoscielny, E. Robens, Selective removal of heavy
metal ions from waters and industrial wastewaters by ion-exchange method,
Chemosphere 56 (2) (2004) 91.
[42] P. Bulai, E. Cioanca, Iron removal from wastewater using chelating resin purolite
s930, Tehnomus J. 18 (2011) 63–68.
[43] N.T. Abdel-Ghani, M. Hefny, G.A.F. El-Chagbaby, Removal of Lead from aqueous
solution using law cost abundantly available adsorbents, Int. J. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 4 (1) (2007) 67–73.
[44] M. Al-Anber, Z.A. Al-Anber, Utilization of natural zeolite as ion-exchange and
sorbent material in the removal of iron, Desalination 225 (2008) 70–81.
[45] M.A. Shavandi, Z. Haddadian, M.H.S. Ismail, N. Abdullah, Z.Z. Abidin, Removal of
Fe(III), Mn(II) and Zn(II) from palm oil mill effluent (POME) by natural zeolite, J.
Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 43 (2012) 750–759.
[46] M.D. Victor-Ortega, J.M. Ochando-Pulido, A. Martinez-Ferez, Iron removal and
reuse from Fenton-like pretreated olive mill wastewater with novel strong-acid
cation exchange resin fixed-bed column, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 36 (2016) 298–305.
[47] K. Komnitsas, G. Bartzas, I. Paspaliaris, Efficiency of limestone and red mud bar-
riers: laboratory column studies, Miner. Eng. 17 (2004) 183–194.
[48] H.A. Aziz, M.S. Yusoff, M.N. Adlan, N.H. Adnan, S. Alias, Physico-chemical
303
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
removal of iron from semi-aerobic landfill leachate by limestone filter, Waste
Manage. 24 (2004) 353–358.
[49] S. Mettler, M. Wolthers, L. Charlet, U. von Gunten, Sorption and catalytic oxida-
tion of Fe(II) at the surface of calcite, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 73 (2009)
1826–1840.
[50] J.E. Wajon, G.E. Ho, P.J. Murphy, Rate of precipitation of ferrous iron and for-
mation of mixed iron calcium carbonates by naturally-occurring carbonate ma-
terials, Water Res. 19 (1985) 831–837.
[51] G.V. Nano, T.J. Strathmann, Ferrous iron sorption by hydrous metal oxides, J.
Colloid Interface Sci. 297 (2006) 443–454.
[52] W. Stumm, J.J. Morgan, Aquatic Chemistry: Chemical Equilibria and Rates in
Natural Waters, third ed., Wiley, New York, 1996.
[53] A.L. Rose, T.D. Waite, Kinetics of iron complexation by dissolved natural organic
matter in coastal waters, Mar. Chem. 84 (2003) 85–103.
[54] Y.J. Lee, E.J. Elzinga, R.J. Reeder, Cu(II) adsorption at the calcite–water interface
in the presence of natural organic matter: kinetic studies and molecular-scale
characterization, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 69 (2005) 49–61.
[55] T.S. Anirudhan, P.G. Radhakrishnan, Adsorptive removal and recovery of U(VI),
Cu(II) Zn(II), and Co(II) from water and industry effluents, Biorem. J. 15 (2011)
39–56.
[56] Y. Wang, S. Sikora, H. Kim, T.H. Boyer, J.C. Bonzongo, T.G. Townsend, Effects of
solution chemistry on the removal reaction between calcium carbonate-based
materials and Fe(II), Sci. Total Environ. 443 (2013) 717–724.
[57] Y. Wang, S. Sikora, H. Kim, J.C. Bonzongo, D. Rhue, T.G. Townsend, Evaluation of
mineral substrates for in situ iron removal from groundwater, Environ. Earth. Sci.
69 (2013) 2247–2255.
[58] Y. Wang, S. Sikora, T.G. Townsend, Ferrous iron removal by limestone and cru-
shed concrete in dynamic flow columns, J. Environ. Manage. 124 (2013) 165–171.
[59] Y. Wang, S. Pleasant, P. Jain, J. Powell, T. Townsend, Calcium carbonate-based
permeable reactive barriers for iron and manganese groundwater remediation at
landfills, Waste Manage. 53 (2016) 128–135.
[60] H.M. El-Naggar, Development of low-Cost technology for the removal of iron and
manganese from ground water in Siwa oasis, J. Egypt Public Health Assoc. 85
(2010).
[61] Bong-Yeon Cho, Iron removal using an aerated granular filter, Process Biochem.
40 (2005) 3314–3320.
[62] P. Nemade, A.M. Kadam, H.S. Shankar, Arsenic and iron removal from water using
constructed soil filter—a novel approach, Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 3 (2008)
497–502.
[63] D. Vries, C. Bertelkamp, F.S. Kegel, B. Hofs, J. Dusseldorp, J.H. Bruins, W. de Vet,
B. van den Akker, Iron and manganese removal: recent advances in modelling
treatment efficiency by rapid sand filtration, Water Res. 109 (2017) 35–45.
[64] C. Erkey, Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction of metals from aqueous solutions:
a review, J. Supercrit. Fluids 17 (2000) 259–287.
[65] M.A. McHugh, V.J. Krukonis, Supercritical Fluid Extraction: Principles and
Practice, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA, 1994.
[66] Y. Lin, N.G. Smart, C.M. Wai, Supercritical fluid extraction of uranium and
thorium from nitric acid solutions with organophosphorus reagents, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 29 (1995) 2706–2711.
[67] N.G. Smart, T.E. Carleson, S. Elshani, S. Wang, C.M. Wai, Extraction of toxic heavy
metals using supercritical fluid carbon dioxide containing organophosphorus re-
agents, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 36 (1997) 1819–1826.
[68] A.V. Yazdi, E.J. Beckman, Design, synthesis, and evaluation of novel, highly CO2-
soluble chelating agents for removal of metals, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35 (1996)
3644–3652.
[69] W.C. Andersen, T.J. Bruno, Application of a gas–liquid entraining rotor to super-
critical fluid extraction: removal of iron (III) from water, Anal. Chim. Acta 485
(2003) 1–8.
[70] R.O. Hallberg, R. Martinell, Vyredox In-situ purification of groundwater, Ground
Water 14 (2) (1976) 88–93.
[71] J. Osuna, E.R. Christensen, D. Peplinski, S. Ziesmann, In-situ removal of iron and
manganese from groundwater: numerical model, in: T. Panswad, C. Polprasert,
K. Yamamoto (Eds.), WATER POLLUTION CONTROL IN ASIA: Proceedings of
Second IAWPRC Asian Conference on Water Pollution Control, Pergamon Press,
Thailand, 1988, pp. 653–658.
[72] C.A.J. Appelo, B. Drijver, R. Hekkenberg, M. de Jonge, Modeling in situ iron re-
moval from ground water, Ground Water 37 (1999) 811–817.
[73] B. Yahyaei, S. Azizian, Rapid adsorption of binary dye pollutants onto the na-
nostructured mesoporous alumina, J. Mol. Liq. 199 (2014) 88–95.
[74] X. Tang, Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, K. Pan, Y. Dong, Y. Li, Removal of Cu(II) by loofah fibers
as a natural and low-cost adsorbent from aqueous solutions, J. Mol. Liq. 191
(2014) 73–78.
[75] S.S. Tahir, N. Rauf, Removal of Fe(II) from the wastewater of a galvanized pipe
manufacturing industry by adsorption onto bentonite clay, J. Environ. Manage. 73
(2004) 285–292.
[76] H. Modin, K.M. Persson, A. Andersson, M. van Praagh, Removal of metals from
landfill leachate by sorption to activated carbon, bone meal and iron fines, J.
Hazard. Mater. 189 (2011) 749–754.
[77] C. Dalai, R. Jha, V.R. Desai, Rice husk and sugarcane baggase based activated
carbon for iron and manganese removal, Aquat. Proc. 4 (2015) 1126–1133.
[78] S.N. Nandeshwar, A.S. Mahakalakar, R.R. Gupta, G.Z. Kyzas, Green activated
carbons from different waste materials for the removal of iron from real waste-
water samples of Nag River India, J. Mol. Liq. 216 (2016) 688–692.
[79] P.L. Younger, S.A. Banwart, R.S. Hedin, Mine Water, Hydrology, Pollution,
Remediation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002, p. 464.
[80] P.L. Younger, Possible environmental impact of the closure of two collieries in
N. Khatri et al.
County Durham, J. Inst. Water Environ. Manage. 7 (1993) 521–531.
[81] K.E. Dobbie, K.V. Heal, J. Aumonier, K.A. Smith, A. Johnston, P.L. Younger,
Evaluation of iron ochre from mine drainage treatment for removal of phosphorus
from wastewater, Chemosphere 75 (2009) 795–800.
[82] L. Batty, D. Hooley, P. Younger, Iron and manganese removal in wetland treatment
systems: rates, processes and implications for management, Sci. Total Environ. 394
(2008) 1–8.
[83] K.L. Johnson, P.L. Younger, The co-treatment of sewage and mine waters in
aerobic wetlands, Eng. Geol. 85 (2006) 53–61.
[84] K.L. Allende, D.T. McCarthy, T.D. Fletcher, The influence of media type on re-
moval of arsenic, iron and boron from acidic wastewater in horizontal flow wet-
land microcosms planted with Phragmites australis, Chem. Eng. J. 246 (2014)
217–228.
[85] Mo Wang, D.Q. Zhang, J.W. Dong, S.K. Tan, Constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment in cold climate—a review, J. Environ. Sci. 57 (2017) 293–311.
[86] S. Khan, I. Ahmad, M.T. Shah, S. Rehman, A. Khaliq, Use of constructed wetland
for the removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewater, J. Environ. Manage.
90 (2009) 3451–3457.
[87] J. Xu, G. Chen, X. Huang, G. Li, J. Liu, N. Yang, S. Gao, Iron and manganese
removal by using manganese ore constructed wetlands in the reclamation of steel
wastewater, J. Hazard. Mater. 169 (2009) 309–317.
[88] C.M.R. Almeida, F. Santos, A.C.F. Ferreira, C.R. Gomes, M.C.P. Basto, A.P. Mucha,
Constructed wetlands for the removal of metals from livestock wastewater—can
the presence of veterinary antibiotics affect removals? Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.
137 (2017) 143–148.
[89] M.Y.A. Mollah, R. Schennach, J.R. Parga, D.L. Cocke, Electrocoagulation
(EC)—science and applications, J. Hazard. Mater. 84 (1) (2001) 29–41.
[90] K. Rajeshwar, J. Ibanez, Environmental electrochemistry: fundamentals and ap-
plications in pollution abatement, in: Matthew A. Tarr (Ed.), Chemical
Degradation Methods for Wastes and Pollutants, Academic USA Press, 1997, p.
720.
[91] D. Ghosh, H. Solanki, M.K. Purkait, Removal of Fe (II) from tap water by elec-
trocoagulation technique, J. Hazard. Mater. 155 (2008) 135–143.
[92] S. Vasudevan, J. Lakshmi, G. Sozhan, Studies on the removal of iron from drinking
water by electrocoagulation—a clean process, Clean 7 (1) (2009) 45–51.
[93] K.S. Hashim, A. Shaw, R. Al Khaddar, M.O. Pedrola, D. Phipps, Iron removal,
energy consumption and operating cost of electrocoagulation of drinking water
using a new flow column reactor, J. Environ. Manage. 189 (2017) 98–108.
[94] J.M. Wong, Chlorination–filtration for iron and manganese removal, J. Am. Water
Works Assoc. 76 (1984) 76–79.
[95] K.R. Blight, D.E. Ralph, Effect of ionic strength on iron oxidation with batch cul-
tures of chemolithotrophic bacteria, Hydrometallurgy 73 (2004) 325–334.
[96] T. Štembal, M. Markic, N. Ribicic, F. Briški, L. Sipos, Removal of ammonia, iron
and manganese from groundwaters of northern Croatia—pilot plant studies,
Process Biochem. 40 (2005) 327–335.
[97] S. Pleasant, A. O'Donnell, J. Powell, P. Jain, Timothy Townsend, Evaluation of air
sparging and vadose zone aeration for remediation of iron and manganese-im-
pacted groundwater at a closed municipal landfill, Sci. Total Environ. 485-486
(2014) 31–40.
[98] S.K. Sharma, B. Petrusevski, J.C. Schippers, Biological iron removal from
groundwater: a review, J.Water. Supply Res. Technol. Aqua 54 (2005) 239–247.
[99] N. El Azher, B. Gourich, C. Vial, M. Belhaj Soulami, M. Ziyad, Study of ferrous iron
oxidation in Morocco drinking water in an airlift reactor, Chem. Eng. Process. 47
(2008) 1877–1886.
[100] Handbook of public water systems, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons. HDR
Engineering. 2001.
[101] D. Volpe, Assessment of iron and manganese sequestration, Environ. Water
Resour. Eng. Masters Projects (2012) 53.
[102] C. Li, S. Wang, X. Du, X. Cheng, M. Fu, N. Hou, D. Li, Immobilization of iron- and
manganese-oxidizing bacteria with a biofilm-forming bacterium for the effective
removal of iron and manganese from groundwater, Bioresour. Technol. 220
(2016) 76–84.
[103] A. Gouzinis, N. Kosmidis, D.V. Vayenas, G. Lyberatos, Removal of mn and si-
multaneous removal of NH3, Fe and Mn from potable water using a trickling filter,
Water Res. 32 (8) (1998) 2442–2450.
[104] A.G. Tekerlekopoulou, I.A. Vasiliadou, D.V. Vayenas, Physico-chemical and bio-
logical iron removal from potable water, Biochem. Eng. J. 31 (2006) 74–83.
[105] A.G. Tekerlekopoulou, D.V. Vayenas, Ammonia, iron and manganese removal
304
Journal of Water Process Engineering 19 (2017) 291–304
from potable water using trickling filters, Desalination 210 (2007) 225–235.
[106] A.G. Tekerlekopoulou, D.V. Vayenas, Simultaneous biological removal of am-
monia, iron and manganese from potable water using a trickling filter, Biochem.
Eng. J. 39 (2008) 215–220.
[107] N.L. Le, S.P. Nunes, Materials and membrane technologies for water and energy
sustainability, Sustain. Mater. Technol. 7 (2016) 1–28.
[108] X. Chai, G. Chen, Y. Po-Lock, Y. Mi, Pilot scale membrane separation of electro-
plating waste water by reverse osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 123 (1997) 235–242.
[109] T.A. Kurniawan, G.Y. Chan, W.H. Lo, S. Babel, Physico-chemical treatment tech-
niques for wastewater laden with heavy metals, Chem. Eng. J. 118 (2006) 83–98.
[110] X. Li, G.M. Zeng, J.H. Huang, C. Zhang, Y.Y. Fang, Y.H. Qu, F. Luo, D. Lin, H.L. Liu,
Recovery and reuse of surfactant SDS from a MEUF retentate containing Cd2+ or
Zn2+ by ultrafiltration, J. Membr. Sci. 337 (2009) 92–97.
[111] J. Labanda, M.S. Khaidar, J. Llorens, Feasibility study on the recovery of chro-
mium (III) by polymer enhanced ultrafiltration, Desalination 249 (2009) 577–581.
[112] L. Peng, X. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. Du, M. Huang, J. Wang, Remediation of metal
contamination by electrokinetics coupled with electrospun polyacrylonitrile na-
nofiber membrane, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 98 (2015) 1–10.
[113] K. Choo, H. Lee, S. Choi, Iron and manganese removal and membrane fouling
during UF in conjunction with prechlorination for drinking water treatment, J.
Membr. Sci. 267 (2005) 18–26.
[114] J.L. Lin, C. Huang, P.J. Ruhsing, Y.S. Wang, Fouling mitigation of a dead-end
microfiltration by mixing-enhanced preoxidation for Fe and Mn removal from
groundwater, Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 419 (2013) 87–93.
[115] K. Jasiewicz, R. Pietrzak, The influence of pore generating agent on the efficiency
of copper and iron ions removal from liquid phase by polyethersulfone mem-
branes, Chem. Eng. J. 228 (2013) 449–454.
[116] X. Du, G. Liu, F. Qu, K. Li, S. Shao, G. Li, H. Liang, Removal of iron, manganese and
ammonia from groundwater using a PAC-MBR system: the anti-pollution ability,
microbial population and membrane fouling, Desalination 403 (2017) 97–106.
[117] G. Pandey, D. Rawtani, Y.K. Agrawal, Aspects of nanoelectronics in materials
development, in: A. Kar (Ed.), Nanoelectronics and Materials Development,
InTech, Croatia, 2016, pp. 23–39.
[118] R. Feynman, There’s plenty of room at the bottom, speech presented at the annual
meeting of the American Physical Society, California Inst. Technol. (1959).
[119] M. Tharmavaram, D. Rawtani, G. Pandey, Fabrication routes for one-dimensional
nanostructures via block copolymers, Nano Converg. 4 (2017) 12–24.
[120] M.R. Wiesner, J.Y. Bottero, Nanotechnology and the environment, in: Mark
R. Wiesner, Jean-Yves Bottero (Eds.), Environmental Nanotechnology:
Applications and Impacts of Nanomaterials, The McGraw Hill, New York, 2007,
pp. 3–14 (Chapter 1.).
[121] P.M. Ajayan, Nanotubes from carbon, Chem. Rev. 99 (1999) 1787–1799.
[122] Nanotechnology and the environment, in: M.R. Wiesner, J.Y. Bottero (Eds.),
Environmental Nanotechnology: Applications and Impacts of Nanomaterials,
second ed., The McGraw Hill, New York, 2007.
[123] S. Qu, F. Huang, S. Yu, G. Chen, J. Kong, Magnetic removal of dyes from aqueous
solution using multi-walled carbon nanotubes filled with Fe2O3 particles, J.
Hazard. Mater. 160 (2008) 643–647.
[124] X. Song, F. Yang, X. Wang, K. Zhang, Preparation of magnetic multi-walled carbon
nanotubes and their application in active dye removal, Micro Nano Lett. 6 (2011)
827.
[125] C. Zhang, J. Sui, J. Li, Y. Tang, W. Cai, Efficient removal of heavy metal ions by
thiol-functionalized superparamagnetic carbon nanotubes, Chem. Eng. J. 210
(2012) 45–52.
[126] M. Sedighi, M. Ghasemi, S.H.A. Hassan, W.R. Wan Daud, M. Ismail, E. Abdallah,
Process optimization of batch biosorption of lead using Lactobacillius bulgaricus in
an aqueous phase system using response surface methodology, World J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 28 (2012) 2047–2055.
[127] P.S. Goh, A.F. Ismail, N. Hilal, Nano-enabled membranes technology: sustainable
and revolutionary solutions for membrane desalination, Desalination 380 (2016)
100–104.
[128] D. Rawtani, Y.K. Agrawal, Multifarious applications of halloysite nano tubes: a
review, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 30 (2012) 282–295.
[129] D. Rawtani, Y.K. Agrawal, Halloysite as support matrices: a review, Emerg. Mater.
Res. 1 (4) (2012) 212–220.
[130] G. Pandey, D.M. Munguambe, M. Tharmavaram, D. Rawtani, Y.K. Agrawal,
Halloysite nanotubes − An efficient ‘nano-support’ for the immobilization of α-
amylase, Appl. Clay Sci. 136 (2017) 184–191.