Special Issue August 2016

Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
August 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Comparison of silica, activated carbon, and zeolite adsorbents in the removal

of ammonium, iron, COD, turbidity and phosphate pollutants, and
investigating the effect of discharge on the removal of pollutants
Sima Malekmohammadi, MSc

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, K.N. Toosi University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Ahmad Mirbagheri, Prof

Majid Ehteshami, PhD

Abstract
Following the urbanization and industrial developments, environmental pollution especially

water pollution is the main problem throughout the world. Regarding the water crisis, providing
safe drinking water is vitally important. Therefore, in this research, the ability of silica, activated
carbon and zeolite adsorbents was investigated in the removal of ammonium, iron, phosphate,
turbidity and COD pollutants. As a result, silica can remove iron and turbidity very well, while
zeolite is more appropriate in the removal of ammonium and phosphate. Also, COD pollutants
are removed by activated carbon. Furthermore, the effect of discharge on the removal of
pollutants was studied. The results showed that increasing discharge raises the removal of
pollutants. The discharge has so much effect that decreasing discharge can increase the iron
removal from 0 to 27% using zeolite. According to the results, these adsorbents are
complementary and none of them separately can remove all pollutants. To purify water, it is
proposed that a combination of these adsorbents should be used or discharge should be
decreased to increase the removal yield and reduce the concentration of output pollutant to an
acceptable level.
Keywords: urbanization, environmental pollution, pollutants.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 667

1. Introduction
Surface water is one of the main sources of drinking water for the majority of rural and urban
communities, and even the most amount of water is provide from this source for large cities. The
quality of surface water highly depends on the amount and composition of water bed and also
atmospheric conditions [1,2]. According to the sewage origin, water pollution can originate from
municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater and agricultural wastewater [2]. In some parts of
country, due to high level of groundwater or availability of surface water resources, sewage
enters these resources and finally contaminates the surface and ground water. Each cubic meter of
municipal and industrial wastewater can contaminate 40 m3 of safe water as water purification
needs complex treatment methods and too high costs [3,4]. Nowadays, most of rivers, which
provided drinking water in the past, are transformed into the sewage channels due to the entering
municipal, industrial and agricultural wastewater [5]. Also, in addition to microbial
contamination, chemical contamination is one the most important issues in water safety. In this
content, heavy metals are vitally important [6,7]. Metals enter water resources naturally or as
pollutants. Natural weathering of rocks, mines and soil, which are in contact with water, is the
largest natural sources of water contamination with heavy metals [8]. Therefore, drinking water
in many villages has been contaminated, and the polluted water has the adverse effect on the
residents’ health. Also, surface water in different areas of country has been polluted because of
transportations and different industries. Some heavy metals (manganese, iron, cobalt, copper,
zinc, chromium, vanadium, selenium and molybdenum) not only are presented in the structure of
vital molecules but also play an important coenzyme role in various reactions. Metals such as
lead, cadmium, mercury, silver, aluminum, barium and arsenic at any concentration even small
amount are harmful, and have unfavorable effects in the long term [9]. Neurological disorders,
cancer, respiratory and cardio-vascular disorders, damage to the liver, kidneys and brain,
hormonal imbalance, abortion, arthritis, osteoporosis and in extreme cases, death are the results
and effects of heavy metals in the body [22]. So, water purification is essential. Using adsorbents
for removal of these elements is efficient. Nowadays, many adsorbents such as silica, activated
carbon and zeolite are investigated which are low-cost and obtained from available natural
compounds. Sand is obtained naturally from weathering quartz sandstones or mechanically from
crushing rocks. Silica sand is widely found and due to its porosity and high surface area, it is
widely used as an adsorbent in the purification process [19, 24]. A. A. El-Bayaa et al. studied the
effect of natural white silica on the absorption of iron and uranium, and also investigated the
different parameters such as the amount of adsorbent, temperature and so on to find the optimal
conditions [20].
Activated carbon is an amorphous, microcrystalline, and non-graphic solid which has some
properties such as high thermal stability, high stability against light, porous and solid structure,
high mechanical stability, high ratio of surface to volume and achieving high purity. Also, since
activated carbon has high ability for adsorption of different species, it can be an appropriate
adsorbent for removal of ions and organic species from aqueous media [10, 23]. In 2012, Altun
and co-workers studied the chromium removal by activated carbon obtained from walnut shell
using different dosage of citric acid and changing time and temperature [11]. In 2013, Yang and
colleagues used walnut shell charcoal for removing sodium from water [12]. Also, in that year,
Vitela-Rodriguez and Rangel-Mendez used the modified activated carbon in the arsenic removal
[13].

Zeolites are mineral-crystalline aluminosilicate and hydrated alkali and alkaline earth metals with
a tridimensional lattice which are divided into two categories of natural zeolites (clinoptilolite,
analcime, limonite, phillipsite, mordenite) and artificial zeolites [14]. In 2014, Khachatryan
investigated the removal yield of elements using zeolite via two batch and dynamic (column)
methods. The results depicted that the batch procedure is better than the column method. The
order of elements removal in the batch and column system was
Cu>Pb>Cd>Zn>FeMnNiAs>Cr>Hg and Cu>Pb>Mn>Cd>FeZn>Cr>Ni>HgAs
respectively [15]. Bolan et al. studied the modified clinoptilolite to remove ammonium ions from
sewage. They reported that the modified zeolite has a good ability in the ammonium removal.
Also, the presence of other cations causes interference and disturbance in the adsorption of
ammonium ion [16]. Many heavy metals such as mercury, lead, silver, copper, cadmium,
chromium, zinc, nickel, cobalt and manganese ions are presented in the polluted water. In the
past, some research was carried out about the application of natural zeolite in the adsorption of
heavy metals [17, 18].
In this research, the ability of three adsorbents (silica, zeolite and activated carbon) in the
removal of water pollutants and the effect of discharge on the removal yield have been studied.
Discharge is a significant factor because increasing discharge raises the system efficiency which
means that in less time, more output is produced.
2. Material and methods

In this work, the adsorption ability of silica, activated carbon and zeolite adsorbents has been
investigated. To aim this purpose, three 50 cm columns were prepared under the identical
conditions, and the samples were passed through them.
2.1. Preparation of pilots

Pilots consist of three columns made of plexiglass with the height of 80 cm. In the bottom, 10 cm
rubble and 10 cm sand for drainage, and then 50 cm adsorbent are placed. 5 cm for water and 5
cm for free height are considered. Adsorbents are silica, activated carbon and zeolite. Silica was a
kind of white sand prepared in the dimensions of 0.2 to 0.4 mm. Activated carbon was made from
walnut shell as seeds with the dimension of 1-3 mm in Iran. Natural zeolites are divided into
different types that clinoptilolite is one of the best zeolites. In this research, potassium type of
clinoptilolite was used with 99% purity, dimension of 1-3 mm and as milky seeds which had been
obtained from a mine in Semnan.
2.2. Preparation of samples

Pollutants studied in this work are common pollutant in surface water which consists of turbidity,
iron, ammonium and phosphate. Since surface water was not available, pollutants were simulated
in the laboratory. First, chemical compounds including pollutants were found. Then, equivalent
concentrations were calculated, poured in 0.5 L water, and stirred using a magnet to be
homogenous mixture. Finally, the volume of solution reached to 50 L by adding some water. In
the Table 1, the input pollutants, alternative chemical compounds and also their amounts were
presented. All chemical compounds were purchased from Merck Company in Germany.
Table 1: The concentration of input pollutants and their alternative chemical compounds

Pollutant Alternative Concentration of alternative

Pollutant
concentration chemical compound chemical compound
Monosodium
Phosphate 12 mg/L phosphate 19.70 mg/L
(NaH2PO4.2H2O)
Ammonium 5 mg/L Ammonium solfate 18.34 mg/L
Iron 0.4 mg/L Iron chloride 1.94 mg/L
Sodium acetate
COD 200 mg/L mg/L
(CH3COONa.3H2O)
Turbidity 100 Ntu Bentonite Trial and error
3. Methods
In this work, the removal yield of pollutant by silica, zeolite, and activated carbon adsorbents was
investigated, and their efficiency was compared with each other. First, the sample containing
pollutants was prepared according to the previous procedure, and entered three columns of
adsorbent (mentioned in section 2.1) with the discharge of 1 ml/min. Then, the amount of output
pollutants from each column was measured. The removal yields were obtained and compared
with each other.
In this research, the effect of discharge on the removal yield of pollutant was studied. Therefore,
different discharges of 0.5, 1, and 3.5 mL/min were employed. Then, the sample containing
pollutants was prepared, and entered the system with each discharge. Finally, the concentration of
output pollutant was measured, and the removal yields of different discharges were compared
with each other. It should be mentioned that the experiments related to discharge effect were
conducted for ammonium, iron and turbidity pollutants.
In this study, measuring turbidity was carried out using Lovibond turbidity meter device, and the
concentration of ammonium, iron, phosphate and COD was measured using spectrophotometer
device.
4. Results and discussion

The sample containing mentioned pollutants was prepared, passed through a 50 cm adsorbent
column, and the final concentration was measured. Table 2 shows the final concentration of
pollutants in each column (silica, activated carbon and zeolite). These amounts were compared
with the maximum permissible level in drinking water. As can be seen, silica has a high ability in
the removal of iron and turbidity, and can reduce the iron concentration to the permissible level.
Silica decreases ammonium, phosphate, and COD but it does not reach the permissible amount.
Zeolite has a great ability in the removal of ammonium and phosphate, and can reduce the
ammonium to the permissible amount. But, its ability is negligible in the removal of iron and
COD. Activated carbon considerably decreases the turbidity and COD, and also reduces the other
pollutants but it does not reach the maximum permissible level in drinking water.
Table 2: The final concentration of pollutants after passing silica, activated carbon and
zeolite columns
The initial The The The The
Pollutant
concentration concentration concentration concentration maximum
of pollutant After silica After zeolite After permissible

activated level in
carbon drinking
water
Ammonium
5.5 4.7 1.5 3.5 1.5 mg/L
(mg/L)
Iron (mg/L) 0.55 0.1 0.5 0.35 0.3 mg/L
Turbidity
100 8.1 - 9.7 5 Ntu
(NTU)
Phosphate
4 2.8 1.2 2.5 -
(mg/L)
COD (mg/L) 200 70 180 21 0
Figure 1 illustrates the removal percentage of ammonium by silica, activated carbon and zeolite
adsorbents. As can be seen in Figure 1, zeolite has the highest ability to remove ammonium
(72%). Also, the ability of activated carbon is more than silica.
Figure 1) The removal percentage of ammonium by silica, activated carbon and zeolite
Figure 2 depicts the removal percentage of iron using silica, activated carbon and zeolite
adsorbents. As illustrated in Figure 2, silica and zeolite have the best and the weakest
performance in the iron removal, respectively, as the ability of zeolite is roughly negligible in the
iron removal while silica removes 81% of iron. Activated carbon has better performance in iron
removal comparing with zeolite but its performance is weaker than silica.

Figure 2) The removal percentage of iron using silica, activated carbon and zeolite
Figure 3 presents the removal percentage of turbidity by silica and activated carbon adsorbents.
As can be seen in Figure 3, the turbidity removal was investigated by the systems, and zeolite not
only did not decrease the turbidity, but also increases it. As a result, investigating turbidity was
carried out via two other systems. As shown in Figure 3, the decrease of turbidity in two systems
is almost similar and considerable. In general, both silica and activated carbon adsorbents have
the ability of turbidity removal.
Figure 3) The removal percentage of turbidity by silica and activated carbon

Figure 4 shows the removal percentage of phosphate using silica, activated carbon and zeolite
adsorbents. As depicted in Figure 4, phosphate pollutant has the most decrease (70%) after
passing through the zeolite adsorbent which is more than two other adsorbents. Also, the ability
of activated carbon is more than that of silica in the phosphate removal.
Figure 4) The removal percentage of phosphate by silica, activated carbon and zeolite
Figure 5 illustrates the removal percentage of COD by silica, activated carbon and zeolite
adsorbents. As can be seen in Figure 5, COD pollutant experiences a considerable decrease after
passing through the activated carbon. Also, the ability of activated carbon in the COD removal is
more than zeolite. In fact, zeolite has the negligible ability in the COD removal.

Figure 5) The removal percentage of COD using silica, activated carbon and zeolite
It can be concluded from Table 2 and Figures 1-5 that each adsorbent can remove special kinds of
pollutants in comparison with other adsorbents. For instance, silica, activated carbon and zeolite
have the removal ability of iron, COD and ammonium, respectively. Therefore, these adsorbents
can be complementary of each other in the water purification process, and their combination is
proposed.
Figures 6 and 7 present the effect of discharge on the removal of ammonium, iron, and turbidity
pollutants. Figure 6 shows the effect of discharge on the iron removal. As can be seen in Figure 6,
increasing discharge decreases the iron removal. In fact, the discharge has so much influence that
its decrease can increase the iron removal from 0 to 27% using zeolite. It means that decreasing
discharge raises the system efficiency but in the case of zeolite, it does not have any effects on
the yield because silica is a strong adsorbent in the iron removal.

Figure 6) The effect of discharge on the iron removal

Figure 7 illustrates the effect of discharge on the removal of ammonium pollutant. As shown in
Figure 7, increasing discharge decreases the removal yield of ammonium. The effect of discharge
in three systems is sensible and increasing discharge form 0.5 to 3 in silica, activated carbon and
zeolite columns raises the yield to 27, 26 and 31%, respectively. As a result, it can be concluded
that 83% decrease of discharge rate increases the removal yield of ammonium about 30% in three
adsorbents.
Figure 7) The effect of discharge on the ammonium removal

Figure 8 depicts the effect of discharge on the turbidity removal. The decrease of discharge
increases the yield in activated carbon column but it does not have any effects on the silica
because it has a high ability in the removal of turbidity. Generally, the effect of discharge in high
yields is less clear.
Figure 8) The effect of discharge on the turbidity removal
5. Conclusion
In this research, the removal of common pollutants in surface water (ammonium, iron, phosphate,
turbidity and COD) using the 50 cm columns of silica, activated carbon and zeolite adsorbents
was studied. The removal yield of iron pollutants using silica adsorbent was more than the other
adsorbents. However, the removal yield obtained from zeolite was negligible. The zeolite column
has the best efficiency in the removal of ammonium and phosphate. Also, the removal of these
two pollutants in the activated carbon column is better than silica. The removal yield of COD
using activated carbon is better than silica while its removal yield via zeolite is negligible. Silica
has the highest ability in the removal of iron and turbidity while zeolite can effectively remove
ammonium and phosphate. Also, activated carbon is the best adsorbent for removal of COD and
turbidity. It means that each adsorbent can remove a special type of pollutants. Therefore,
combination of adsorbents is proposed for the removal of pollutants.
In this study, the effect of discharge on the pollutant removal was investigated. In general,
decreasing discharge raises the removal yield of pollutants. The results showed that 83% decrease
of discharge rate can increase the ammonium removal about 30% (in each adsorbent). Also,
discharge has so much effect that the decrease of discharge can raise the iron removal from 0 to
27% using zeolite. It should be noted that the effect of discharge is negligible when the removal
yield is high and the adsorbent can efficiently remove the pollutants.
As mentioned before, the adsorbents are complementary of each other, and none of them can
remove all pollutants. Therefore, a combination of these adsorbents should be used in the water

purification process, or the discharge should be decreased to increase the removal yield and
reduce the concentration of output pollutants.

References
1- John M.G. Healy, M. Rodgers and J. Mulqueen, Treatment of dairy wastewater using
constructed wetlands and intermittent sand filters, Bioresource Technology, Volume 98,
September 2007.
2- Lionel Ho, Daniel Hoefel, Christopher P. Saint and Gayle Newcombe, Isolation and
identification of a novel microcystin-degrading bacterium from a biological sand filter,
Water Research, Volume 41, Issue 20, December 2007
3- Hamer M.J, and K.A. Mac Kichan, Hydrology and quality of water resources, New York;
1981
4- John A, Black, Water pollution technology, Printed in U.S.A, 1977
5- Huerta, B., Rodriguez-Mozaz, S., Nannou, C., Nakis, L., Ruhí, A., Acuña, V., ... &
Barcelo, D. (2016). Determination of a broad spectrum of pharmaceuticals and endocrine
disruptors in biofilm from a waste water treatment plant-impacted river. Science of the
Total Environment, 540, 241-249.
6- Du, Z., Zheng, T., Wang, P., Hao, L., & Wang, Y. (2016). Fast microwave-assisted
preparation of a low-cost and recyclable carboxyl modified lignocellulose-biomass jute
fiber for enhanced heavy metal removal from water. Bioresource technology, 201, 41-49.
7- Dong, A., Fan, X., Wang, Q., Yu, Y., & Cavaco-Paulo, A. (2015). Hydrophobic surface
functionalization of lignocellulosic jute fabrics by enzymatic grafting of octadecylamine.
International journal of biological macromolecules, 79, 353-362.
8- Wuana, R. A., & Okieimen, F. E. (2011). Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of
sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. Isrn Ecology, 2011.
9- KALANTARI, N., SAJADI, Z., MAKVANDI, M., & KESHAVARZI, M. (2012).
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER OF THE ASSALUYEH
ALLUVIAL PLAIN WITH EMPHASIS ON HEAVY METALS CONTAMINATION.
10- Shokrolahi, A., Ghaedi, M., Shabani, R., Montazerozohori, M., Chehreh, F., Soylak, M.,
& Alipour, S. (2010). A preconcentration procedure for copper, nickel and chromium ions
in some food and environmental samples on modified Diaion SP-850. Food and chemical
toxicology, 48(2), 482-489.
11- Altun, T., Pehlivan, E. (2012). "Removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions by modified
walnut shells", Food Chemistry, 132(2), 693-700.
12- Ding, D., Zhao, Y., Yang, S., Shi, W., Zhang, Z., Lei, Z., Yang, Y. (2013). "Adsorption of
cesium from aqueous solution using agricultural residue–Walnut shell: Equilibrium,
kinetic and thermodynamic modeling studies", Water research, 47(7), 2563-2571.
13- Vitela-Rodriguez, A.V. and J.R. Rangel-Mendez, (2013). "Arsenic removal by modified
activated carbons with iron hydro(oxide) nanoparticles", Journal of Environmental
Management, 114(0), 225- 231.
14- Breck. D. W., “ Zeolite Molecular Sieves “ John Willy Inc , New York (1974).
15- Khachatryan, S. V. (2014). Heavy metal adsorption by armenian natural zeolite from
natural aqueous solutions. Chemistry and Biology, (2), 31-35.
16- Bolan, N. S., Mowatt, C., Adriano, D. C., & Blennerhassett, J. D. (2003). Removal of
ammonium ions from fellmongery effluent by zeolite. Communications in soil science
and plant analysis, 34(13-14), 1861-1872.

17- Kalló, D. (2001). Applications of natural zeolites in water and wastewater treatment.
Reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry, 45(1), 519-550.
18- Alvarez-Ayuso, E., Garcıa-Sánchez, A., & Querol, X. (2003). Purification of metal
electroplating waste waters using zeolites. Water research, 37(20), 4855-4862.
19- Unob, F., Wongsiri, B., Phaeon, N., Puanngam, M., & Shiowatana, J. (2007). Reuse of
waste silica as adsorbent for metal removal by iron oxide modification. Journal of
hazardous materials, 142(1), 455-462.
20- El-Bayaa, A. A., Badawy, N. A., Gamal, A. M., Zidan, I. H., & Mowafy, A. R. (2011).
Purification of wet process phosphoric acid by decreasing iron and uranium using white
silica sand. Journal of hazardous materials, 190(1), 324-329.
21- Luo, W., Yang, C., He, H., Zeng, G., Yan, S., & Cheng, Y. (2014). Novel two-stage
vertical flow biofilter system for efficient treatment of decentralized domestic wastewater.
Ecological Engineering, 64, 415-423.
22- Wongsasuluk, P., Chotpantarat, S., Siriwong, W., & Robson, M. (2014). Heavy metal
contamination and human health risk assessment in drinking water from shallow
groundwater wells in an agricultural area in Ubon Ratchathani province, Thailand.
Environmental geochemistry and health, 36(1), 169-182.
23- Jhadhav, S. (2015). Value Added Products from Gasification–Activated Carbon. The
Combustion, Gasification and Propulsion Laboratory (CGPL) at the Indian Institute of
Science (IISc). Retrieved, 30.
24- Iqbal, M., Patel, S., & Vidyarthee, G. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
ENGINEERING SCIENCES & RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY Shell Mold Casting
Manufacture of Complex Parts with Thin Sections.

Special Issue August 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Issue August 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND

August 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Comparison of silica, activated carbon, and zeolite adsorbents in the removal

Sima Malekmohammadi, MSc

Ahmad Mirbagheri, Prof

Majid Ehteshami, PhD

Following the urbanization and industrial developments, environmental pollution especially

Keywords: urbanization, environmental pollution, pollutants.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 667

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 668

2. Material and methods

2.1. Preparation of pilots

2.2. Preparation of samples

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 669

Pollutant Alternative Concentration of alternative

4. Results and discussion

of pollutant After silica After zeolite After permissible

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 671

Figure 3) The removal percentage of turbidity by silica and activated carbon

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 672

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 673

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 674

Figure 6) The effect of discharge on the iron removal

Figure 7) The effect of discharge on the ammonium removal

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 675

Figure 8) The effect of discharge on the turbidity removal

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 676

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 677

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 678

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 679

You might also like