Advantages and disadvantages of techniques used for wastewater treatment

Adsorption techniques are widely used to remove certain classes of pollutants from waters, especially those that are not easily biodegradable. Dyes represent one of the problematic groups. Currently, a combination of biological treatment and adsorption on activated carbon is becoming more common for removal of dyes from wastewater. Although commercial activated carbon is a preferred sorbent for color removal, its widespread use is restricted due to high cost. As such, alternative non-conventional sorbents have been investigated. It is well-known that natural materials, waste materials from industry and agriculture and biosorbents can be obtained and employed as inexpensive sorbents. In this review, an extensive list of sorbent literature has been compiled. The review (i) presents a critical analysis of these materials; (ii) describes their characteristics, advantages and limitations; and (iii) discusses various mechanisms involved. It is evident from a literature survey of about 210 recent papers that low-cost sorbents have demonstrated outstanding removal capabilities for certain dyes. In particular, chitosan might be a promising adsorbent for environmental and purification purposes.

Arsenic's history in science, medicine and technology has been overshadowed by its notoriety as a poison in homicides. Arsenic is viewed as being synonymous with toxicity. Dangerous arsenic concentrations in natural waters is now a worldwide problem and often referred to as a 20th-21st century calamity. High arsenic concentrations have been reported recently from the USA, China, Chile, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, Poland, Canada, Hungary, Japan and India. Among 21 countries in different parts of the world affected by groundwater arsenic contamination, the largest population at risk is in Bangladesh followed by West Bengal in India. Existing overviews of arsenic removal include technologies that have traditionally been used (oxidation, precipitation/coagulation/membrane separation) with far less attention paid to adsorption. No previous review is available where readers can get an overview of the sorption capacities of both available and developed sorbents used for arsenic remediation together with the traditional remediation methods. We have incorporated most of the valuable available literature on arsenic remediation by adsorption ( approximately 600 references). Existing purification methods for drinking water; wastewater; industrial effluents, and technological solutions for arsenic have been listed. Arsenic sorption by commercially available carbons and other low-cost adsorbents are surveyed and critically reviewed and their sorption efficiencies are compared. Arsenic adsorption behavior in presence of other impurities has been discussed. Some commercially available adsorbents are also surveyed. An extensive table summarizes the sorption capacities of various adsorbents. Some low-cost adsorbents are superior including treated slags, carbons developed from agricultural waste (char carbons and coconut husk carbons), biosorbents (immobilized biomass, orange juice residue), goethite and some commercial adsorbents, which include resins, gels, silica, treated silica tested for arsenic removal come out to be superior. Immobilized biomass adsorbents offered outstanding performances. Desorption of arsenic followed by regeneration of sorbents has been discussed. Strong acids and bases seem to be the best desorbing agents to produce arsenic concentrates. Arsenic concentrate treatment and disposal obtained is briefly addressed. This issue is very important but much less discussed.