Mitigation and Remedy of Groundwater Arsenic Menace in India

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mitigation and Remedy of Groundwater Arsenic Menace in India : A Vision DocumentSimple Arsenicand Iron RemovalSystem by Schoolof FundamentalResearch (SFR),KolkataAdsorptionAluminumSilicate + FerricHydroxideRs. 8000 +Rs.1200 perchargequartz and dual media (Sand-Activated Alumina), respectively.The system is fitted to Hand Pump,which connected through the checkvalve with a vertical PVC cylinderfilled with silicate matrix withadditional oxidizing element forremoval of iron before water entersinto As-removal system.sufficient quantity offiltered water.Towards O & M, ithad poor performance.Performance of thesystem is yet to beestablished throughfield testing.Despite having numerous arsenic removal devices, which have been developed, basedon different working principles, very few plants could show satisfactory performance at the fieldlevel, both in terms of arsenic removal efficiency and in sustainable running. The major setbacks,with most of the devices, remain with the operation, maintenance, replacement and removal ofused filters. The systems in O & M have been linked to the responsibility of suppliers, and theyhave shown satisfactory performance. Out of the above arsenic removal technologies, only afew could prove satisfactory performance at the field level like Granular Ferric Hydroxide (GFH)of Pal Trockner (P) Ltd., Kolkata - a German Technology, Arsenic Removal Plant by OxideIndia (Catalysts) Pvt. Ltd, Durgapur, and Apyron Arsenic Treatment Units by ApyronTechnologies (P) Ltd. representing Apyron Technologies. It is to be mentioned that theefficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of arsenic removal technologies depend on: (i) howsimple the devise is in use, and operation & maintenance? (ii) What is its removal efficiency?(iii) How much is the outflow rate and cost? (iv) How eco-friendly the device is? and (v) whatmechanism in operation and maintenance is devised ?In addition to the above devices, a number of other devices can be seen to be developedand applied in other countries. However, all the technologies are primarily based on fiveprinciples of arsenic removal: oxidation, co-precipitation, adsorption, ion-exchange andmembrane process. Scientific details of these five operating principles and their differentapplications are explained here.5.2.1 Oxidation and FiltrationOxidation and filtration normally refer to the processes that are designed to removenaturally occurring iron and manganese from water. These processes involve the oxidation ofthe soluble forms of iron and manganese to their insoluble forms and then removal by filtration.If arsenic is present in the water, it is removed via two primary mechanisms: adsorption andco-precipitation. First, soluble iron and As (III) are oxidized. The As (V) then adsorbs onto theiron hydroxide precipitation that are ultimately filtered from solution.The arsenic removal efficiency is strongly dependent on the initial iron concentrationand the ratio of iron to arsenic. In general, the Fe: As mass ratio should be at least 20:1. Theseconditions customarily result in an arsenic removal efficiency of 80-95%. In some cases, it mayNIH & CGWB 81
Technological Options and Arsenic Removal Technologiesbe appropriate to add ferric coagulant, in the beginning of the iron removal process, to optimizearsenic removal.The effectiveness of arsenic co-precipitation, with iron, is relatively independent of sourcewater pH, in the range 5.5 to 8.5. However, high levels of organic matter, orthophosphates andsilicates, weaken arsenic removal efficiency by competing for sorption sites on iron hydroxideprecipitates (Fields et al., 2000a, b).In-situ Oxidation: In-situ oxidation of arsenic and iron in the aquifer was tried underDPHE-Danida Arsenic Mitigation Pilot Project in Bangladesh. The aerated tube well water wasstored in a tank and released back into the aquifers, through the tube well, by opening a valve ina pipe connecting the water tank to the tube well pipe under the pump head. The dissolvedoxygen content in water oxidizes arsenite to less mobile arsenate and also the ferrous iron in theaquifer to ferric iron causing a reduction in arsenic content of tube well water. Experimentalresults showed that arsenic in the tube well water following in-situ oxidation has been reduced toabout half due to underground precipitation and adsorption on ferric iron.Solar Oxidation: SORAS is a simple method of solar oxidation of arsenic in transparentbottles to reduce arsenic content from drinking water. The Department of Sanitary Engineeringof AIIH&PH, Kolkata has studied the efficacy of arsenic removal by solar oxidation andprecipitation and achieved 85 to 95% arsenic removal. The method is only applicable if the ironcontent in the groundwater exists beyond permissible level so as to adsorb the arsenate fromwater. Wegelin et al. (2000) have also used solar oxidation to reduce arsenic content of drinkingwater. Ultraviolet radiation can be used to catalyze the process of oxidation of arsenite in thepresence of other oxidants like oxygen (Young, 1996). Experiments in Bangladesh have shownthat the process on average could reduce arsenic content of water to about one-third.Passive Sedimentation: Passive sedimentation also received considerable attentionbecause of rural people's habit of drinking stored water from pitchers. Oxidation of water, duringcollection and subsequent storage in houses, may cause a reduction in arsenic concentration instored water (Bashi Pani). Experiments, conducted in Bangladesh, showed zero to highreduction in arsenic content by passive sedimentation. Arsenic reduction, by plain sedimentation,appears to be dependent on water quality particularly the presence of precipitating iron in water.Ahmed et al. (2000) have shown that more than 50% reduction in arsenic content is possible bysedimentation of tube well water containing 380-480 mg/L of alkalinity as C aCO 3and 8-12 mg/Lof iron. But this cannot be relied upon to reduce arsenic to desired level. Most studies showed areduction of zero to 25% of the initial concentration of arsenic in groundwater. In rapidassessment of technologies, passive sedimentation has failed to reduce arsenic to the desiredlevel (BAMWSP, DFID, Water Aid, 2001).82NIH & CGWB
Page 5:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe Government of In
Page 8 and 9:
nearly 33 villages in 4 districts i
Page 10:
(iii) Whether ex-situ removal techn
Page 14 and 15:
6.4 Experiences during Arsenic Remo
Page 16 and 17:
List of FiguresFigure no. Figure ca
Page 18 and 19:
List of TablesTable no. Table Capti
Page 20 and 21:
Mitigation and Remedy of Groundwate
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51: Mitigation and Remedy of Groundwate
Page 102 and 103: 5.2.2 Co-precipitationMitigation an
Page 124 and 125: 5.8 SummaryMitigation and Remedy of
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
show all

Mitigation and Remedy of Groundwater Arsenic Menace in India

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?