Role of pH in green rust preparation and chromate removal from water

Abdullah Al Mamun, Aina Onoguchi, Giuseppe Granata, Chiharu Tokoro

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The removal of hexavalent chromium from water by sustainable methods still presents challenging aspects. Green rust (GR) is a mixed Fe(II)-Fe(III) layer double hydroxide intercalated with anions and water molecules that was recently found capable of immobilizing low concentrations of chromate. Nevertheless, the influence of pH on GR preparation and chromate removal mechanism has not been fully clarified yet. This work elucidated the influence of pH on GR preparation and chromate removal by sulfate-GR. Two types of GR were prepared at two different pH, namely pH 8.75 (GR8.75) and 7.50 (GR7.50), and were used in chromate removal experiments at pH 5 and 9. XRD, XPS and XAFS analysis were carried out to assess the change of phase composition, surface oxidation state and crystal structure. Increasing the preparation pH from 7.50 to 8.75 produced a larger inclusion of SO4 2− and Na+ within the GR interlayer and resulted in a larger crystal lattice and more surface area. GR8.75 was 1.7 times more efficient than GR7.50 and 6.7 times more efficient than ferrihydrite as Fe required to remove 10 mg/L of chromate from water. While removing chromate, GR7.50 released a larger amount of SO4 2− than GR8.75 in spite of a lower initial content. At pH 5, GR8.75 reduced chromate and oxidized mostly to goethite, whereas magnetite was the main oxidation product at pH 9. In contrast, GR7.50 removed chromate and transformed into Cr-intercalated ferrihydrite. XPS results confirmed the larger passivation of GR8.75. All results indicated that GR8.75 removed chromate mainly via surface reduction whilst GR7.50 removed it mostly via replacement of SO4 2− in the interlayer prior to reduction. EXAFS analysis of solid residues highlighted the presence of bidentate mononuclear FeCr2O4-like Cr–Fe bonding as well as Cr2O3-like Cr–O and Cr–O–Cr bonding under all investigated conditions. The increase of Fe–Fe edge sharing and double corner sharing coordination numbers in the final solid product upon chromate removal by GR8.75 suggests a surface-based reaction between GR and chromate. In contrast, for GR7.50 upon chromate removal, the increase of single corner sharing Fe–Fe coordination via oxygen can be resulted from lateral insertion of chromate into GR interlayer.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)205-213
    Number of pages9
    JournalApplied Clay Science
    Volume165
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2018 Dec 1

    Fingerprint

    Chromates
    chromate
    rust disease
    Water
    water
    ferrihydrite
    removal
    X-ray spectroscopy
    X ray photoelectron spectroscopy
    Ferrosoferric Oxide
    oxidation
    removal experiment
    Oxidation
    goethite
    Phase composition
    Passivation
    Crystal lattices
    crystal structure
    Sulfates
    hydroxide

    Keywords

    • Chromate
    • Extended X-ray absorption fine structure
    • Green rust
    • Sulfate replacement
    • Surface passivation

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Geology
    • Geochemistry and Petrology

    Cite this

    Role of pH in green rust preparation and chromate removal from water. / Mamun, Abdullah Al; Onoguchi, Aina; Granata, Giuseppe; Tokoro, Chiharu.

    In: Applied Clay Science, Vol. 165, 01.12.2018, p. 205-213.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Mamun, Abdullah Al ; Onoguchi, Aina ; Granata, Giuseppe ; Tokoro, Chiharu. / Role of pH in green rust preparation and chromate removal from water. In: Applied Clay Science. 2018 ; Vol. 165. pp. 205-213.
    @article{416cd01b23c747dea6d308dcde57bb5f,
    title = "Role of pH in green rust preparation and chromate removal from water",
    abstract = "The removal of hexavalent chromium from water by sustainable methods still presents challenging aspects. Green rust (GR) is a mixed Fe(II)-Fe(III) layer double hydroxide intercalated with anions and water molecules that was recently found capable of immobilizing low concentrations of chromate. Nevertheless, the influence of pH on GR preparation and chromate removal mechanism has not been fully clarified yet. This work elucidated the influence of pH on GR preparation and chromate removal by sulfate-GR. Two types of GR were prepared at two different pH, namely pH 8.75 (GR8.75) and 7.50 (GR7.50), and were used in chromate removal experiments at pH 5 and 9. XRD, XPS and XAFS analysis were carried out to assess the change of phase composition, surface oxidation state and crystal structure. Increasing the preparation pH from 7.50 to 8.75 produced a larger inclusion of SO4 2− and Na+ within the GR interlayer and resulted in a larger crystal lattice and more surface area. GR8.75 was 1.7 times more efficient than GR7.50 and 6.7 times more efficient than ferrihydrite as Fe required to remove 10 mg/L of chromate from water. While removing chromate, GR7.50 released a larger amount of SO4 2− than GR8.75 in spite of a lower initial content. At pH 5, GR8.75 reduced chromate and oxidized mostly to goethite, whereas magnetite was the main oxidation product at pH 9. In contrast, GR7.50 removed chromate and transformed into Cr-intercalated ferrihydrite. XPS results confirmed the larger passivation of GR8.75. All results indicated that GR8.75 removed chromate mainly via surface reduction whilst GR7.50 removed it mostly via replacement of SO4 2− in the interlayer prior to reduction. EXAFS analysis of solid residues highlighted the presence of bidentate mononuclear FeCr2O4-like Cr–Fe bonding as well as Cr2O3-like Cr–O and Cr–O–Cr bonding under all investigated conditions. The increase of Fe–Fe edge sharing and double corner sharing coordination numbers in the final solid product upon chromate removal by GR8.75 suggests a surface-based reaction between GR and chromate. In contrast, for GR7.50 upon chromate removal, the increase of single corner sharing Fe–Fe coordination via oxygen can be resulted from lateral insertion of chromate into GR interlayer.",
    keywords = "Chromate, Extended X-ray absorption fine structure, Green rust, Sulfate replacement, Surface passivation",
    author = "Mamun, {Abdullah Al} and Aina Onoguchi and Giuseppe Granata and Chiharu Tokoro",
    year = "2018",
    month = "12",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.clay.2018.08.022",
    language = "English",
    volume = "165",
    pages = "205--213",
    journal = "Applied Clay Science",
    issn = "0169-1317",
    publisher = "Elsevier BV",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Role of pH in green rust preparation and chromate removal from water

    AU - Mamun, Abdullah Al

    AU - Onoguchi, Aina

    AU - Granata, Giuseppe

    AU - Tokoro, Chiharu

    PY - 2018/12/1

    Y1 - 2018/12/1

    N2 - The removal of hexavalent chromium from water by sustainable methods still presents challenging aspects. Green rust (GR) is a mixed Fe(II)-Fe(III) layer double hydroxide intercalated with anions and water molecules that was recently found capable of immobilizing low concentrations of chromate. Nevertheless, the influence of pH on GR preparation and chromate removal mechanism has not been fully clarified yet. This work elucidated the influence of pH on GR preparation and chromate removal by sulfate-GR. Two types of GR were prepared at two different pH, namely pH 8.75 (GR8.75) and 7.50 (GR7.50), and were used in chromate removal experiments at pH 5 and 9. XRD, XPS and XAFS analysis were carried out to assess the change of phase composition, surface oxidation state and crystal structure. Increasing the preparation pH from 7.50 to 8.75 produced a larger inclusion of SO4 2− and Na+ within the GR interlayer and resulted in a larger crystal lattice and more surface area. GR8.75 was 1.7 times more efficient than GR7.50 and 6.7 times more efficient than ferrihydrite as Fe required to remove 10 mg/L of chromate from water. While removing chromate, GR7.50 released a larger amount of SO4 2− than GR8.75 in spite of a lower initial content. At pH 5, GR8.75 reduced chromate and oxidized mostly to goethite, whereas magnetite was the main oxidation product at pH 9. In contrast, GR7.50 removed chromate and transformed into Cr-intercalated ferrihydrite. XPS results confirmed the larger passivation of GR8.75. All results indicated that GR8.75 removed chromate mainly via surface reduction whilst GR7.50 removed it mostly via replacement of SO4 2− in the interlayer prior to reduction. EXAFS analysis of solid residues highlighted the presence of bidentate mononuclear FeCr2O4-like Cr–Fe bonding as well as Cr2O3-like Cr–O and Cr–O–Cr bonding under all investigated conditions. The increase of Fe–Fe edge sharing and double corner sharing coordination numbers in the final solid product upon chromate removal by GR8.75 suggests a surface-based reaction between GR and chromate. In contrast, for GR7.50 upon chromate removal, the increase of single corner sharing Fe–Fe coordination via oxygen can be resulted from lateral insertion of chromate into GR interlayer.

    AB - The removal of hexavalent chromium from water by sustainable methods still presents challenging aspects. Green rust (GR) is a mixed Fe(II)-Fe(III) layer double hydroxide intercalated with anions and water molecules that was recently found capable of immobilizing low concentrations of chromate. Nevertheless, the influence of pH on GR preparation and chromate removal mechanism has not been fully clarified yet. This work elucidated the influence of pH on GR preparation and chromate removal by sulfate-GR. Two types of GR were prepared at two different pH, namely pH 8.75 (GR8.75) and 7.50 (GR7.50), and were used in chromate removal experiments at pH 5 and 9. XRD, XPS and XAFS analysis were carried out to assess the change of phase composition, surface oxidation state and crystal structure. Increasing the preparation pH from 7.50 to 8.75 produced a larger inclusion of SO4 2− and Na+ within the GR interlayer and resulted in a larger crystal lattice and more surface area. GR8.75 was 1.7 times more efficient than GR7.50 and 6.7 times more efficient than ferrihydrite as Fe required to remove 10 mg/L of chromate from water. While removing chromate, GR7.50 released a larger amount of SO4 2− than GR8.75 in spite of a lower initial content. At pH 5, GR8.75 reduced chromate and oxidized mostly to goethite, whereas magnetite was the main oxidation product at pH 9. In contrast, GR7.50 removed chromate and transformed into Cr-intercalated ferrihydrite. XPS results confirmed the larger passivation of GR8.75. All results indicated that GR8.75 removed chromate mainly via surface reduction whilst GR7.50 removed it mostly via replacement of SO4 2− in the interlayer prior to reduction. EXAFS analysis of solid residues highlighted the presence of bidentate mononuclear FeCr2O4-like Cr–Fe bonding as well as Cr2O3-like Cr–O and Cr–O–Cr bonding under all investigated conditions. The increase of Fe–Fe edge sharing and double corner sharing coordination numbers in the final solid product upon chromate removal by GR8.75 suggests a surface-based reaction between GR and chromate. In contrast, for GR7.50 upon chromate removal, the increase of single corner sharing Fe–Fe coordination via oxygen can be resulted from lateral insertion of chromate into GR interlayer.

    KW - Chromate

    KW - Extended X-ray absorption fine structure

    KW - Green rust

    KW - Sulfate replacement

    KW - Surface passivation

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052311898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052311898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.clay.2018.08.022

    DO - 10.1016/j.clay.2018.08.022

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:85052311898

    VL - 165

    SP - 205

    EP - 213

    JO - Applied Clay Science

    JF - Applied Clay Science

    SN - 0169-1317

    ER -