Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: The Characterization and Implementation of an Enhanced Activated Alumina for the Removal of Dissolved Arsenic at the Point of Entry
EPA Grant Number: SU832480Title: The Characterization and Implementation of an Enhanced Activated Alumina for the Removal of Dissolved Arsenic at the Point of Entry
Investigators: Kney, Arthur D. , Eggleston, Amanda , Baker, Andy , Moore, Christine , Buettner, Kate , Herchenroder, Katie , Vanzler, Lee , Battaglia, Mark , Goodwin, Meghan , Fowler, Samira , Morton, Samuel , Mylon, Steven , Ortolano, Trevor , Escobar, Veronica
Institution: Lafayette College
EPA Project Officer: Page, Angela
Phase: I
Project Period: September 30, 2005 through May 30, 2006
Project Amount: $10,000
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2005) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: P3 Challenge Area - Chemical Safety , Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Awards , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
Arsenic groundwater contamination is a global concern as evidenced by the millions who suffer from arsenic poisoning. The promise of our technology is its low cost and reliability, both of which are required by the many communities worldwide that are currently seeking relief from arsenic-contaminated groundwater in a sustainable manner.
At Lafayette College, faculty and students across disciplines have worked to develop a low-cost and reliable point-of-entry technology to effectively remove forms of inorganic arsenic from groundwater sources of drinking water. The technology is a composite sorbent, iron enhanced activated alumina (IEAA). Unmodified activated alumina has been shown to remove up to 95% of As(V), but it is not an effective As(III) sorbent. IEAA can successfully remove both forms of arsenic to below 10 ppb, the EPA-designated maximum. The work performed in this study is divided into two parts: (1) the optimization of the sustainable manufacture and use of IEAA and (2) the design, construction and implementation of a working small-scale system for removing arsenic from contaminated drinking water for a community of 200 or less. We propose that the implementation of our technology into communities throughout the world would follow a similar model.
Phase 1 – Five primary objectives were identified for the completion of the proposed case study. First, the given material was evaluated in contrast to AA on several levels, including kinetic parameters and surface mechanisms, thus allowing for the production of quantifiable benefits. Within the aspects of design, further studies were conducted to determine the relevant properties of IEAA. Several methods for the implementation of the proposed system were then evaluated, and an economic analysis was conducted to estimate the costs of implementing the system. Finally, to meet the requirements outlined in the Brundtland Commission report (1987), each step was analyzed and modified to create the highest level of environmental stewardship possible.
Phase II - Phase I demonstrates the technical advantages and worldwide versatility of IEAA. Because of the extreme differences in infrastructure, groundwater chemistry and end user profile throughout the world, the final implementation of our system requires a case-by-case examination similar to the our case study in Phase I. Despite its success in TCLP tests, the challenge that remains with IEAA is its safe long-term disposal. In light of this, we propose additional studies beyond standard TCLP tests to understand how typical landfill conditions will affect arsenic-loaded IEAA Results from these and previous studies will provide unambiguous evidence that IEAA is a safe, sustainable, and viable material for arsenic removal in a domestic setting as well as a landfill environment.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The choice of IEAA is based on the following:
- USEPA-approved BAT.
- Design criteria have been developed through detailed laboratory studies.
- IEAA has been engineered to be a cost-effective, environmentally sustainable material.
- A cost effective delivery system has been developed.
- Implementation will be based on a case-by-case approach.
- Developed with an international vision considering good practices based on the idea of responsible environmental stewardship.
Conclusions:
In comparison with the adsorbents approved by the USEPA as BATs for arsenic removal, IEAA was designed as a sustainable material and selected for its high arsenic-loading capacity and rapid arsenic removal kinetics. Additionally, IEAA performed the best on standard TCLP tests.
In the design and implementation of the system, a point-of-entry construction was selected due to its low capital costs, general flexibility, and scalability. Not only is the POE system feasible for a community of 200 homes, but its planned location ensures the elimination of issues dealing with access for implementation and maintenance. The economic analysis conducted demonstrates that this process will cost approximately $136 per home on an annual basis. Overall, the quality of the material, backed up by our comprehensive evaluation, the simplicity of the proposed design, as well as the evaluation of designated policies, allows for its easy implementation into society.
IEAA can be used throughout the world in communities where arsenic contamination remains an important issue. After observing the utilization of other technologies in third world countries such as Bangladesh, we hope to implement the use of IEAA in these countries. Phase I of this study has demonstrated IEAA is an economically viable material for use within the United States. Reasonable extrapolation of its use in communities worldwide has shown that IEAA remains an economically viable choice for arsenic removal. One reason for this is because the design of each system can be modified in a cost-efficient manner in order to meet the needs of the communities that choose to implement IEAA as their primary arsenic removal tool.
However, before IEAA can be employed as an arsenic removing material outside the United States, a rising concern must first be addressed. Despite their performance on standard TCLP tests, recent studies (Delemos et al., 2006) indicate that arsenic-loaded GFH materials will release arsenic into the surrounding leachate when disposed of in non-hazardous landfills due to the highly reducing conditions in these settings. It is currently unknown whether arsenic loaded to IEAA will experience the same fate as that loaded on GFH. Because complicated regulations and carefully engineered landfills exist in the United States, this issue is not cause for extreme concern. However, in locations where the high standards regarding utilization of hazardous products do not exist (many third world countries), it would be irresponsible to implement IEAA without a better understanding of how the material will perform under the highly reducing conditions that exist in landfills.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 3 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
Arsenic, ion exchange, sorption, iron oxide, activated alumina, RFA, Scientific Discipline, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Water, POLLUTANTS/TOXICS, Environmental Chemistry, Arsenic, Environmental Monitoring, Water Pollutants, Environmental Engineering, iron enhanced activated alumina, drinking water, point of use treatment, arsenic removal, remediation, control technologies, point of entryRelevant Websites:
Lafayette College Exit
Arthur D. Kney Exit
Laurie Caslake Exit
Steve Mylon Exit
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.