Acidity, valency and third-ion effects on the precipitation of scorodite from mixed sulfate solutions under atmospheric-pressure conditions
- 304 Downloads
- 36 Citations
Abstract
The present study is focused on the precipitation of scorodite from mixed sulfate media at 95 °C under atmospheric pressure. In particular, this study explores the effects of acidity (pH), valency [Fe(II)/Fe(III), As(III)/As(V)], and solution composition (third cation/anion) on the yield, crystallinity, and stability (leachability) of scorodite precipitates. Thus, it was found that the precipitation of crystalline scorodite can be achieved without stringent pH control once the precipitation has started. Nonetheless, the selection of the initial pH is critical to avoid the formation of an amorphous precipitate. A leachability as low as 0.5 mg/L As at pH 5 and 22 °C (TCLP-like test) is obtained when the initial molar ratio Fe(III):As(V) is increased to 3:1, but the precipitation yield is very low. When Fe(II) is used as excess iron, the precipitate solubility drops to 0.2 mg/L As with a yield exceeding 80 pct in 2.5 hours. The stability of the product is not measurably affected by the presence of Cu2+, Zn2+, Ni2+, Co2+, Mn2+, SO 4 2− , and NO 3 − . The presence of PO 4 3− , however, leads to the formation of crystalline phosphate-containing scorodite precipitates of somewhat reduced stability. In most cases, the TCLP leachability of the precipitate was found to be between 1 and 3 mg/L As, and never exceeded the regulatory limit of 5 mg/L As.
Keywords
Arsenic Material Transaction Arsenic Removal Initial Molar Ratio Ferric ArsenatePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.P.A. Riveros, J.E. Dutrizac, and P. Spencer: Can. Metall. Q., 2001, vol. 40, pp. 395–420.Google Scholar
- 2.Y.F. Jia, G.P. Demopoulos, N. Chen, J.N. Cutler, and D.-T. Jiang: Hydrometallurgy 2003, C.A. Young, A.M. Alfantazi, C.G. Anderson, D.B. Dreisinger, B. Harris, and A. James, eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 2003, pp. 1923–35.Google Scholar
- 3.A.J. Monhemius and P.M. Swash: Hydrometallurg ′94, Chapman and Hall, London, 1994, pp. 177–90.Google Scholar
- 4.G.P. Demopoulos, D.J. Droppert, and G. Van Weert: Impurity Control and Disposal in Hydrometallurgical Processes, CIM, Montreal, 1994, pp. 57–69.Google Scholar
- 5.G.P. Demopoulos, D.J. Droppert, and G. Van Weert: Hydrometallurgy, 1995, vol. 38, pp. 245–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.D.J. Droppert, G.P. Demopoulos, and G.B. Harris: EPD Congr. 1996, G.W. Warren, ed., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1996, pp. 227–39.Google Scholar
- 7.D. Filippou and G.P. Demopoulos: JOM, 1997, vol. 49 (12), pp. 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Q. Wang, G.P. Demopoulos, and G.B. Harris: in Waste Processing and Recycling I, S.R. Rao, L.M. Aamaratunga, G.G. Richards, and P.D. Kondos, eds., CIM, Montreal, 1998, pp. 375–87.Google Scholar
- 9.Q. Wang, G.P. Demopoulos, and G.B. Harris: Minor Elements 2000, C. Young, ed., SME, Littleton, CO, 2000, pp. 225–37.Google Scholar
- 10.R. Debekaussen, D. Droppert, and G.P. Demopoulos: CIM Bull., 2001, vol. 94 (1051), pp. 116–22.Google Scholar
- 11.G.P. Demopoulos, F. Lagno, Q. Wang, and S. Singhania: Copper 2003-Cobre 2003, vol. VI, book 2, Hydrometallurgy of Copper, P.A. Riveros, D. Dixon, D.B. Dreissinger, and J. Menacho, eds., CIM, Montreal, 2003, pp. 597–616.Google Scholar
- 12.S. Singhania, Q. Wang, D. Filippou, and G.P. Demopoulos: Metall Mater. Trans. B, 2005, vol. 36B, pp. 327–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.G.P. Demopoulos: Hydrometallurgy, 2004, in press.Google Scholar
- 14.J.A. Dirksen and T.A. Ring: Chem. Eng. Sc., 1991, vol. 46 (10), pp. 2389–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.R.C. Rouse, P.J. Dunn, and D.R. Peacor: Am. Mineralogist, 1984, vol. 69, pp. 920–97.Google Scholar
- 16.M.J. Gresser, A.S. Tracey, and K.M. Parkinson: J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1986, vol. 108, pp. 6229–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.A.M. Buckley, S.T. Bramwell, and P. Day: Am. Mineralogist, 1990, vol. 75, pp. 1140–46.Google Scholar
- 18.N. Fan and S. Wang: Inorg. Chem., 1996, vol. 35, pp. 4708–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Environmental Protection Agency, “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods; Method 1311: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure,” Document SW-846 (URL: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/1311.pdf), 1992.Google Scholar
- 20.G. Van Weert and D.J. Droppert: JOM, 1994, vol. 46 (6), pp. 36–38.Google Scholar
- 21.D.J. Droppert: Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, 1996.Google Scholar
- 22.R.G. Robins: in Arsenic Metallurgy: Fundamentals and Applications, R.G. Reddy, J.L. Hendrix, and P.B. Queneau, eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1987, pp. 215–47.Google Scholar
- 23.A. Kontopoulos, M. Stefanakis, and N. Papassiopi: Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Hydrometallurgy (ICHM 88), Academic Publishers-Pergamon Press, Beijing, 1988, pp. 345–57.Google Scholar
- 24.A. Kontopoulos, M. Stefanakis, and N. Papassiopi: in Arsenic Metallurgy: Fundamentals and Applications, R.G. Reddy, J.L. Hendrix, and P.B. Queneau, eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1987, pp. 321–36.Google Scholar
- 25.L.G. Twidwell, J. McCloskey, P. Miranda, and M. Gale: Proc., Global Symp. on Recycling, Waste Treatment and Clean Technology—REWAS ′99, I. Gaballah, J. Hager, and R. Solozabal, eds., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1999, pp. 1715–26.Google Scholar
- 26.D. Filippou, V.G. Papangelakis, and G.P. Demopoulos: AIChE J., 1995, vol. 41, pp. 171–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.R.G. Robins: Impurity Control and Disposal (Proc.), CIM Annual Meeting, Aug. 1985, CIM, Vancouver, 1985, pp. 1/1–1/26.Google Scholar