title: Arsenic removal by liquid membranes.
abstract: Water contamination with harmful arsenic compounds represents one of the most serious calamities of the last two centuries. Natural occurrence of the toxic metal has been revealed recently for 21 countries worldwide; the risk of arsenic intoxication is particularly high in Bangladesh and India but recently also Europe is facing similar problem. Liquid membranes (LMs) look like a promising alternative to the existing removal processes, showing numerous advantages in terms of energy consumption, efficiency, selectivity, and operational costs. The development of different LM configurations has been a matter of investigation by several researching groups, especially for the removal of As(III) and As(V) from aqueous solutions. Most of these LM systems are based on the use of phosphine oxides as carriers, when the metal removal is from sulfuric acid media. Particularly promising for water treatment is the hollow fiber supported liquid membrane (HFSLM) configuration, which offers high selectivity, easy transport of the targeted metal ions, large surface area, and non-stop flow process. The choice of organic extractant(s) plays an essential role in the efficiency of the arsenic removal. Emulsion liquid membrane (ELM) systems have not been extensively investigated so far, although encouraging results have started to appear in the literature. For such LM configuration, the most relevant step toward efficiency is the choice of the surfactant type and its concentration.
authors.affiliation: Institute on Membrane Technology, ITM-CNR, Via Pietro Bucci 17/c, 87030, Rende (CS), Italy. t.marino@itm.cnr.it.
authors.forename: Tiziana
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Marino
authors.affiliation: Institute on Membrane Technology, ITM-CNR, Via Pietro Bucci 17/c, 87030, Rende (CS), Italy. a.figoli@itm.cnr.it.
authors.forename: Alberto
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Figoli
references.citation: Ultrason Sonochem. 2008 Apr;15(4):554-63
references.pmid: 17698396
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2013 Jun;92(2):157-70
references.pmid: 23466274
references.citation: J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2014 Mar 06;12(1):58
references.pmid: 24602339
references.citation: Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(9):1093-103
references.pmid: 11019458
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2014 Aug 1;488-489:477-83
references.pmid: 24377677
references.citation: Anal Chim Acta. 2008 Jan 21;607(1):45-9
references.pmid: 18155408
references.citation: Environ Monit Assess. 2014 Dec;186(12):8865-74
references.pmid: 25252794
references.citation: J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2005;40(2):477-91
references.pmid: 15717789
references.citation: Environ Sci Technol. 2004 Feb 1;38(3):886-91
references.pmid: 14968878
references.citation: J Hazard Mater. 2010 Jun 15;178(1-3):130-5
references.pmid: 20122791
references.citation: Ultrason Sonochem. 2013 Jan;20(1):373-7
references.pmid: 22749296
references.citation: Bioresour Technol. 2014 Aug;165:166-73
references.pmid: 24631151
references.citation: J Hazard Mater. 2009 Sep 30;169(1-3):360-9
references.pmid: 19411134