Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Previous Article in Journal
Slag after Smelting of Anode Mud: Role of Sulphiding Sintering
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/min14080782
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Deep Removal of Mercury in Contaminated Acid by Colloidal Agglomeration Materials M201

by
Shuchen Qin
1,
Biwen Yang
1,
Derek O. Northwood
2,
Kristian E. Waters
3 and
Hao Ma
1,*
1
BGRIMM Technology Group, Beijing 100070, China
2
Department of Mechanical, Automotive and Materials Engineering, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
3
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 2B1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2024, 14(8), 782; https://doi.org/10.3390/min14080782 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 26 June 2024 / Revised: 24 July 2024 / Accepted: 28 July 2024 / Published: 31 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The high-temperature roasting/smelting process of copper and zinc concentrates will cause the mercury in the concentrate to evaporate into the flue gas, and most of the mercury in the flue gas will eventually enter the waste acid in its ionic form. A highly efficient mercury removal agent M201 with long carbon chains and loaded active functional groups can adsorb and disperse fine particles for mercury removal in the system. Through bridging, the linear structure is woven into a network to achieve large-scale capture and dispersion of fine particles and colloidal substances. The recommended operating conditions for developing mercury deep purification technology are as follows: M201 reagent concentration of 50 g/L, 6 mL/L added acid solution, room temperature, mixing time of 5 min, air flotation time of 10 min, ventilation rate of 0.1 L/min, H2SO4 concentration of 33.67 g/L, and the residual mercury content of 2 mg/L (the mercury content reaches 0.01 mg/L after two-stage mercury removal treatment). Meanwhile, the residual arsenic content is 21.9 mg/L. This study shows a better separation of arsenic and mercury and achieves one-step mercury removal.

1. Introduction

Non-ferrous metal smelting is one of the main causes of mercury pollution in China. The zinc smelting industry has the highest mercury emissions, followed by lead, gold, and copper smelting industries [1]. Mercury mainly occurs in the smelting/roasting, blowing/leaching, and refining processes, where mercury is mainly concentrated in smelting/roasting process, and it firstly enters the smelting flue gas and then goes into the waste acid through dust removal, wet washing, and acid production processes [2]. During the waste acid treatment process, a large amount of mercury containing acid sludge is generated.
In smelting flue gas, the main forms of mercury are elemental gaseous mercury, active gaseous mercury, and particulate mercury, and they are discussed as follows [3,4,5]. Elemental gaseous mercury (Hg0) accounts for 95% of mercury, with strong inertness and low solubility in water [6]. It will migrate over long distances with the atmosphere and is considered a global mercury pollutant; active gaseous mercury (Hg2+) has strong water solubility and interfacial adsorption ability, with a short residence time in the atmosphere. It settles easily, thus usually causing local pollution [7]. Particulate mercury (HgP) has strong water solubility and interfacial adsorption ability; it also has a short residence time in the atmosphere and settles easily [8]. Thus, most particulate mercury can be captured and removed by flue gas purification devices such as dust collectors and wet scrubbers. The main methods for controlling mercury emissions from non-ferrous metal smelting flue gas include condensation, adsorption, ion exchange, microbiological methods, and absorption [9,10,11]. At present, the absorption method is the most used method, and various absorbents such as mercuric chloride, potassium iodide, potassium permanganate, pyrolusite sulfate, and chlorinated lime have been widely studied [12,13,14,15].
In comparison, mercury exists in three forms in industrial wastewater: the elemental state, colloidal state, and ionic state [16]. The main method for treating mercury containing wastewater in industry is sulfide precipitation [17,18]. The sulfide precipitation method applies the strong affinity between S2− and Hg+/Hg2+ in Na2S under weak alkaline conditions to generate mercury sulfide precipitation with positive low solubility. However, filter presses are commonly used to achieve solid–liquid separation. Due to the presence of colloidal mercury and very fine mercury, they can penetrate the filter cloth and enter the purified liquid. Thus, it is often difficult to meet the wastewater discharge requirement [19]. Colloid aggregation technology has been proposed to solve this issue [20,21,22]. Colloid aggregation technology refers to the adsorption of trace elements (ions) in wastewater to be separated with colloidal particles under certain conditions and the separation of aggregated colloids through physical and chemical means, thereby achieving the separation of target substances from wastewater. Scholars have also conducted in-depth research on this technology for the past few decades. Moriya et al. mixed low-molecular-weight DTC with sodium polysulfide and sodium sulfide in a certain proportion for the treatment of heavy metal wastewater [23]. Ulewicz et al. pointed out that the effect of colloidal agglomeration on removing Cd2+ ions in solution increases with the increase in pH value [24]. Zouboulis et al. studied the use of colloidal agglomeration technology to separate Cr3+ and Cr6+ in wastewater, with a removal rate of over 90% for Cr6+ [25]. Dai et al. found that using air flotation technology to treat electroplating wastewater produces a high removal rate for heavy metal ions (Cd2+, Zn2+, Fe2+, Cu2+, Ni2+), COD, and petroleum [26]. In industrial applications, Japan has successfully applied air flotation technology to the purification of smelting wastewater and the recovery of valuable metals such as copper and cadmium [27].
In 2016, the BGRIMM Technology Group proposed a high-efficiency deep mercury removal technology, and developed the colloidal coalescence reagent M201. M201 is a highmolecularweight polymer that adsorbs particles in the dispersion system through active functional groups on long carbon chains. Through bridging, linear structured polymers are connected, forming flocs that continue to grow and ultimately accelerate the settling rate of particles. In general, low levels of mercury in the solution can only be solidified and then removed, making it difficult to recycle and reuse. This study achieved the removal and enrichment of mercury by adding an exclusive reagent M201, representing a new method for industrial removal of low-concentration mercury. Mercury is a Group II element that can form strong covalent bonds with some ions, such as stable complexes with various substances such as Cl, I, Br, hydroxyl, cyanide, thiol, etc. M201 coalescing agent has properties like sulfides and sulfur-based compounds, and can also form stable substances with mercury. Its reaction is based on the principle of “soft affinity” and “hard affinity” in the reaction process for binding adsorption. Chemical adsorption occurs in the solid-liquid phase, and the adsorption mechanism is the exchange reaction of complex ions. The basic reaction is as follows: 2[R − SH] + Hg2+ = [R-S]2Hg + 2H+. A schematic showing the removal of mercury by M201 is shown in Figure 1.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Analysis

The acid solution containing mercury was received from Danxia Smelter of Zhongjin Lingnan Nonferrous Metals Co., Ltd. Metal content analysis was performed using an inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES, 700-ES, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA)). Polluted acid is generated during the lead–zinc smelting process, mainly as a solution in the flue gas purification cycle washing process. Its pH is 0.44, and the chemical composition of the acid is given in Table 1. The phase composition of the residue was investigated by X-ray diffractometer (XRD, D/max-Ultima IV, Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan). M201 was developed by BGRIMM Technology Group (Beijing, China), and it is a type of macromolecular polymer with a maximum water solubility of 734 g/L.
The acid is white-gray and turbid, with a pungent odor of sulfur dioxide. After long-term storage, the turbid substance will settle at the bottom of the beaker. In this test, sampling is performed after shaking the solution well and mixing thoroughly.

2.2. Mercury Removal Process

Briefly, 50 g M201 was dissolved into 1 L deionized water to reach a concentration of 50 g/L. Two steps were involved in the process: (1) 250 mL of polluted acid solution was placed in a beaker with a certain amount of M201 reagent added and then mixed evenly; (2) the solution was poured into the air flotation column and air was blown into the column at a certain flow rate. At the end of the test, the aqueous solution from the lower outlet was released to form the mercury removal solution. Figure 2 shows the air flotation apparatus. The column had a height of 400 mm and a diameter of 55 mm, and 800 mL of acid was placed in the column for testing.
The metal ion removal percentage was calculated using Equation 1:
x = W B W B + W C × 100 %
where x is the removal percentage in %, WB is the mass of the metal element in the solution in grams (g), and WC is the mass of the metal element in the residue in grams (g).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Mercury Removal Test

During the test, the effects of operating parameters for the first stage (including M201 addition, temperature, mixing time, and acidity) and for the second stage (including air blowing time and air flow) on mercury removal efficiency were investigated. The mixing stirring speed for the first stage was kept at 350 rpm. Three replicates were required for each experiment. It should be noted that there was a certain amount of arsenic in the solution; thus, the removal of arsenic by M201 was also taken into consideration.

3.1.1. Effect of M201 Addition

The test conditions are listed as follows: temperature: room temperature (20 °C), mixing time: 10 min, air blowing time: 10 min, air flow: 0.1 L/min, acidity: 33 g/L. The test results are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 shows that Hg concentration declined drastically when the addition of M201 changed from 0.8 mL/L to 6 mL/L, and it changed from 134 mg/L to 2.1 mg/L and barely changed with greater M201 addition, meaning that the interaction between M201 and Hg was very effective. Thus, 6 mL/L of M201 should be enough for forming surface active substances with Hg. However, the As content decreased slightly with the increase in M201 addition, meaning M201 was selective between Hg and As, and the reaction between M201 and As was relatively slow. The interaction between M201 and As only had a certain effect after high M201 addition. Figure 4 shows the status of the acid solution before and after M201 addition.
It can be seen that after adding reagent M201, M201 reacted with metal ions in the solution, forming a brown flocculent precipitate immediately. After stirring was stopped, the flocculent precipitate settled at the bottom of the beaker and then was poured into the air flotation column. With air bubbles blowing into the solution, it quickly aggregated and floated to the top of the solution. The whole process can be seen in Figure 5.

3.1.2. Effect of Mixing Temperature

The test conditions were as follows: M201 addition: 6 mL/L, mixing time: 10 min, air blowing time: 10 min, air flow: 0.1 L/min, acidity: 33 g/L. The results are shown in Figure 6.
The test results showed that the mixing temperature had a significant impact on the removal of mercury and arsenic. At room temperature of 20 °C, the removal rate of mercury and arsenic was the highest. When the temperature was raised to 70 °C, the removal rate of mercury and arsenic was much lower. This is because raising the temperature will affect the performance of M201. When the temperature is too high, the reagent will decompose, thereby reducing the aggregation performance and ultimately affecting the removal rate of mercury and arsenic. Therefore, room temperature was preferred for future tests.

3.1.3. Effect of Mixing Time

The mixing time of M201 with acid can affect the metal removal. Although prolonging the mixing time can improve the reaction time, stirring during the mixing process will break the formed aggregates, which is not conducive to the removal of mercury and arsenic. Therefore, the effect of mixing time on the removal of mercury and arsenic was investigated. The mixing times were 1, 2, 5, 15, 20, and 30 min, respectively. The test conditions were as follows: M201 addition: 6 mL/L, temperature: room temperature, air blowing time: 10 min, air flow: 0.1 L/min, acidity: 33 g/L. The results are shown in Figure 7.
It can be seen that the mixing time has a significant impact on mercury removal, not on arsenic. Prolonging the mixing time increases the residual mercury content; this is because M201 mixes quickly with mercury, and this can be completed in a short period of time. Continuing to extend the mixing time, under the action of stirring, the polymer is broken and dispersed in the solution, resulting in an increase in mercury content. Thus, as long as the mixing is completed and air flotation separation is carried out in a timely manner, it is beneficial for the removal of mercury. The mixing time was thus set at 5 min.

3.1.4. Effect of H2SO4 Concentration

The acidity of wastewater produced by different production processes varies. In order to investigate the impact of acidity on mercury removal, experiments were conducted under different acidity conditions, with acidity levels of 33 g/L, 46 g/L, 108 g/L, 137 g/L, and 140 g/L. The test conditions were as follows: M201 addition: 6 mL/L, temperature: room temperature, mixing time: 5 min, air blowing time: 10 min, air flow: 0.1 L/min. The results are shown in Figure 8.
It can be seen from the test results that acidity has a significant impact on the removal of mercury and arsenic. After adding M201 reagent to the acid solution, mercury can be reduced to 2.1 mg/L. An increase in acidity reduces the mercury removal rate; For arsenic, the addition of reagent M201 can reduce the arsenic content to 11 mg/L. Here, the original H2SO4 concentration of 33 g/L was used for future tests.

3.1.5. Effect of Air Blowing Time

M201 can polymerize with colloidal mercury and float upwards during the air blowing process, enabling the removal of mercury and arsenic. The test conditions were set as follows: M201 addition: 6 mL/L, temperature: room temperature, mixing time: 5 min, air flow: 0.1 L/min, acidity: 33 g/L. The air blowing time were set at 1 min, 5 min, 10 min, 20 min and 30 min. The results are shown in Figure 9.
It can be seen that as the air flotation time increases, the residual mercury and arsenic content generally shows a slight downward trend, indicating that the air flotation time has a positive impact on the removal of mercury and arsenic. Prolonged air flotation time can stabilize the polymer at the top of the solution, which is beneficial for the removal process. Therefore, the preferred air blowing time was 10 min.

3.1.6. Effect of Air Flow Rate

The small bubbles introduced into the air can cause the colloid to agglomerate, and the air flow rate will affect the aggregation state, thereby affecting the mercury and arsenic removal effect. The air flow rates were set at 0.1 L/min, 0.2 L/min, 0.3 L/min, 0.4 L/min and 0.6 L/min, respectively. The test conditions were as follows: M201 addition: 6 mL/L, temperature: room temperature, mixing time: 5 min, air blowing time: 10 min, acidity: 33 g/L. The results are shown in Figure 10.
It can be seen that the air flow rate does not have a significant impact on the removal of mercury and arsenic, but a high flow will reduce the removal effect. Once the air force exceeds the force range of colloidal aggregation, it will cause the formed aggregates to be dispersed and re-dispersed in the solution. In the experiment, we observed that an increase in gas flow will significantly increase the polymer’s floating speed. In a short period of time, the polymer will float on the surface, but severe disturbance of bubbles will cause some of the polymer to break, sink, and float again. Thus, the preferred ventilation speed was 0.1 L/min
Based on the tests above, the suggested operating conditions are listed as follows: M201 addition: 6 mL/L, temperature: room temperature, mixing time: 5 min, air blowing time: 10 min, air flow: 0.1 L/min, acidity: 33 g/L. 2.1 mg/L Hg and 21.9 mg/L As. Because some mercury remained in the solution, in order to reach the discharge standard of mercury in water in China (0.03 mg/L), the solution was treated under the same conditions. A second mercury removal led to only 0.01 mg/L Hg and 19.8 mg/L As in the solution.
In order to investigate the flow of F− and Cl- during the mercury removal process, some samples were selected to analyze of the content of F− and Cl− in the solution. The results are presented in Table 2:
From the table above, it can be seen that there was not much change in the F− and Cl− content in the solution before and after mercury removal. The F− content was basically maintained at around 2 g/L, while the Cl− content was maintained at around 1.6–1.7 g/L. Reagent M201 does not contain F and Cl elements and will not affect the flow of F− and Cl−.
It should be noted the removal test results are listed in Appendix A; the effect of the operating parameters on Hg and Aa removal was analyzed through correlation analysis and regression analysis, and the results are listed in Appendix B.

3.2. Continuous Test

Continuous testing equipment was built in order to validate the operating parameters obtained above. The main equipment includes the following: M201 preparation tank (10 L), M201 delivery pump, waste acid storage tank (0.1 m3), waste acid delivery pump, mixing tank (0.1 m3), middle tank (0.3 m3), air flotation column (10 L), and liquid storage tank (0.3 m3). M201 reagent of concentration 50 g/L, M201 was pumped from the preparation tank to mix with the waste acid that was pumped from the acid storage tank (the ratio of M201 to acid was 6 mL/L, and the mixing time was 5 min), and then the mixture was transferred to the middle tank and then to the flotation column. Air was blown into the column with an air blowing time of 10 min and air flow of 0.1 L/min. The residue was collected and the solution was stored in the solution storage tank prior to further treatment. The parameters of this equipment were chosen to achieve a polluted-acid-processing capacity of 50–60 L/h. The test flowsheet is shown in Figure 11.
The test ran continuously for 12 h; inlet and outlet water samples were taken every 20 min, and the residues were collected for analysis. The residues were brown, with a soft texture and a moisture content of about 26%. The residues were dried prior to analysis. The main elemental composition of the residue is shown in Table 3, and the main remaining elements are Cl, O and P.
An X-ray diffraction pattern of the residue is shown in Figure 12:
Based on the XRD analysis results of mercury residues, it can be concluded that the residue mainly contains calomel, substances generated by M201, and mercury compound. More than 99.99% of M201 will combine with mercury and zinc, forming the precipitate, with a very small residual amount of only about 0.1 mg/L in the solution. Moreover, M201 is easily decomposed and automatically decomposes and evaporates in the electro-deposition system without affecting the system.
For the recovery and utilization of the mercury residue, one should consider heating the mercury residue to 580–700 °C using an electric furnace; mercury can be recovered from the generated mercury-containing vapor through a cooling device, and then it can be purified using activated carbon, sodium hypochlorite, potassium dichromate, and sodium polysulfide; Once the smelting slag cools down, chemical composition analysis and leaching toxicity identification can be carried out prior to further treatment.

4. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be made through this study:
  • In the process, the dosage of reagent M201 is the key factor influencing mercury removal, and an increase in dosage can significantly improve Hg removal. However, an increase in temperature will reduce mercury removal, so it is advisable to use it at room temperature.
  • Under the recommended process conditions, the residual mercury content was 2 mg/L (the mercury content after two-stage mercury removal treatment reached 0.01 mg/L). This brought about a better separation of arsenic and mercury, achieving one-step mercury removal. Mercury in the residue was well enriched, with a content of 41.20%, and could be used as a raw material for recovering mercury elements.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Q.; methodology, S.Q. and B.Y.; software, S.Q.; validation, D.O.N., B.Y. and S.Q.; formal analysis, H.M.; investigation, S.Q.; resources, K.E.W.; data curation, S.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Q. and H.M.; writing—review and editing, D.O.N., K.E.W. and H.M.; visualization, K.E.W.; supervision, H.M.; project administration, B.Y.; funding acquisition, H.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request due to internal policy.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge support from Senior Foreign Expert Program (G2023074002L) of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China. We thank Jiangshun Lin for providing the M201 sample.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

TermM201 (ml/L)Temperature (°C)Mixing Time (min)H2SO4 Concentration (g/L)Air blow Time (min)Air Flow Rate (L/min)Removal %
HgAs
M201 (ml/L)0.8201033.67100.171.4911.75
499.4523.97
699.5531.56
899.3924.91
1098.2617.78
4098.6320.34
5098.5748.75
6099.5470.75
Temperature (°C)6201033.67100.199.5531.56
3098.1518.28
4097.4727.13
5097.3814.84
6098.6320.34
7094.0211.31
Mixing time (min)620133.67100.198.019.84
297.8415.47
595.9817.5
1593.1615.94
2094.1416.41
3092.0717.34
H2SO4 Concentration (g/L)620533.67100.199.5531.56
46.5392.3859.38
108.1190.560.34
137.4391.7662.22
140.2386.2365.03
Air blow time (min)620533.6710.192.7431.84
588.0236.53
1095.236.72
2094.9242.59
3093.1346.59
air flow rate (L/min)620533.67100.199.5531.56
0.295.8947.81
0.395.8647.53
0.495.6352.09
0.695.1154.28

Appendix B

  • For correlation analysis:
Key observations from the correlation matrix:
M201 (ml/L): Positive correlation with Removal % Hg (0.28) and Removal % As (0.30).
Temperature (°C): Negative correlation with Removal % As (−0.34).
Mixing time (min): Negative correlation with Removal % As (−0.36).
H2SO4 concentration (g/L): Positive correlation with Removal % As (0.53). Negative correlation with Removal % Hg (−0.34).
Air flow rate (L/min): Positive correlation with Removal % As (0.33).
These correlations indicate potential relationships between the variables and the removal percentages of Hg and As.
2.
Regression analysis of Removal % Hg
The regression analysis of Removal % Hg resulted in the following key statistics:
R-squared: 0.204 (20.4% of the variance in Removal % Hg is explained by the independent variables)
Adjusted R-squared: 0.033
F-statistic: 1.193 (p-value: 0.339, not significant at the 0.05 level)
Coefficients:
Intercept: 96.24 (p-value: 0.000)
M201 (ml/L): 0.116 (p-value: 0.119)
Temperature (°C): 0.054 (p-value: 0.496)
Mixing time (min): −0.139 (p-value: 0.443)
H2SO4 concentration (g/L): −0.063 (p-value: 0.078)
Air blow time (min): 0.018 (p-value: 0.935)
Air flow rate (L/min): 0.203 (p-value: 0.983)
The regression model indicates that none of the independent variables significantly predict Removal % Hg at the 0.05 significance level.
3.
Regression analysis for Removal % As
The regression analysis for Removal % As resulted in the following key statistics:
R-squared: 0.679 (67.9% of the variance in Removal % As is explained by the independent variables)
Adjusted R-squared: 0.610
F-statistic: 9.858 (p-value: 7.36 × 10−6, significant at the 0.05 level)
Coefficients:
Intercept: 8.79 (p-value: 0.371)
M201 (ml/L): 0.539 (p-value: 0.001, significant)
Temperature (°C): −0.246 (p-value: 0.143)
Mixing time (min): −0.643 (p-value: 0.098)
H2SO4 concentration (g/L): 0.357 (p-value: 0.000, significant)
Air blowing time (min): 0.694 (p-value: 0.138)
Air flow rate (L/min): 63.827 (p-value: 0.003, significant)
The regression model indicates that M201 (ml/L), H2SO4 concentration (g/L), and air flow rate (L/min) are significant predictors of Removal % As.

References

  1. Wu, Q.; Wang, S.; Hui, M.; Wang, F.; Zhang, L.; Duan, L.; Luo, Y. New insight into atmospheric mercury emissions from zinc smelters using mass flow analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 3532–3539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wu, Q.R.; Wang, S.X.; Zhang, L.; Song, J.X.; Yang, H.; Meng, Y. Update of mercury emissions from China’s primary zinc, lead and copper smelters, 2000–2010. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2012, 12, 11153–11163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liao, Y.; Liu, W.; Xu, H.; Hong, Q.; Wang, Y.; Qu, Z.; Yan, N. Zinc concentrate internal circulation technology for elemental mercury recovery from zinc smelting flue gas. Fuel 2020, 280, 118566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zheng, N.; Liu, J.; Wang, Q.; Liang, Z. Mercury contamination due to zinc smelting and chlor-alkali production in NE China. Appl. Geochem. 2011, 26, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cao, S.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wu, Q. Impacts of removal compensation effect on the mercury emission inventories for nonferrous metal (zinc, lead, and copper) smelting in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 2163–2171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Xie, X.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, Z.; Wu, J.; Li, Z.; Zhong, S.; Liu, H.; Xu, Z.; Zhilou, L. In-situ preparation of zinc sulfide adsorbent using local materials for elemental mercury immobilization and recovery from zinc smelting flue gas. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 429, 132115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, J.; Wang, T.; Yan, B.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Pan, W.P. Molecular-level insights into efficient immobilization of gas-phase elemental mercury by zinc selenide. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 537, 147913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, G.; Feng, X.; Li, Z.; Qiu, G.; Shang, L.; Liang, P.; Wang, D.; Yang, Y. Mercury emission to atmosphere from primary Zn production in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 4607–4612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Košak, A.; Lobnik, A.; Bauman, M. dsorption of mercury (II), lead (II), cadmium (II) and zinc (II) from aqueous solutions using mercapto-modified silica particles. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2015, 12, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mattigod, S.; Fryxell, G.; Parker, K. A thiol-functionalized nanoporous silica sorbent for removal of mercury from actual industrial waste. Environ. Appl. Nanomater. Synth. Sorbents Sens. 2007, 275, 359–367. [Google Scholar]
  11. Wang, J.; Feng, X.; Anderson, C.W.; Xing, Y.; Shang, L. Remediation of mercury contaminated sites—A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 221, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Feng, Q.; Li, A.J.; An, Y.F.; Zhang, B.; Zhao, Y.Q. Research development on separation and extraction of selenium and mercury. Solid State Phenom. 2022, 330, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, X.Q.; Wang, P.; Ning, P.; Ma, Y.X.; Wang, F.; Guo, X.L.; Lan, Y. Adsorption of gaseous elemental mercury with activated carbon impregnated with ferric chloride. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 24899–24907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Al-Eryani, D.A.; Ahmad, W.; Mohammad, G.I.; Ali Zainy, F.M.; Alwael, H.; Bahaffi, S.O.; El-Shahawi, M.S. An ultrasensitive detection platform for mercury ions speciation in water using procaine hydrochloride ion pair coupled extractive spectrofluorimetry. J. Fluoresc. 2019, 29, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kolopajlo, L. Analytical Methodologies for Arsenic, Selenium, and Mercury: A Historical Perspective. In Elements Old and New: Discoveries Developments, Challenges, and Environmental Implications; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 141–172. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wang, Q.; Qin, W.; Chai, L.; Li, Q. Understanding the formation of colloidal mercury in acidic wastewater with high concentration of chloride ions by electrocapillary curves. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 3866–3872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Deonarine, A.; Hsu-Kim, H. Precipitation of mercuric sulfide nanoparticles in NOM-containing water: Implications for the natural environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 2368–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Q.; Liu, T.; Deng, P. Recovery of mercury and lead from wastewater by sulfide precipitation-flotation. In Characterization of Minerals Metals and Materials; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 667–674. [Google Scholar]
  19. Piao, H.; Bishop, P.L. Stabilization of mercury-containing wastes using sulfide. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 139, 498–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gondikas, A.P.; Jang, E.K.; Hsu-Kim, H. Influence of amino acids cysteine and serine on aggregation kinetics of zinc and mercury sulfide colloids. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2010, 347, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, X.; Zhang, D.; Qian, H.; Liang, Y.; Pan, X.; Gadd, G.M. Interactions between biogenic selenium nanoparticles and goethite colloids and consequence for remediation of elemental mercury contaminated groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613, 672–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bao, T.; Wang, P.; Hu, B.; Jin, Q.; Zheng, T.; Li, D. Adsorption and distribution of heavy metals in aquatic environments: The role of colloids and effects of environmental factors. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 474, 134725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Masuda, T.; Yamamoto, S.I.; Moriya, O.; Kashio, M.; Sugizaki, T. Preparation of amphiphilic polysilsesquioxane by grafting of block copolymer of acrylamide monomers. Polym. J. 2007, 39, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kalak, T.; Cierpiszewski, R.; Ulewicz, M. High efficiency of the removal process of Pb (II) and Cu (II) ions with the use of fly ash from incineration of sunflower and wood waste using the CFBC technology. Energies 2021, 14, 1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zouboulis, A.I.; Moussas, P.A. Polyferric silicate sulphate (PFSiS): Preparation, characterisation and coagulation behaviour. Desalination 2008, 224, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, S.; Dai, M.; Wu, Y.; Fu, H.; Hou, X.; Peng, C.; Luo, H. Resource utilization of electroplating wastewater: Obstacles and solutions. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2022, 8, 484–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nakashima, S.; Yagi, M. Determination of nanogram amounts of cadmium in water by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry after flotation separation. Anal. Chim. Acta 1983, 147, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 14 00782 g001
Figure 1. The process of mercury removal by M201.
Figure 1. The process of mercury removal by M201.
Minerals 14 00782 g001
Minerals 14 00782 g002
Figure 2. Test apparatus: (a) during ventilation, the air bubbles were evenly dispersed; (b) air bubbles disappeared when air blowing stopped.
Figure 2. Test apparatus: (a) during ventilation, the air bubbles were evenly dispersed; (b) air bubbles disappeared when air blowing stopped.
Minerals 14 00782 g002
Minerals 14 00782 g003
Figure 3. Effect of M201 addition on mercury removal.
Figure 3. Effect of M201 addition on mercury removal.
Minerals 14 00782 g003
Minerals 14 00782 g004
Figure 4. The condition of acid solution (a) before and (b) after M201 addition.
Figure 4. The condition of acid solution (a) before and (b) after M201 addition.
Minerals 14 00782 g004
Minerals 14 00782 g005
Figure 5. Changes in acid solution during air blowing process.
Figure 5. Changes in acid solution during air blowing process.
Minerals 14 00782 g005
Minerals 14 00782 g006
Figure 6. Effect of temperature on mercury removal.
Figure 6. Effect of temperature on mercury removal.
Minerals 14 00782 g006
Minerals 14 00782 g007
Figure 7. Effect of mixing time on metal removal.
Figure 7. Effect of mixing time on metal removal.
Minerals 14 00782 g007
Minerals 14 00782 g008
Figure 8. Effect of acidity on metal removal.
Figure 8. Effect of acidity on metal removal.
Minerals 14 00782 g008
Minerals 14 00782 g009
Figure 9. The effect of air blowing time on metal removal.
Figure 9. The effect of air blowing time on metal removal.
Minerals 14 00782 g009
Minerals 14 00782 g010
Figure 10. The effect of air flow rate on metal removal.
Figure 10. The effect of air flow rate on metal removal.
Minerals 14 00782 g010
Minerals 14 00782 g011
Figure 11. Continuous test flowsheet.
Figure 11. Continuous test flowsheet.
Minerals 14 00782 g011
Minerals 14 00782 g012
Figure 12. XRD pattern of the residue.
Figure 12. XRD pattern of the residue.
Minerals 14 00782 g012
Table 1. Chemical composition of the solution (g/L).
Table 1. Chemical composition of the solution (g/L).
ElementZnPbCdCuCrAsHgFClH2SO4
Concentration3.487.716.839.32.80.0320.472.111.6833.67
Table 2. The content of F− and Cl− in solution (g/L).
Table 2. The content of F− and Cl− in solution (g/L).
Solution No.F−Cl−
Hg-raw2.111.68
Hg-filtrate2.041.62
Hg-22.681.95
Hg-32.391.74
Hg-42.601.64
Hg-52.811.72
Hg-62.541.86
Table 3. Chemical composition of main elements in the residue.
Table 3. Chemical composition of main elements in the residue.
ElementAlBaCaCuFePbSrZnHgAs
Content (wt.%)0.490.20.060.710.262.640.171.6441.20.028
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qin, S.; Yang, B.; Northwood, D.O.; Waters, K.E.; Ma, H. The Deep Removal of Mercury in Contaminated Acid by Colloidal Agglomeration Materials M201. Minerals 2024, 14, 782. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14080782

AMA Style

Qin S, Yang B, Northwood DO, Waters KE, Ma H. The Deep Removal of Mercury in Contaminated Acid by Colloidal Agglomeration Materials M201. Minerals. 2024; 14(8):782. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14080782

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qin, Shuchen, Biwen Yang, Derek O. Northwood, Kristian E. Waters, and Hao Ma. 2024. "The Deep Removal of Mercury in Contaminated Acid by Colloidal Agglomeration Materials M201" Minerals 14, no. 8: 782. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14080782

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop