Patent Application
20210113941
“Flocculation, in the field of chemistry is a process in which colloids come out of suspension in the form of floc or flake, either spontaneously or due to the addition of a clarifying agent. The action differs from precipitation in that, prior to flocculation, colloids are merely suspended in a liquid and not actually dissolved in a solution. In the flocculated system, there is no formation of a cake, since all the flocs are in the suspension. Coagulation and flocculation are important processes in water treatment” (or other filtering of fluids) “with coagulation to destabilize particles through chemical reaction between coagulant and colloids, and flocculation to transport the destabilized particles that will cause collisions with floc” (Wikipedia.org: 2019-09).
The filtering for fluid, including liquid and gas, is extremely important for multiple reasons, including, e.g., for recycling, environmental cleaning, toxic removal, drinking water, allergy reduction, gathering precious material, filtering specific material, semiconductor processing and production, purification, medical reasons, medical supplies, laboratory work, experimental parameter control, and standardization. One aspect of filtering is removal of particles or substances from the fluid, such as from water or air.
In Adsorption, the process creates a film of the adsorbate on the surface of the adsorbent (e.g., see Wikipedia), e.g. sticking to the outside surface of filtration media. This process differs from Absorption, in which a fluid is dissolved by or permeates a liquid or solid, respectively, e.g., sticking in the porous internal surface inside filtration media that has a sponge-like architecture.
If one can use both mechanisms above concurrently, the result is more efficient, more complete, and faster. If a metal or oxide filtration media is nano-porous, it can internally absorb. If we increase the surface area of smaller particles (especially those with a chemical affinity for the pollutants targeted for remediation,) it increases remediation speed and capacity. So, when absorption+adsorption occur concurrently, all effects/benefits/advantages are enabled in our solution, as described below.
In our related patent application, previously, Ser. No. 14/102,420, titled Filtration Device and Method, now as U.S. Pat. No. 9,504,954, Rolf et al., previously issued in November 2016, we have discussed a sorbent air filtration device. All of the teaching in that application is incorporated herein by reference.
The focus of our 1st patent above was a filtration device, using a single+unique sorbent. The focus of our 2nd patent, here, is improved water remediation by:
There are many clarifying agents, including iron based salts and anhydrous compounds, but we are the first using Iron Oxide in the manner/system described below, with its many advantages over the prior art, as shown below.
For example, see the article by C. Caterina Borghi, Massimo Fabbri, Maurizio Fiorini, Maurizio Mancini, and Pier Luigi Ribani, titled Magnetic Removal Of Surfactants From Wastewater Using Micrometric Iron Oxide Powders, in Separation and Purification Technology, Volume 83, 15 Nov. 2011, Pages 180-188, in which magnetism is used to remove the impurities, with the abstract shown below:
The aim of Borghi (et al)'s paper “is the study of a sustainable process for the treatment of urban wastewater able to reduce surfactant concentrations close to the back-ground levels or, at least, lower than the values allowed by law for a reuse in agriculture. The considered process is based on the adsorption of surfactants (water diluted) on commercial iron oxide powders and their removal in a magnetic filtration system. The powders of hematite and magnetite used have a diameter of 0.5, 1 and 5 μm, respectively; they are non-toxic for humans and the environment and they have a relatively low cost. The removal of surfactants on a laboratory scale at concentrations in the wastewater range (0.2-4.2 mg/l) was studied applying the treatment on pure surfactants, mixtures of pure surfactants and detergents. With regard to the adsorption on magnetite, despite the large quantity of powder required (17-51 g/l), the tests led to positive results for cationic surfactants (up to 90% of removal) and relatively good for the anionic (up to 20%) and non-ionic ones (up to 40%). Adsorption on hematite has shown encouraging results with regard to all surfactants (from 50% to higher than 90% of removal) with a much lower amount of powder required (1-17 g/l). In all cases the adsorption took 10 min and the magnetic separation of the iron oxides was fully achieved after 10 min of filtration.”
Thus, Borghi (et al)'s method is different from our method, as iron oxide is non-magnetic, so we do not use the magnetic means for the filtering process. Therefore, our method is different from the prior art, as shown below.
Other flocculation chemicals used in industry are different from ours, i.e., using Fe2O3. Thus, our method is different from the prior art, as shown below.
In one embodiment, we describe a method and system that uses iron oxide for cleaning or clearing the fluid, e.g., water. For example, we are using Fe2O3, e.g., nano-porous, which has greater surface area and hence is more absorbent.
In Appendix 1, we have shown the details of experiments on our material as to what it can do, with the specific properties/performances. The lab report is done by PTL/Particle Technology Labs (Downers Grove, Ill.), for Engineered Data LLC, to get the key parameters and advantages, over the prior art/others in the industry. For example, on page 2 of the report of Appendix 1, we have “BET Specific Surface Area”, as one parameter, which is the surface area calculated on the BET model, normalized by the sample mass. For example, on page 3, we have: BET surface area as: about 246 m2/g.
In general, for a given mass/amount of an object, the higher the surface area, or the higher total or effective cross section, the higher the chance to capture the impurities/particles, or more capture rate of impurities, or more efficiency or faster capture, or better filtering or cleaning, or more compact or smaller footprint, or more desirable system for filtering/material, or cleaner fluid at the end.
For example, for other methods, for the same unit, for comparison, we have 40-60 range (m/g), which is about 4-6 times lower value than ours, i.e., 4-6 times lower/worse than our performance. So, ours is much better/more superior than that of prior art/others in industry, by a factor of at least 4×.
In one embodiment of the invention, we have a better material/system for cleaning/filtering the fluid/water, to get the particles/materials out of the fluid. In water filtration, larger particles are generally easier+cheaper to remediate than smaller particles. Hence dissolved toxins are the hardest+costliest to remediate. Our invention remediates dissolved toxins in large quantities at fast speeds.
Appendix 1 describes/explains the following: Fe2O3 on page 1, in-situ vacuum degassing conditions on page 1, absorbate gas on page 1, total volume (cm3/g) on page 1, pore size range (nm) on page 1, total area (m2/g) (which is a very important parameter (the higher, the better for us)) on page 1, pore volume on page 1, and pore area on page 1.
Appendix 1 describes/explains the following, for our embodiments/systems/methods:
Therefore, in Appendix 1, we have proven our superiority/advantages with respect to the current technology/techniques, e.g., in terms of effective concurrent internal+external surface area, being large, to capture more impurities, for a given volume or weight/mass. Nano porous iron oxide is non-stoichiometric and exhibits superior atom economy over existing filtrates used in water treatment.
Now, let's consider the following situation, which we have:
High surface area materials are traditionally associate with nano-powders. Nano-powders are not suited for water filtration, because once they are introduced into water being treated for pollution, they are logistically impossible to completely remove, inevitably dissolving back into polluted water, leaving polluted water in a worse condition than it previously was. Our nano porous iron oxide particles are approximately 1000× larger than nano-powders, and can be removed from water being treated for pollution either via gravity settling or membrane separation processes.
In general, desorption occurs when adsorbed and absorbed materials gradually leach back into the fluid/water again. This desorption process slowly begins after approximately 2 hours detention time, leading to 100% desorption in as little as 24 hours.
In one example, we have a container with about 10 ml of water containing phosphate, mixed with nano porous iron oxide in a tank, for gravity settling, where the top water is wired off, and particles at the bottom stays there, i.e., filtered out, without any agitation, leaving the bottom material to be taken out later, as filtered material.
In one example, we have nano-porous iron oxide, or NIO, as our material.
One difference with prior art is that their particles are in the diameter range of 0.5, or 1, to 5 microns, whereas ours is between 2.5 to 90 microns. So, ours are much larger in average, and in the range, with much larger upper end/sizes.
The toxin concentrations that they are claiming removing, e.g., for Borghi et al., mentioned above, are from 0.2 to 4.2 mg/L. The toxin concentrations our NIO/technology removes are over 6 times greater than that of Borghi's method (up to 27.5 mg/L), and this could be even higher (as the max concentration level our Refractometer could measure is just 30 mg/L). So, ours is much more efficient in removing the toxins.
Their powder dosage quantities are “large” (Range of 17-51 g/L). NIO dosage is 6 g/L (for ours). So, dramatically less NIO is required to achieve superior remediation performance.
Our NIO is nano-porous with concurrent micropores (pores sized under 2 nm)+mesopores (pores sized between 2-50 nm) porosity, as described above. Their particles are solid. So, there is a huge difference here in particle physical architecture.
So, ours is superior to theirs, e.g., Borghi et al., mentioned above, and is very different from theirs/prior art.
Please note that, e.g., according to Wikipedia, generally, particles finer than 0.1 μm (10−7 m) in water remains continuously in motion, due to electrostatic charge (often negative), which causes them to repel each other. Once their electrostatic charge is neutralized by the use of a coagulant chemical, the finer particles start to collide and agglomerate (collect together), under the influence of Van der Waals's forces. For example, long-chain polymer flocculants, such as modified polyacrylamides, are ionic (electric charge related).
Instead of using electrostatic neutralization, NIO (ours) uses concurrent absorption+adsorption for accelerated fine particle agglomeration+elimination. Thus, ours is different from others before/prior art. The performance gain over bulk iron oxide of our NIO for phosphate and for perfluorophosphonic and perfluorosulphonic acids, when coupled with UV light, coupled with its filtering behavior, is unexpected. This is a desirable addition to filtering technology.
Regarding our current invention, it is a commonly held belief that iron oxide (or rust) is a low economic value compound. Yet, if iron oxide particle architecture resembles NIO, it behaves like a Clarifying Agent or Flocculant, dramatically increasing its economic value. NIO creates a brand new classification of Clarifying Agents/Flocculants.
Traditional Clarifying Agents/Flocculants operate by (single process) ionic aggregation. But NIO (ours) uses (dual process of) adsorption+absorption, via:
NIO is superior to conventional Clarifying Agents in remediation speed+capacity.
In our prior patent mentioned above, please note that we had: Fluid, liquid+gas, applications only. That patent joined a filtration device+a filtration media.
For our current patent, we have: Fluid application and Gas applications, only.
Other methods of separating NIO from water were investigated.
Separate sorbent performance batch quality tests were performed.
+/−500 in-house phosphate remediation performance tests, using reagents in cuvettes, led to the discovery that gravity is an optimal separation method.
+/−20 in-house phosphate remediation performance tests done, against 2 defined Clarifying Agents:
It was demonstrated that:
NIO is also effective against Toxic Heavy Metals.
NIO is also effective against non-polymeric perfluorophosphonic and perfluorosulphonic acids (when UV light is used with NIO).
For current patent, we further have the following (embodiments):
NIO is superior to Clarifying Agents/Flocculants in the prior art.
Application Instructions, as one example (but other variations or ranges are also acceptable/taught here):
NIO will slowly begin to dissolve and desorb remediated pollutants in 2 hours, reaching up to 100% desorption in as little as 24 hours.
It is projected that NIO will perform best as polishing agent (final stages of water treatment).
It is projected that NIO will perform best as a source-point sorbent (where pollution concentrations are the highest).
Mixing dosages can be by volume or by weight or by any other measurable units, in our teaching here, for the ratios/dosages.
In one embodiment, we have the following, as an example, but the values can be in a range around that number shown below:
A method for filtering fluid, said method comprising the steps of: providing nano-porous Fe2O3; providing polluted water; mixing said nano-porous Fe2O3 with said polluted water, using a ratio dosage of 1 part of said nano-porous Fe2O3 to 20 parts of said polluted water; stirring said mixture of said nano-porous Fe2O3 and said polluted water, for a stirring period of time; allowing said mixture of said nano-porous Fe2O3 and said polluted water to settle for a settling period of time; and separating water from said settled mixture, with the following options/embodiments:
using dual process of adsorption via particle exterior and absorption via nano-porous particle interior.
removing material from top of said settled mixture.
removing material from bottom of said settled mixture.
removing water from said settled mixture.
wherein said stirring period of time is 5 minutes.
wherein said stirring period of time is 10 minutes.
wherein said stirring period of time is 3 minutes.
wherein said settling period of time is 45 minutes.
wherein said settling period of time is 60 minutes.
wherein said settling period of time is 90 minutes.
using desiccant pellets.
adjusting said ratio dosage.
using process of adsorption via particle exterior.
using absorption via nano-porous particle interior.
combining or adding other clarifying agents.
removing water from said settled mixture, without causing agitation.
using UV light to remove non-polymeric perfluorophosphonic and perfluorosulphonic acids, when coupled with UV light materials, from water.
removing toxic materials from water.
removing toxic heavy metals from water, including antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium and zinc.
removing phosphorous and phosphate from water.
Any variations of the above teaching are also intended to be covered by this patent application, in addition to the teachings of prior application mentioned above, incorporated here by reference, especially for their FIGURES, appendices, and systems/methods/apparatuses.
