Removal of Toxic Metal Ions from Aqueous Solutions in Integrated Clay Adsorption and Electroflotation

Most galvanic process industries treat their effluents by chemical precipitation methods. Such a method produces an amount of galvanic sludge that is often disposed of inappropriately to the environment, causing major environmental damage. These rejects present high concentrations of toxic metallic ions, such as copper (Cu(II)), lead (Pb(II)), nickel (Ni(II)), and cadmium (Cd(II)). Several alternatives have been proposed to contribute in a cheaper and efficient way to treat these effluents. This study aimed to describe the results obtained in the removal of the concentrations of Cu(II), Ni(II), Cd(II), and Pb(II) ions, present in an aqueous solution, by the use of a hybrid system combining the adsorption and electroflotation processes simultaneously. The adsorbent materials used were two Brazilian soil clays classified as sodium clay (SC) and ferric clay (FC). For the electroflotation process, aluminum, iron, and stainless-steel electrodes were used. The obtained data showed good efficiency in the removal of the four metallic ion concentrations. The best results presented a reduction in the concentration of Cu(II), Ni(II), Cd(II), and Pb(II) ions of 50.11%, 36.71%, 21.59%, and 23.43%, respectively, when it was used the hybrid system formed by the ferrous clay as adsorbent and the aluminum electrode for the electroflotation process

Biosorption of metal ions using a low cost modified adsorbent (<i>Mauritia flexuosa</i>): experimental design and mathematical modeling

<p>Buriti fibers were subjected to an alkaline pre-treatment and tested as an adsorbent to investigate the adsorption of copper, cadmium, lead and nickel in mono- and multi-element aqueous solutions, the results showed an increase in the adsorption capacity compared to the unmodified Buriti fiber. The effects of pH, adsorbent mass, agitation rate and initial metal ions concentration on the efficiency of the adsorption process were studied using a fractional 2⁴⁻¹ factorial design, and the results showed that all four parameters influenced metal adsorption differently. Fourier transform infrared spectrometry and X-ray fluorescence analysis were used to identify the groups that participated in the adsorption process and suggest its mechanisms and they indicated the probable mechanisms involved in the adsorption process are mainly ion exchange. Kinetic and thermodynamic equilibrium parameters were determined. The adsorption kinetics were adjusted to the homogeneous diffusion model. The adsorption equilibrium was reached in 30 min for Cu²⁺ and Pb²⁺, 20 min for Ni²⁺ and instantaneously for Cd²⁺. The results showed a significant difference was found in the competitiveness for the adsorption sites. A mathematical model was used to simulate the breakthrough curves in multi-element column adsorption considering the influences of external mass transfer and intraparticle diffusion resistance.</p

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events