Thus in view of toxicity, increasing interest is being envisaged in developing methodologies to removal Aluminum (III) ions from waste waters. Methods based on aeration/stripping, chemical oxidation, disinfection and anion exchange are ineffective and the processes such as coagulation, sedimentation and filtration (combined) as well as lime softening are moderately effective in Aluminum removal ⁷. Some researchers explored the Cation exchange, reverse osmosis and electro-dialysis phenomenon for the control of Aluminum (III)^24-26. B. Paul R Zimnik and Joseph Sneddon inding (1998)²⁷ studied the removal of Aluminum ions in water by an algal biomass. Adil Denizli et al (2003)²⁸ investigated the removal of Aluminum by Alizarin Yellow-attached magnetic poly(2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate) beads. Ghazy S.E. et al (2005)³⁰ worked on the kinetics of the removal of Aluminum (III) ions from water samples by adsorption onto powdered marble wastes.

Shaban El-Sayed GHAZY et al (2006)³¹ investigated the removal of Aluminum from some water samples by sorptive-flotation using powdered modified activated carbon as a sorbent and oleic acid as surfactant adopting batch sorption methods. Javaweera M W et al (2007)³² studied the removal of aluminum by constructing wetlands with water hyacinth grown under different nutritional conditions. Septhum et al (2007)³³ studied the adsorption of Aluminum (III) ions from aqueous solution onto Chitosan in a batch system. Mohamad Nasir Othman et al (2010)³⁴studied the Aluminum (III) ions removal by chelating ion exchange resin with Iontosorb (IO) and Polyhydroxamic acid (PHA).Tony Sarvinder Singh (2006)³⁵ investigated the sorption of Aluminum ions from drinking waters using a low-cost adsorbents such as rice husk char and activated rice husk char .

The present work is endeavored to explore the sorption characteristics of powders of leaves, stems and their ashes of different plants for their abilities in extracting Aluminum ions from polluted waters.

2: MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A: CHEMICALS: All chemicals used were of analytical grade.

1. 75 ppm stock solution of Aluminum (III) was prepared by dissolving the requisite amount of A.R. Aluminum Potassium Sulphate in double distilled water and it was suitably dilute as per the need.

2. Buffer solution: concentrated: 27.5 g of ammonium acetate and 11.0 g of hydrated sodium acetate were dissolved in 100 ml water and then 1.0 ml of glacial acetic acid was add and mixed well.

3 .Buffer solution: Diluted: To one volume of concentrated buffer solution, five volumes of distilled water was added and the pH of the solution was adjusted to 6.0 by adding solutions of Acetic acid or Sodium hydroxide.

4. Eriochrome cyanine R solution: 0.1 g of solid Eriochrome Cyanine R was dissolved in 100 ml of distilled water and filtered through a Whatman No. 541 filter paper. This solution was prepared daily.

5. Hydrogen Peroxide solution: 5 volumes of Hydrogen Peroxide Solution was prepared.

B: ADSORBENTS: Of the various plant materials probed for their sorption abilities towards Aluminum ions, it is noted that the leaves, stems or barks and their ashes of Ficus benghalensis and Annona squamosa have affinity towards the Aluminum (III) ions.

Ficus benghalensis, the banyan, is a large and extensive growing tree of the Indian subcontinent having propagating roots which grow downwards as aerial roots and once these roots reach the ground, they grow into woody trunks that can become indistinguishable from the main trunk. It belongs to Moraceae family.

Annona squamosa a small well-branched shrub that bears edible fruits called sugar-apple, and it belongs to Annonaceae family. It grows at lower altitudes in tropical areas.

The leaves and stems of Ficus bengalensis and Annona squamosa were cut from trees, washed with tap water followed by distilled water and then sun dried. The dried materials were powdered to a fine mesh of size: < than 75 microns and activated at 105^O C in an oven and then employed in this study. Further these leaves and stems were burnt to ashes and these ashes were also used in this work.

C: ADSORPTION EXPERIMENT: Batch system of extraction procedure was adopted^36-38. Weighted quantities of adsorbents were taken in to previously washed 1 lit/500 ml stopper bottles containing 500ml/250 ml of Aluminum Potassium Sulphate solution of predetermined concentrations. The various initial pH values of the suspensions were adjusted with dil HCl or dil NaOH solution using pH meter. The samples were shaken vigorously in mechanical shakers and were allowed to be in equilibrium for the desired time. After the equilibration period, an aliquot of the sample was taken for Aluminum determination. Aluminum (III) was determined spectrophotometrically by using “Eriochrome cyanine R” method^39,

Estimation of Aluminum (III) : An aliquot amount of Aluminum (III) solution was taken in a 250 ml beaker. To it 5 ml volume H₂O₂solution was added and mixed well and the pH of the resulting solution was adjusted to 6.0 using either 0.2 M sodium hydroxide or 0.2 M hydrochloric acid with the help of pH-meter. At this stage 5 ml of Eriochrome cyanine R solution was added and mixed well. Then 50 ml of the dilute buffer solution was added and the solution was quantitatively transferred to a 100 ml volumetric flask with the help distilled water and thus resulting solution was diluted to 100 ml. Thus obtained solution was well shaken to ensure thorough miscibility. Red to Pink color was developed depending on the concentration. After 30 minutes, the O.D. of the developed color was measured against blank at 535 nm using U.V. and visible spectrometer (Systronics Make). Thus obtained O.D value was referred to standard graphs (drawn between O.D and concentration) prepared with known amounts of Aluminum by adopting method of Least Squares to find concentration of Aluminum in unknown solutions.

The sorption characteristics of the adsorbents were studied with respect to various physicochemical parameters. At a fixed sorbent concentration, the % removal of Aluminum ions from sample waters was studied with respect to time of equilibration at various pH values. The results obtained were presented in the Graph Nos. A: 1-a to 1-d, A-2-a to 2-d and B: 1and2. To fix the minimum dosage needed for the maximum removal of the Aluminum ions for a particular sorbent at optimum pH and equilibration times, extraction studies were made by studying the % of extraction with respect to the sorbent dosage. The results obtained were presented in the Graph Nos. C: 1and2.

D: EFFECT OF OTHER IONS (Interfering Ions): The interfering ions chosen for study were the common ions present in natural waters viz. Sulphate, Fluoride, Chloride, Nitrate, Phosphate, Carbonate, Calcium (II), Magnesium (II), Copper(II), Nickel (II) and Zinc(II). The synthetic mixtures of Aluminum and of the foreign ions were so made that the concentration of the foreign ion was maintained at the concentrations cited in the Table: 1. 500ml of these solutions were taken in to stopper bottles and then correctly weighted optimum quantities of the promising adsorbents (as decided by the Graph Nos. A, B and C) were added. Optimum pH was adjusted with dil. HCl or dil. NaOH using pH meter. The samples were shaken in shaking machines for desired optimum periods and then small portions of the samples were taken out, filtered and analyzed for Aluminum (III). % of extraction was calculated from the data obtained. The results were presented in the Table: 1.

3: RESULTS:

Results obtained for powders of leaves, barks and their ashes of Ficus benghalensis, and Annona squamosa have been found to have affinity towards the Aluminium (III) ions. The extractability of Aluminium(III) has been studied with respect to various physicochemical parameters such as pH, time of equilibration and sorption concentration and the results obtained are presented in the Graph No. A: 1-a to 1-d, A: 2-a to 2-d and B: 1and 2 and C: 1and 2.

The following observations are significant:

1. Time of equilibration:

a. Percent of extractability increases with time for a fixed adsorbent at a fixed pH and after certain time of agitation, the extraction comes to an equilibrium state and there will not be any further adsorption (vide Graph Nos. A: 1-a to 1-d, 2-a to 2-d). As for example, in the case of powders of leaves of Ficus bengalensis, % of extraction of Aluminium (III) has been found to be: 60% at 10 minutes, 70% at 20 minutes, 85% at 30 minutes, 90% at 60 minutes, 94% at 90minutes, 96% at 120 minutes and 98% at and more than 150 minutes at optimum pH: 8 with sorbent dosage of 4.0gm/lit(GraphNo.A:1-a ). The same trend is observed in the case of other sorbents.

2. Effect of pH :

a. The % of extraction of Aluminum (III) is found to be sensitive to the pH conditions of the extraction system. The optimum pH for maximum extraction ranges from 4 to 8. Below and above this pH range, % extraction is decreasing (vide Graph Nos:;B:1and 2). As for example, in case of powders of Ficus bengalensis leaves the maximum extractability is found to be 50% in 1 N HCl; 64% in 0.5N HCl; 74% at pH: 1; 87% at pH: 2; 94% at pH: 4; 96% at pH: 6; 98% at pH: 8; but decreases to 76% at pH: 10, after an equilibration time of 150 minutes, with sorbent dosage of 4.0gm/lit. Ashes of leaves of Ficus bengalensis extracts Aluminum (III) up to 58% in 1N HCl, 76% in 0.5N HCl; 81% at pH: 1; 88% at pH: 2; 96% at pH: 4; 98% at pH: 6; 100% at pH: 8; and 82% at pH: 10 at optimum time of agitation : 150 minutes and with sorbent dosage of 3.0 gm/lit.

b. With the activated leaves powders of Annona squamosa, the maximum extractability has been found to be 70% in 1 N HCl; 80% in 0.5 N HCl; 88% at pH:1; 94% at pH: 2; 95% at pH: 4; 100% at pH: 6; 100% at pH: 8; and 80% only at pH: 10 while with their ashes, 75%, 85.%, 92%, 96%, 98%, 100% and only 80% of extractions respectively are observed after an equilibration time of 150 minutes.

c. The trend is the same with the other sorbents also. At the acidic conditions of 1N HCl, 0.5NHCl, pH:1,2,4, 6, 8 and 10, the maximum extraction of Aluminum(III) is found to be 62%, 68%, 78% 89% 95%98%, 99%, 78% respectively for the activated bark powders of Ficus bengalensis while 65%, 69%, 85%, 91%, 96%, 99%, 100% and 70% respectively with their ashes after an optimum agitation time of 150 minutes,

d. In the case of thermally activated stem powders of Annona squamosa, the maximum extraction is 58% in 1 N HCl; 64% in 0.5 N HCl; 69% at pH: 1; 81% at pH:2; 90% at pH:4; 98% at pH:6; 98% at pH:8; and 78% at pH:10 after 120 minutes of agitation time. With stem ashes of Annona squamosa, the maximum extractability has been found to be 65% in 1 N HCl; 74% in 0.5 N HCl; 80% at pH: 1; 87% at pH:2; 98% at pH:4; 98% at pH:6; 100% at pH:8; and only 72% at pH:10 after 120 minutes of agitation.

3. The maximum possible % of extraction is found to be marginally more with ashes of the plant materials than the raw materials.

4. The optimum time of equilibration needed for maximum extractability of Aluminum (III) is found to be less for ashes than with the raw powders of leaves and stems/barks. The optimum agitation time is found to be 150 minutes for the leaves and bark powders of Ficus bengalensis, where as it is reduced to 120 minutes with their ashes In case of leaves powders of Annano squamosa, the equilibration time required for the maximum extraction is found to be 120 minutes, while with its ashes it is decreased to 90 minutes.

5. Sorbent Concentration: The optimum sorbent concentration required for maximum extractability of the Aluminum (III) is found to be more in the case of powders of leaves, bark or stems than with their ashes. It is found to be 4.0 gram/lit for the powders of leaves of Ficus bengalensis and 3.0 gms/lit with their ashes; 3.5 gms/lit with the bark powders of Ficus bengalensis and 2.5 gms/lit with their ashes at the optimum conditions of extraction. Similarly, with the powders of leaves of Annano squamosa the optimum sorbent dosage is found to be 3.0 gm/lit, while with their ashes it is only 2.5 gm/lit .With the stem powders of Annano squamosa, it is found to be 3.0 gm/lit while 2.0 gms/lit with its ashes (Vide GraphNo.C:1 and 2).

6. The maximum percentage of extractability of Aluminum (III) at optimum conditions of pH:6, and equilibration times as cited in Table No.1 , are found to be 96% and 98% with the powders of leaves and bark respectively of Ficus bengalenis and 98.0% and 99.0% with their ashes. More than 95.0% extraction is observed in all the sorbents derived from Annano squamosa at the optimum conditions of extraction (vide Graph Nos.A:1-a to 1-d,2-a to 2-d). It is interesting to note that even at 30 minutes of agitation time, considerable amount of Aluminum has been found to be extracted in the optimum pH range: 4 to 8; % of extractions are more with ashes than with raw powders.

7. Interfering Ions: The extractability of Aluminum (III) in presence of tenfold excess of common ions found in natural waters, namely, Sulphate, Nitrate, Chloride, Phosphate, Fluoride, Carbonate, Calcium, Magnesium, Copper, Zinc and Nickel ions, has been studied. The results are presented in Table No.1.

a. Cations envisaged marginal effect on the % extractability of Aluminum (III) with the sorbents of the present work at the optimum extraction conditions of pH: 4-8 and 120/150 minutes of agitation time.

b. Anions like SO₄^2-, NO₃^- and CO₃^2- have almost not affected the % of extraction while Chlorides and Fluorides markedly affected the % of extraction. It is interesting to note that Phosphates enhanced the % of extraction. As for example with the powder of leaves of Ficus bengalensis, the 96.0% extractability, at optimum conditions of pH and sorbent dosage, has been found to be marginally effected to 95.4%, 95.9% and 94.3% in presence of tenfold excess of SO₄^2-, NO₃^- and CO₃^2- respectively; but, Chlorides and fluorides markedly effected the extractability of Aluminum(III) from 96.0% to 68.2% and 60.4% respectively and further, the presence of phosphates enhanced the extraction from 96.0% to 100.0%. With the Annano squamosa leaves powder, % of extraction has been found to be marginally decreased from 95.0% to 94.8%, 95.0% and 93.2% in presence of SO₄^2-, NO₃^- and CO₃²^‑ respectively while the presence of Chloride and Fluoride markedly decreased the % of extraction from 95.0% to 62.3% and 60.1% respectively and the presence of Phosphate enhanced the extraction from 95.0% to 100.0%. The same trend is found in the case of other sorbents.

4. DISCUSSIONS:

The surface morphology of bio-sorbents plays an important role. The surface functional groups present in these biomaterials are either –OH-or -COOH groups. The pH sensitive dissociation of these groups imports charge on the inter surface and thereby an urge for oppositely charged ions prevails. At low pH values, protination of the functional groups occur and due to it, there is an electrostatic thrust for anions. But at high pH values, the functional groups dissociates imparting negative charge to the interface and thereby a thrust for cations prevail.

At low pH values (pH < 5), the main species for Aluminum (III) is Al[(H₂O)₆]³⁺. However, as the pH increases, Al(OH)²⁺_,Al(OH)₂⁺ are gradually formed and at neutral pH amorphous Al(OH)₃ precipitates; at basic pH this precipitate dissolves to form Al(OH)⁴⁻. In the pH range 6 to 8 , the Aluminum essentially exists as hydrated Al(OH)₃but it is not precipitated from dilute solutions of Al(OH)₂⁺.(H₂O)₃ in spite of insolubility, because the formation of Al(OH)₃ is inhibited⁴⁰. The bio-sorbents having functional groups OH/COOH bind the hydrated Aluminum hydroxide either due to electrostatic interactions or via hydrogen bonding resulting in the increase in the % of extraction. As the pH is increased to 10, the species exists is anion, Al(OH)₄^– ^33,40 and is having less affinity towards the sorbent. Hence, % of extraction is decreased.

Ashes are the oxides of some heavy metals containing large amounts of silica. The ashes, contains ‘-OH’ groups and ‘–O-’. The observed behaviors of extractability as pH varies may be understood in the same lines as described in the case of raw leaves or stem powders .In fact, in the literature it is reported that the silica possesses cation exchanging nature ^41-43 and this supports the proposed logic for the observed behavior.

The decrease in the rate of adsorption with the progress in the equilibration time may be due to the more availability of adsorption sites initially and are progressively used up with time due to the formation of adsorbate film on the sites of adsorbent and finally resulting in the formation of pseudo-statical sorbent layers on the surface of sorbents and hence, the decrease in sorption capability of the adsorbent with the increase in the time.

TABLE: 1 Effect of Interfering Ions on the Extractability of Aluminum (III) With Different Bio-sorbents

S.No	Adsorbent	Maximum extractability at optimum condition	% of Extractability of Aluminum (III) in the presence of tenfold excess of interfering ions at optimum extraction conditions
S.No	Adsorbent	Maximum extractability at optimum condition	SO₄^2- (%)	NO₃^- (%)	Cl^- (%)	PO₄^2- (%)	F^- (%)	CO₃^2- (%)	Ca²⁺ (%)	Mg²⁺ (%)	Cu²⁺ (%)	Zn²⁺ (%)	Ni²⁺ (%)
1.	Powder of Ficus bengalensis leaves	96.0%, pH:6, 150 minutes, 4.0gm/lit	95.4	95.9	68.2	100.0	60.4	94.3	92.4	95.6	93.3	94.1	92.6
2.	Powder of Annano squamosa leaves	95.0%, pH:6, 120 minutes, 3.0gm/lit	94.8	95.0	62.3	100.0	60.1	93.2	91.0	94.5	93.2	93.9	92.6
3.	Powder of Ficus bengalensis barks	98.0%, pH:6, 120 minutes, 3.5gm/lit	97.3	96.8	69.7	100.0	61.7	95.7	93.6	97.6	95.6	96.5	94.4
4.	Powder of Annano squamosa stems	98.0% ,pH:6 , 120 minutes, 3.0gm/lit	97.5	97.2	70.2	100.0	62.2	96.2	94.1	97.9	96.1	97.0	94.6
5.	Ash of Ficus bengalensis leaves	98.0%, pH:6, 150 minutes, 3.0gm/lit	97.3	97.8	69.1	100.0	61.3	95.2	93.3	97.5	94.2	95.0	93.8
6.	Ash of Annano squamosa leaves	96.0% , pH:6 , 120 minutes, 2.5 gm/lit	94.6	94.2	64.3	100.0	60.3	93.3	91.2	95.3	93.2	94.1	91.4
7.	Ash of Ficus bengalensis barks	99.0 %, pH:6, 120 minutes, 2.5 gm/lit	98.4	98.1	70.1	100.0	63.1	97.1	95.0	98.8	97.2	98.0	95.6
8.	Ash of Annano squamosa stems	98.0% , pH:6, 120 minutes, 2.0gm/lit	97.4	97.0	70.3	100.0	62.2	96.4	94.2	97.8	96.2	97.1	94.8

The observations made with respect to the interfering ions are interesting to note. Sulphate, nitrate and carbonate seldom affect the extractability of Aluminum (III) on adsorbents while chlorides and fluorides markedly decrease the extraction. This may attributed to the fact that chlorides and fluorides desorb the Aluminum (III) from the adsorption sites of the sorbent (which are the weak cation exchange sites) by the formation of anionic complexes, AlF₄^- and AlCl₄^-_.In presence of phosphate, the % removal of Aluminum is enhanced and it may be due to the formation of sparingly soluble Aluminum Phosphate, AlPO₄which is gelatinous in nature and is trapped or occluded in the matrix of the sorbents and thus enhances the % of extractability of Aluminum (III) species.

5. APPLICATIONS:

The Applicability of the methodologies developed in this work have been tested with respect to the real samples of diverse nature, collected from the sewages/effluents of Aluminum based industries and also in natural polluted lakes. The results have been presented in the Table No: 2. It is observed that more than 90.0% removal of Aluminum (III) is noted in all the sorbent developed in this work at the optimum conditions of extraction as cited in the Table No.2. Thus the methodologies developed are remarkably successful.

6. CONCLUSIONS:

1. Bioadsorbents derived from plant materials of Ficus benghalensis, Annona squamosa have been found to have strong affinity towards Aluminum (III) in the pH range 4 to 8.

2. Physicochemical parameters such as pH, time of agitation and sorbent concentration have been optimized for the maximum removal of Aluminum(III) from simulated waste waters.

3. The optimum Sorbent dosage and time of equilibration needed for the maximum removal of Aluminum (III) is less for the ashes of leaves or barks or stems than with the raw materials.

Table No: 2: Applications: Extraction of Aluminum (III) from Different Industrial Effluents and Natural polluted Lake Samples using Bio-sorbents developed in this work

Samples collected At Different Places

Conc. of Al(III) in the Sample

% of Maximum extraction of Aluminum(III)

Ficus bengalensis

Annano squamosa

Leaves Powders (mesh:<75 µ)

: pH:6; 150 min

& 4.0 g/lit

Leaves Ashes

pH: 6;120 min

& 3.0 g/lit

Barks Powders

(mesh:<75 µ)

pH:6;120 min & 3.0 g/lit

Barks Ashes

pH: 6;120 min

& 2.5 gms/lit

Leaves Powders (mesh:75 µ)

:pH:6;120 min& 3.0 g/lit

Leaves Ashes

pH: 6;120 min

& 2.5 g/lit

Stem Powders

(mesh:75 µ)

pH:6;120 min& 3.0 g/lit

Stem Ashes

pH: 6;120 min

& 2.0 g/lit

Alum manufacturing Industrial effluents:

9.5 ppm

12.5 ppm

16.5 ppm

92.6%

94.5%

93.0%

90.3%

95.9%

96.5%

92.6%

94.5%

95.5%

91.0%

92.5%

93.0%

92.5%

93.5%

94.5%

90.5%

92.5%

95.5%

94.0%

92.5%

93.5%

92.5%

95.5%

93.5%

Aluminum Sulphate manufacturing Industrial effluents:

10.5 ppm

14.5 ppm

20.8 ppm

95.0%

90.5%

96.0%

92.4%

94.0%

91.8%

92.5%

96.0%

94.5%

93.5%

94.5%

96.5%

94.5%

95.1%

93.4%

93.5%

96.2%

94.4%

94.5%

90.5%

91.5%

91.0%

92.0%

93.0%

Natural polluted Lake Samples(fed with known amounts of Aluminum (III)):

6.0 ppm

13.0 ppm

22.0 ppm

91.5%

96.8%

97.0%

95.5%

96.5%

94.0%

96.0%

94.5%

95.5%

97.5%

96.5%

96.0%

94.5%

95.5%

96.0%

95.5%

96.5%

93.5%

95.5%

96.5%

95.0%

93.5%

95.5%

96.5%

4. Ten fold excess of common cation ions present in natural waters, viz., Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺,Cu²⁺,Zn²⁺and Ni²⁺ have marginal affect on the % of extraction of Aluminum (III) at optimum conditions of extraction as cited in Table No. 1. Anions: Sulphate, nitrate and carbonate have least effected while chlorides and fluorides markedly interfered but phosphates enhanced the extraction of Aluminum with the sorbets developed in this work.

5. More than 95.0% of extraction of Aluminum (III) is noted from simulated waters in all the sorbents of study at optimum conditions of extraction.

6. The procedures developed are successfully applied for some industrial effluent and polluted lake samples.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

The authors thank UGC for financial aid for conducting this research work.

8. REFERENCES:

1. E. Yoshimum M. Kshi, K.I. Twsunoda, Anal. Sci., 20:373 (2004).

2. W.L. Lindsay, Walthal “The Environmental Echemistry of Aluminum” Ed. G Sposito, 2^nd Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton,Florida, 334 (1996).

3. T.P.Flaten, A.C. Alfrey, J.D. Brichall, J. Savory, R.A. Yokel, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 48:525 (1996).

4. L.V. Kochian, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 46:237 (1995).

5. John R. Sorenson Irere R. Campbell, Lloyd B. Stepper , Robert D. Lingg, “Aluminium in the EnvironmentandHuman and Health”, Environmental Health Prespectives, 8:3-95 (1974) (818 cross references in it)

6. I. R. Campbell, “Aluminum in the Environment of man”, Arch Ind. Health, 15:359 (1957); Trond Peder Flaten, “ Aluminium in tea—concentrations, speciation and bioavailability”, Coordination Chemistry reviews,228: 385-395 (2002).

7. P.T. Srinivasan, T. Viraraghavan, K.S. Subramanian, . “Aluminium in drinking water: An overview”, Water, SA 25(1): 47-56. (1999).

8. P. T. Srinivasan , T. Viraraghavan , “ Characterization and concentration profile of aluminium during drinking-water treatment”, Water, SA 28 (1) 99-106 (2002)..

9. G.R. Miller, C.F.Kopler , C.K. Kelty, A.J. Sober, S.N. Ulmer , “ The occurrence of aluminum in drinking water” , J. AWWA, 76 (1) :184 (1994).

10. P.G.C. Campbell, M.Bisson, R. Bougie, A. Tessier, J.P. Villeneuve, Anal. Chem., 55:2246 (1983).

11. J.D. Birchall, C. Exley, JH./s. Chappell, M.J.Phillips, Nature (London), 46:338 (1989)

12. K.E. Haven, R.T. Heath, Environ. Pollution, 62:195 (1989).

13. K.E. HavenCan. J. Aquat. Fish Sci., 49:2392 (1992).

14. A. Pettersson, lL.Hallbom, B. Begman, Plant Physiol, 86:112 (1988).

15. R.W. Gensemer, Limnol. Oceanogr., 36: 123 (1991).

16. D.R. Parker, T.B. Kinraide, L.W. Zelazny, Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 53:789 (1989).

17. T.P. Flaten, Brain Res. Bull., 55:187 (2001)

18. J. McClure, P.S. Smith, J. Path., 142:293 (1984)

19. J. Desccotes, “Immune-Toxicology of Drugs and Chemicals” 1988, Elsevier, Amsterdam

20. R.C. Massey, D. Tyler, “Aluminum in Food and Environment, 1989, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.

21. D.R. Crapper, McLachlan, V. De Boni, Neurotoxicology, 1:3 (1980).

22. Lenore S., Clesceri., Arnold E., Greenberg and Andrew D., Easton (Editors), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,20th Edition, American Public Health Association, 3-65(1998).

23. Letterman R.D., Discroll C.T., “Control of Residual Aluminum in Filtered Water”, AWWA RF Report, AWWA, Denver, CO 80235.1-93 (1994).

24. M. Pesavento, G. Alberti, R. Bieuz , “Investigation of the speciation of aluminium in drinking waters by sorption on a strong anionic-exchange resin AG1X8”, Anal. Chim. Acta, 367 (1-3): 215-222 (1998).

25. Matus, P. and Kubova, J. 2005. Complexation of labile aluminum species by chelating resins Iontosorb- a new method for Al environmental risk assessment. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, 99: 1769-1778.

26. Singh T S and Pant K K (2004) “Equilibrium, kinetics and thermodynamic studies for adsorption of As(III) on activated alumina”, Sep. Pur. Technol., 36 (2) 139-147.

27. B. Paul,R. Oaykm /r. Zimnik, Joseph Sneddon, “Binding and removal of Aluminum ions in water by an Algal Biomass, Analytical letters, 21: 1383-1396 (1988).

28. Adil Denizli, R. Say, E. Pikin, “Removal of aluminium by Alizarin Yellow attached magnetic poly (2-hydroxyethyl metha-crylate) beads”, React. Funct. Polym. 55 (1) 99-107 (2003).

29. M.R. Jekel, “Aluminum in water: How it can be removed? Use of aluminum salts in treatment”, Proc. of the Int. Water Supply Ass.,Copenhagen, Denmark, May 25-31 (1991).

30. S.E. Ghazy , S.E. Samra , A.M. Mahdy , S.M. El-Morsey , “Kinetic investigation of the removal of aluminum from water samples by adsorption onto powdered marble wastes” , Separation Science and Technology, 40. 1797-1815 (2005),

31. Shaban El-Sayed GHAZY,† Salem El-Sayed SAMRA, Abd El-Fattah Mohammed MAHDY, and Sherin Mohammed EL-Morsy, Analytical Sciences , 22:377 (2006).

32. M.W. Javaweera, J.C. Kasturiarachchi, R.K. Kularatne, S.L. Wijeyekoon, J. Envi. Sci. Health A. Tox Hazard Subsst.Envirfon Eng., 42(2):185-191 (2007).

33. C. Septhum, .S. Rattanaphani, J.B. BremnerV. Rattanaphani, J of Hazardous Materials, 148:185-191 (2007).

34. Mohamad Nasir Othman, Md. Pauzi Abdullah and Yang Farina Abi. Aziz, “Removal of Aluminum from Drinking Water”, Sains Malaysiana 39(1): 51–55(2010).

35. Tony Sarvinder Singh, Bhavik Parikh and K.K. Pant, Water SA Vol. 32: No. 1 (2006).

36. R.K. Trivedy, “Pollution Management in Industries”, Environmental Publications, KARAD, INDIA (1979)

37. Gerard Kiely, Environmental Engineering, McGraw-hall International Editions (1998)

38. Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment of Reuse. 4^th. Ed., McGraw Hill Co., New York (2003).

39. Vogel’s Textbook of Quantitative Chemical Analysis (revised by G.H. Jeffery, J J. Bassett, J. Mendham and R.C. Denney) Fifth Edition,1989, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, page: 678.

40. F. Albert Cotton ,Geoffrey Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 5^th Edn.John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1988, p 216

41. G.A. Parks. Chem Rev. 1965, 65, 117.

42. G.A. Parks. Advan Chem , Ser No 67, 1967, 121

43. K. Ravindhranath K. and P.B. Janardhan P.B., Proc. Indian Natn. Sci. Acad., 53,A:650-669 (1987).

Received on 19.05.2012 Modified on 23.06.2012

Asian J. Research Chem. 5(7): July, 2012; Page 882-892