Review Article

Defluoridation techniques: Which one to choose

Navin Anand Ingle, Harsh Vardhan Dubey, Navpreet Kaur, Isha Sharma1
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jhrr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW

Departments of Public Health Dentistry and 1Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, K. D. Dental College and Hospital, Mathura,
Uttar Pradesh, India
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 01/15/2024

ABSTRACT
Water is one of the most important elements for all forms of life and is indispensable to the maintenance of life on the earth.
Safe drinking water is the important need for every human being. Water may be contaminated by natural sources or by
industrial effluents. One such contaminant is fluoride. The problem of excess fluoride in ground water was detected in many
states of India. Till 1999, 17 states have been identified with the problem of excess fluoride in ground water sources. Several
materials like aluminium salts, calcined alumina, magnesia, lime, activated carbon sulphonated carbonaceous materials,
and ion exchange resins have been screened for their utility in defluoridation of water. On the basis of results and extensive
investigations, different researchers had developed a simple and economical domestic defluoridation processes. This article
attempts to critical review of the past work on defluoridation studies by using conventional and unconventional materials,
and to compile the various pros and cons of these defluoridation methods including Nalgonda, Activated Alumina, bone
char, fly ash, brick, and reverse osmosis.
Keywords: Defluoridation methods, fluorosis, India

INTRODUCTION added and forms an insoluble complex and was removed as ad

Water is essential for life. It is used in almost every domestic
activity, from cooking to washing or for sanitation. With rapid
population growth, increasing urbanization, and technological
development in various fields, human dependence on water has
increased tremendously. Water availability is neither adequate
nor equitable for all human beings. In addition to the problem of
limited availability of water, there is also the problem of water
quality. For instance, the biological and chemical contamination of
water is a matter of grave concern. One such chemical contaminant
present in the water is flouride.[1] Defluoridation involves removal
of fluoride ion in drinking water. Defluoridating methods may
broadly be classified in two categories namely Additive methods
and Adsorptive methods. In additive methods, certain reagents
are added and optimum conditions for the defluoridation are
maintained. Fluoride ion present in water reacts with the reagents
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.jhrr.org
DOI:
***
flocs. In adsorptive methods, a bed of greater surface activity
is chosen and water is passed through the bed. Due to surface
activity, fluoride ions get preferentially adsorbed on the bed surface
thereby causing a reduction of fluoride ion in the exit stream. The
different methods used for the removal of excess fluoride from
water can be broadly classified into four basic types:‑[2]
• Precipitation technique
• Adsorption technique
• Ion-Exchange technique
• Miscellaneous methods.
PRECIPITATION TECHNIQUE
Nalgonda technique
The Nalagonda technique was developed by the National
Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur,
after testing of many materials Nawlakhe et al.[3] In Nalgonda
Technique there is addition of aluminium salts, lime, and
bleaching powder followed by rapid mixing, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. Aluminium salts can
be added as aluminium sulphate (alum) or aluminium chloride
or combination of these two. It is responsible for removal of
fluoride from water. The dose of aluminium salt increases with
increase in the fluoride and alkalinity levels of the raw water.
Lime facilitates forming dense flocks for rapid settling of insoluble

Address for correspondence: Dr. Harsh Vardhan Dubey, Dahi Wali Gali, Purohit Mohalla, Infront of Jain Temple, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan, India. E‑mail: harshdubey2010@gmail.com

Journal of Health Research and Reviews | January ‑ April 2014 | Volume 1 | Issue 1 1
 Ingle, et al.: Defluoridation techniques: Which one to choose
fluoride salts. The dose of lime is empirically 1/20th of that of
the dose of aluminium salt. Bleaching powder is added in the
amount of 3 mg/l for disinfection.[2] Bulusu et al. stated in 1979
that Nalgonda Technique was preferable at all levels because of
the low price and ease of handling.[4] Parthasarathy et al.,[5] studied
the combination of calcium salts and polymeric aluminium
hydroxide, for the treatment of fluoridated waste water. In this
treatment, the calcium ion acts as a precipitant and polymeric
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jhrr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW
aluminium hydroxide acts as a coagulant. The addition of calcium
fluoride seeds (approximate 20 mg/l) results in the acceleration of
the precipitation process and the residual fluoride concentrations
were closed to the theoretical levels. Under the above conditions
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 01/15/2024
fine CaF2 precipitate with poor ability to settle was formed. The
addition of small amount of polymeric aluminium hydroxide
greatly facilities the ability to settle of the precipitate. The
advantage of using polymeric hydroxide over the use of alum for
the removal of fluoride is that less concentration of the former
is required and the results are good. Mameri et al.,[6] suggested
an efficient defluoridation process in which aluminium bipolar
electrodes was used. In the first step, certain parameters such as
inter-electrode distance fluoride concentration, temperature and
the pH of the solution were investigated and optimized with
synthetic water in batch mode. The electro-congratulation process
with aluminium bipolar electrodes permitted the defluoridation
of Sahara Water without adding soluble salts to the treated
water. The aluminium fluoride weight ratio attended as 7. The
technique is highly versatile and has the applications like; for large
communities, fill and draw technique for small communities as
well as for rural water supply, for domestic defluoridation, etc.[2]
Advantages
• It can be used at domestic and community level
• It is cost effective
• Simplicity of design, construction, operation and maintenance
• Low technology, adaptable at point of use and point of source
level
• Beside fluoride turbidity, colour, odour, pesticides and organic
substance are also removed in this method.
Disadvantages
• The daily operations require a trained operator
• There is a possibility of excess aluminium contaminating the
water. The maximum concentration of aluminium permitted
is 0.03 mg to 0.2 mg/litre of water according to Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS), as an excess is suspected to cause
Alzheimer’s disease
• Discarding the sludge from the Nalgonda process is a serious
environmental health problem. The sludge is toxic as it
contains the removed fluoride in a concentrated form and
therefore, sludge disposal is a problem
• Periodic analysis of feed and treated water is required to
calculate the correct dose of chemicals to be added.[7]
ADSORPTION TECHNIQUE
Many adsorbent materials have been tried in the past to find
out an efficient and economical defluoridating agent. Activated
alumina, activated carbon, activated alumina coated silica gel,
calcite, activated saw dust, activated coconut shell carbon, and
activated fly ash, groundnut shell, coffee husk, rice husk, magnesia,
2 Journal of Health Research and Reviews | January ‑ April 2014 | Volume 1 | Issue 1
serpentine, tricalcium phosphate, bone charcoal, activated soil
sorbent, carbion, defluoron‑1, defluoron‑2, etc., are different
adsorbent materials reported in the literatures. The most commonly
used adsorbents are activated alumina and activated carbon.[8]
The fluoride removing efficiency of activated alumina is affected
by hardness and surface loading that is. the ratio of total fluoride
concentration to activated alumina dosage. Chloride does not affect
the defluoridation capacity of activated alumina. The process is pH
specific, so pH of the solution should be between 5.0-6.0 because
at pH > 7, silicate and hydroxide become stronger competitor of
the fluoride ions for exchange sites on activated alumina and at pH
less than 5; activated alumina gets dissolved in acidic environment
leading to loss of adsorbing media. The process is highly selective
but it has low adsorption capacity, poor physical integrity, requires
acidification, and pre‑treatment and its effectiveness for fluoride
removal reduces after each regeneration.[7] Mckee and Johnston
1934, investigated the use of powdered activated carbon for
fluoride removal and achieved good results.[9] The process is pH
dependent with good results only at pH 3.0 or less. Therefore, the
use of this material is expensive due to need of pH adjustment.
Patil and Kulkarni[10] studied the ion exchange resin and activated
alumina as defluoridating media and found that equilibrium
adsorption capacity of ion exchange resin on Indeon A‑100 was
1.54 gm/Kg of resin. Two hundred bed volumes of water can be
treated with initial fluoride concentration of 2.2 mg/1 to obtain
an effluent concentration of less than 1 mg/1 at the optimized
fluid flow rate of 35 l/hr. No appreciable change was observed
in the test of water. The defluoridation by catalyst grade activated
alumina of type AC 101 was found that equilibrium adsorption
was more than 15 mg/gm of Al2O3. Activated alumina technique
for defluoridation is started in several villages by the voluntary
organizations funded by UNICEF or other agencies in order to
provide safe drinking water.[7]
Advantages
• This process can remove fluoride up to 90%
• Effective and economical
• It requires minimum contact time for maximum defluoridation
• It is indigenously available and cheap
• Percentage of regeneration is considerably high.
Disadvantages
• The process is highly pH dependent and works only in a pH
range of 5-6
• High concentration of total dissolved salts (TDS) can result in
fouling of the alumina bed
• Presence of sulphate, phosphate or carbonate results in ionic
competition
• The process has low adsorption capacity, poor integrity and
needs pre treatment
• The regeneration is required after every 4-5 months
• Disposal of fluoride laden sludge is also a problem
• Skilled personnel are required for plant operation
• Suitable grades may not be indigenously available in less
developed countries
• This treatment is not effective if TDS exceeds 1500 mg/L
• It requires time to time regeneration as after some time
activated alumina is exhausted.[8]
 Ingle, et al.: Defluoridation techniques: Which one to choose
ION EXCHANGE TECHNIQUE
Synthetic chemicals, namely, anion and cation exchange
resins have been used for fluoride removal. Some of these are
Polyanion (NCL), Tul‑sion A-27, Deacedite FF (IP), Amberllte
IRA 400, Lewatit MIH-59, and Amberlite XE-75. These resins
have been used in chloride and hydroxy form. The fluoride
exchange capacity of these resins depends upon the ratio of
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jhrr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW
fluoride to total anions in water. The capacity of Amberlite XE
75 was found to be approximately 88 g/m3 when fluoride to total
anion ratio was 0.05. The capacity increased with increasing
ratio. Polyanion removed fluoride at the rate of 862 mg/kg
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 01/15/2024
and 1040 mg/kg with initial fluoride concentration of 2.8 and
8.1 mg/L, respectively. Deacedite FF (IP) and Tulsion A-27
could treat 2270 L and 570 L of water bringing fluoride level
from 2.2-1.0 mg/L.[2] Related studies was carried by Mohan Rao
and Bhaskaran[11] in Andhra Pradesh where he experimented
several materials including aluminium salts, calcium alumina,
magnesium, lime, activated carbon, sulphonated carbonaceous
materials, and ion exchange resins have been screen for their
utility in defluoridation of water. In this study, he observed that
sulphonated carbonaceous materials and ion exchange resins
removes fluoride from 5 mg/1 to 1.5 mg/1. Popat et al.,[12]
used aluminium form of the amino methyl phosphonic type
ion exchange for fluoride removal. However, the presence of
sulphates (100 mg/L) and bicarbonates (200 mg/L) reduced
the fluoride removal capacity of the resins to 33%. The resins
increased the concentration of chloride in treated water, which
can cause corrosion of the water storage utensils. The treated
water also had high pH.[2]
Advantages
• Removes fluoride up to 90-95%
• It helps in the retention of taste and colour of water intact.
Disadvantages
• Its efficiency is reduced in presence of other ions like sulphate,
carbonate, phosphate and alkalinity
• Regeneration of resin is a problem because it leads to fluoride
rich waste, which has to be treated separately before final
disposal
• The technique is expensive because of the cost of resin
• Treated water has a very low pH and high levels of chloride.[8]
MISCELLANEOUS METHODS
Reverse osmosis and electro dialysis
In reverse osmosis, the hydraulic pressure is exerted on one side
of the semi permeable membrane which forces the water across
the membrane leaving the salts behind. The relative size of the
pollutants left behind depends on the pressure exerted on the
membrane. In electro dialysis, the membranes allow the ions to
pass but not the water. The driving force is an electric current
which carries the ions through the membranes. The removal
of fluoride in the reverse osmosis process has been reported to
vary from 45-90% as the pH of the water is raised from 5.5-7.
The membranes are very sensitive to pH and temperature. The
economics of the approach also deserves evaluation under
specific circumstances. The units are also subject to chemical
attacks, plugging, fouling by particulate matter, and concentrated
Journal of Health Research and Reviews | January ‑ April 2014 | Volume 1 | Issue 1
and large quantity of wastes. The waste volumes are even larger
than the ion exchange process. Sometimes, the pre-treatment
requirements are extensive. Electro dialysis is highly energy
intensive and expensive.[2] Few investigators have studied reverse
for arsenic and fluoride removal. However, recent work by Fox,
1981[13] and Huxstep, 1981[14] has shown reverse osmosis to be
effective in reducing traced concentration of these contaminants.
The improvements in design and materials of the membranes
have made the water treatment process economically competitive
and highly reliable.[15] Thus with improved management; this
new technology for drinking water production might be the
best option. Furthermore, membrane processes have several
advantages as compared with other treatment methods.[16]
Advantages
• The process is highly effective for fluoride removal
• The process permits the treatment and disinfection of water
in one step
• It ensures constant water quality
• No chemicals are required and very little maintenance is
needed
• Life of membrane is sufficiently long, so problem of
regeneration or replacement is encountered less frequently
• It works under wide pH range
• No interference by other ions is observed
• The process works in a simple, reliable automated operating
regime with minimal manpower using compact modular
model.
Disadvantages
• It removes all the ions present in water. Since though
some minerals are essential for proper growth therefore,
remineralisation is required after treatment
• The process is expensive in comparison to other options
• The water becomes acidic and needs pH correction
• Lots of water gets wasted as brine
• Disposal of brine is a problem.[8]
CONCLUSION
Fluorosis is an important public health problem in India. Drinking
water is the main source of ingestion of fluoride. The various
manifestations of chronic fluoride toxicity are mild to severe
dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis. Though not life threatening,
this disease causes impairment of dental aesthetics, derangement
of skeletal system which results in compromised quality of
life. There is no cure to the disease and prevention is the only
solution. The first and foremost preventive measure is drinking
fluoride‑safe water. This can be accomplished by defluoridation
of fluoride‑contaminated drinking water. Defluoridation should be
taken up where there is no alternate source of safe drinking water.
It has been observed that many methods are used for removal of
excess of fluoride in the drinking water but every method have
their advantages and disadvantages. The fluoride removal ability
varies according to many site‑specific chemical, geographical
and economical conditions, so actual applications may vary
from the generalizations made. Some particular process, which is
suitable at a particular region, may not meet the requirements at
some other place. Therefore, any technology to be used should
be treated before implementation in the field.
3
 Ingle, et al.: Defluoridation techniques: Which one to choose
REFERENCES
1. Social Inclusion: A Case Study of the Rajasthan Integrated Fluorosis
Mitigation Programme. Available from: http://www.kcci.org.in rajasthan.
pdf. [Last accessed on 2013 Nov 07].
2. Piddennavar R, Krishnappa P. Review on Defluoridation techniques of
water. Int J Eng Sci 2013;2:86-94.
3. Nawlakhe WG, Kulkarni DN, Pathak BN, Bulusu KR. De-fluoridation
of water by Nalgonda technique. Indian J Environ Health 1975;17:26-65.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jhrr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW
4. Bulusu KR, Sundaresan BB, Pathak BN, Nawlakhe WG, Kulkarni DN,
Thergaonkar VP. Fluorides in water-defl uoridation methods and their
limitations. J Inst Eng (India) 1979;60:1-25.
5. Parthasarathy N, Buttle J, Haeridi W. Combined used of calcium salts
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 01/15/2024
and polymeric aluminium hydroxide for deluoridation of waste water.
J Water Resour 1986;20:443-8.
6. Mameri N, Yeddou AR, Lounicih, Belhiccine D, Garib H, Bariou B.
Defluoridation of septentrional sahara water of North Afrika by electro
coagulation process using bipolar aluminium electrodes. J Water Resour
1998;32:1604-32.
7. Modi S, Soni R. Merits and demerits of different technologies of
defluoridation for drinking water. J Environ Sci Toxicol Food Technol
2013;3:24-7.
8. Razbe N, Kumar R, Pratima, Kumar R. Various options for removal of
fluoride from drinking water. Int Organ Sci Res J Appl Phys 2013;3:40-7.
9. Mckee R, Johnston WS. Removal of fluorides from drinking water using
4 Journal of Health Research and Reviews | January ‑ April 2014 | Volume 1 | Issue 1
low-cost adsorbent. Indian J Environ Health 1999;41:53-8.
10. Patil AR, Kulkarni BM. Study of ion exchange regime and activated
alumina as defluoridation media. J Inst Eng (India) 1989;03:14-6.
11. Mohan Rao NV, Bhaskaran CS. Studies on defluoridation of water. J
Fluor Chem 1998;41:17-24.
12. Popat KM, Anand PS, Dasare BD. Selective removal of fluoride ion from
water by the aluminium, from the aminomethyl phosphonic acid type
ion exchange resin. React Funct Polym 1994;23:23-32.
13. Fox KR. “Removal of inorganic contaminants from drinking water by
reverse osmosis’’ EPA- 600/2-81-115, Municipal environmental research
laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH; 1981.
14. Huxstep MR. “Inorganic contaminants removal from drinking water by
reverse osmosis’’EPA-600/2-81 Offi ce of research and development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH; 1981.
15. Babra D, Caputi P, Cifoni DS. Drinking water supply in Italy. Desalination
1997;113:111-7.
16. Meenakshi, Maheshwari RC, Jain SK, Gupta A. Use of membrane
technique for potable water production. Desalination 2004;170:105-12.
How to cite this article:
Source of Support: Nil, Confl ict of Interest: None declared.