Comparison of Water Defluoridation Using Different Techniques

Abstract

Fluoride pollution in subsurface water is a significant problem for different nations across the world because of the intake of excessive fluoride caused by the drinking of the contaminated subsurface. Water pollution by flouride can be attributed to the natural and human-made agents. Increased levels of fluoride in drinking water may result in the irretrievable demineralization of bone and tooth tissues, a situation called fluorosis, and other disorders. There has long been a need for fluoride removal from drinking water to make it safe for human use. Among the various fluoride removal methods, adsorption is the method most popularly used due to its cheap cost, ease of utilization, and being a scalable and simple physical technique. According to the findings of this study, the highest concentration of fluoride (0.1–15.0 mg/L) was found in Sweden and the lowest (0.03–1.14 mg/L) in Italy. We collected the values of adsorption capacities and fluoride removal efficiencies of various types of adsorbents from valuable released data accessible in the literature and exhibited tables. There is still a need to find the actual possibility of using biosorbents and adsorbents on a commercial scale and to define the reusability of adsorbents to decrease price and the waste generated from the adsorption method. This article reviews the currently available methods and approaches to fluoride removal of water.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction

Fluoride is vital in little quantities for bone mineralization and protects against dental caries. Higher intake of fluoride causes teeth enamel decay, called fluorosis (Table 1) [1], and contributes to serious diseases, for example, osteoporosis, brittle bones, arthritis, brain damage, cancer, infertility, fluorosis, Alzheimer syndrome, and thyroid disorder [2, 3]. Fluoride reaches aqueous media by human-made activities, industrial and agricultural activities, and geological sources. All natural sources of water have some level of fluoride. The fluoride levels in the groundwater are related to the kind of minerals (calcium) and rocks [4]. The characteristics of fluoride materials are shown in Table 2. In a few regions of the world, water is brackish and has more than 1.5 mg/L fluoride. It exceeds 5 mg/L in some parts of the world and sometimes reaches 20 mg/L [5]. The challenge of excess levels of fluoride in drinking water is encountered in several parts of the world. At the latest conditions, more than 35 countries across the world have reported high fluoride water sources. India, China, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Pakistan, Germany, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Tanzania, Iran, and South Africa are among the most well-known countries with high rates of fluoride on ground. Other countries have reported high levels of fluoride [6]. Some literatures have reported the advantages and limitations of fluoride treatment [6, 7]. For example, reverse osmosis (RO) method has received lots of attention since 1960s owing to enhanced membrane materials and technologies, lower energy consumption, and its ability to segregate practically all total dissolved solids (TDS) from seawater and fulfill guideline standards [8]. The common methods of defluorination have limitations, such as high primary installation cost, defect of selectivity, low capacity, and regeneration or utilization problems [9]. The best fluoride value in drinking water for common good health set by the World Health Organization (WHO) is between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L at a temperature ranging from 12 to 25°C [10].

Table 1

Effects of drinking water fluoride contents on human health [5].

Fluoride level, mg/L	Health impact
<0.5	Dental caries
0.5–1.5	Optimum dental health
1.5–4.0	Dental fluorosis
4.0–10	Dental and skeletal fluorosis
>10.0	Crippling fluorosis

Table 2

Characteristics of fluoride materials [5].

Material	Chemical composition	Fluorine rate (%)
Fluorapatite	Ca3(PO4)3F	4
Bastnaesite	(Ce, La) (CO3)F	9
Cryolite	Na3AlF6	45
Fluorite (fluorspar)	CaF2	49
Villianmite	NaF	55
Sellaite	MgF2	61

A number of potential methods such as chemical adsorption (i.e., precipitation, ion exchange, nanofiltration (NF), freeze concentration, RO, electrolysis, dialysis, electrodialysis and electrocoagulation (EC), and fluidized-bed crystallization) and physical adsorption (i.e., bone-char, zeolite, activated alumina, diatomite modified with aluminum hydroxide, nanosorbents, activated bentonite, clay, and activated carbon) have been recommended for the removal of fluoride from drinking water. However, the above absorbents have various limitations, like complicated treatment, low efficiency, and/or a finite functional pH ranges. Various methods have been employed to treat fluoride containing water. However, most are facing challenges, particularly when they should be used in underdeveloped nations. The conventional water treatments like biological techniques are often inefficient to treat chemical materials. Adsorption processes are effective, especially for low levels, and chemical treatments like precipitation and coagulation are costly and generate a relatively high amount of waste or secondary pollutants that require supplementary treatments. Membrane methods are restricted by fouling challenges, and thermal methods are expensive [11]. Each method has its own advantages, limitations, and influencing parameters and works efficiently under best situations. Thus, it is very essential to select the appropriate and effective techniques for removal of fluoride from water sources. The present study aims at presenting a comprehensive review of different defluoridation methodologies for water for pertinent for benchmarking.

2. Methods

This review has principally classified these techniques based on the processes. Databases like Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science were employed to retrieve several articles on the topic. Keywords like “defluoridation,” “fluoride removal,” “drinking water,” “water treatment,” and “groundwater” were added to the previously mentioned methods to retrieve appropriate papers. After a thorough search and removing articles with no direct association with water defluoridation, 113 original articles were primarily contained in the context of the review. This excludes various review papers providing an understanding of different mechanisms of each treatment. The types of waters, such as tap water, brackish water, and groundwater, were investigated in this study.

3. Results and Discussion

Various methods had been employed in these articles, including adsorption (biosorbents, nanoparticles, and bioremediations) (13), ion exchange (1), NF (2), freeze concentration (1), RO (1), electrolysis (1), coagulation (1), metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) (1), and EC (1) (Table 3).

Table 3

A comparison between the fluoride removal methods.

Process (name of the methods)	Type of environment	Removal performance	Advantages	Disadvantages	Ref.
Adsorption (exhaustive coffee grounds and iron sludge)	Groundwater	Iron sludge 62.92% and exhausted coffee grounds 56.67%	Cheap and easily available adsorbents	Low removal efficiency	[11]
Adsorption (porous starch loaded with common metal ions)	Drinking water	Maximum adsorption capacity of porous starch with Zr (PS-Zr) of 25.41 mg/g	Use of commercial scale	-	[82]
Adsorption (nepheline from alkali-hydrothermal)	Aqueous solutions	Maximum adsorption capacity of 183 mg/g	Cheap adsorbents	High efficiency and adjustment of pH	[83]
NF and RO	Groundwater	Fluoride rejection: 98% for RO and 90% for NF	High efficiency	Membrane fouling, decreased membrane lifetime and chemical persistence, high capital operation and maintenance costs, and hazardous effluent generation	[8, 22]
Ion exchange, membrane filtration, and EC	Aqueous solutions	90%–95%, 99%, and 85.5%	High efficiency	Costly techniques, production of waste, and recommended for small community systems	[2]
Adsorption (purolite A520E resin)	Aqueous environments	64.6%	Good stability and flexibility	Expensive processes	[84]
NF	Groundwater	98%	High efficiency	High capital and running and maintenance costs	[27]
Adsorption (CuO NPs)	Aqueous solutions	97%	High efficiency	–	[42]
Adsorption (Earth modified alumina)	Aqueous solutions	Adsorption capacity of F−: 26.45 mg·g−1	Easy utilization and high efficiency	Limited yield and long exposure time	[46]
Adsorption (fungus hyphae-supported alumina)	Aqueous solutions	Nearly 90%	Economical and effective technique	Long exposure time	[85]
Freezing temperature	Water solutions	Deionized water spiked with fluoride 85% and salinity 75%	High efficiency and little contamination	More susceptible to the freezing temperature	[73]
Adsorption (diatomite modified with aluminum hydroxide)	Aqueous solution and natural groundwater	89%	Low-cost	Leak of soluble alumina	[86]
Adsorption (zirconium onto tea powder)	Drinking water	Adsorption capacity of 12.43 mg/g	Effective, and safe biosorbent	A slight functional pH span	[87]
Adsorption (activated carbon: banana peel and coffee husk)	Aqueous solution	80% to 84%	Cheap, simple, and environment friendly	Limited efficiency and long exposure time	[88]
Adsorption (single-walled carbon nanotubes)	Aqueous solution	87%–100%	Low cost	Generation of toxic waste	[89]
Adsorption (Mg/Ce/Mn oxide-modified diatomaceous Earth)	Aqueous solution	>93%	Low cost and simple operation	High yield often demands adjustment of pH	[90]
Adsorption (aegle marmelos)	Aqueous solution	52%	Low cost	Low efficiency	[91]
Precipitation/coagulation (lime and alum)	Aqueous solution	-	Simple process and little energy requirement	High cost of maintenance and production of hazardous waste	[1]
MOFs	Aqueous solution	Adsorption capacity of 41.36 mg/g	High surface area and high porous	–	[92]

EC: electrocoagulation; NPs: nanoparticles; NF: nanofiltration; MOFs: metal organic frameworks.

3.1. Adsorption Method

This process has great potential for fluoride removal because of its cost effectiveness, simple utilization, high removal capabilities, and reusability of the adsorbent (regeneration) [6].

Adsorption is controlled by various parameters, such as the temperature, nature of the adsorbate and adsorbent, presence of other pollutants, and experimental status (pH, level of pollutants, exposure time, particle size, and temperature) [4, 12].

Fluoride removal efficiency of industrial origin adsorbents (i.e., hydrated cement, bricks powder, and marble powder) was 80% [13].

In a study, Chen et al. reported the maximum obtained adsorption of fluoride by the Fe–Al granular ceramic to be 96% [14]. One study illustrated that the maximum 93.1% fluoride removal was attained in 50 min using Al/Fe oxide-coated diatomaceous earth [15]. Another study showed that the maximal adsorption capacity of 19.2 mg of F⁻/g was achieved using aluminium oxide and manganese oxide [16]. The maximum adsorption capacity of fluoride by using activated alumina was achieved at 1.45 mg/g, pH 7, and the maximum removal capacity of fluoride by fly ash adsorbent was achieved at up to 332.5 mg/g [2]. One study showed that the kaolinite technique removes fluoride at 90%–96% at 120 min [17]. A study by Biswas et al. revealed that heat-activated Mahabir colliery shale (HAMBS550) and heat-activated Sonepur Bazari colliery shale (HASBS550) demonstrate maximum removal of 88.3% and 88.5%, respectively, at primary fluoride level of 10 mg/L, pH = 3, and adsorbent quantity of 70 g/L [18].

One study reported that the Mg-hydroxyapatite (HAP) adsorbent developed for fluoride removal from aqueous environments has very good potential for defluoridation with a capacity of 1.4 mg/g. It also found that fluoride removal of 92.34% was achieved with 10 g/L, and equilibrium was reached in 180 min [19]. In another study, AL-Darwish and Abu-Sharar demonstrated that limestone and Mg(OH)₂ were used as adsorbents for fluoride removal from aqueous solutions [20]. In a study by Mobarak et al., the maximum adsorption capacity of fluoride was found to be 3.66 mg/g using natural clay modified by decyltrimethyl ammonium bromide and a combination of hydrogen peroxide with decyltrimethyl ammonium bromide [21].

3.2. Precipitation/Coagulation

The method involves the addition of alum salts, lime, and bleaching powder into the conventional water treatment. The basis of the technique is the adsorption of fluoride on the flocs following removal of fluoride. Coagulation is the most cost-effective technique in low-income nations, where societies cannot afford, buy, and use RO for drinking water due to its high primary costs [22].

The precipitation method is seldom used because of its high chemical costs, formation of sludge with a high content of toxic aluminium fluoride composite (alumino-fluoro), being a batch technique, limitation in quantity of water being treated, unpleasant water taste, and high residual aluminium dosage [6]. One of the most common precipitation techniques is the Nalgonda method, which is a means of fluoride removal that depends on the flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration of fluoride with the addition of aluminium sulphate or aluminium chloride and lime. Nalgonda method is preferable at all levels because of its low price and simplicity of handling [23]. Kumar et al. demonstrated the recycled fluoride from acidic liquors of low-grade molybdenite containing alumino silicates [24]. Another study reported that the maximum removal rate of fluoride was achieved at 300 mg/L alum level, in 45 min at pH = 6 [25].

3.3. Nanofiltration (NF)

This method appears to be the best method of all membrane techniques for fluoride removal due to the high and special membrane selectivity [6]. Some of the impediments of this method that need enhancement are membrane fouling, inadequate separation and exclusion, chemical persistence, and confined lifetime of membranes [6]. Among several defluoridation methods, NF is an effective technique for water treatment compared with other membrane techniques, for example, RO and electrodialysis (ED) [4]. One study stated that the retention of fluoride anions by NF was in the order of 60% [26]. In a study, Chakrabortty et al. showed that the composite polyamide NF membrane used in the cross flow method was successful in removing 98% fluoride from polluted water [27]. Another study reported that the retention of fluoride by HL membrane exceeds 80% [28].

3.4. Reverse Osmosis (RO)

RO is a physical process in which hydraulic pressure beyond the osmotic pressure used to the higher level side of a semipermeable membrane results in a flow of the solvent toward the less thickened side [29]. In their study, Bejaoui et al. reported that the maintenance of fluoride exceeds 90% for both membranes (RO and NF) [9]. Another study demonstrated that a rejection higher than 98% of fluoride was achieved by using the RO membrane [30]. A study by Assefa and Zede revealed that the RO membrane technique removes the fluoride up to the range of 94%–99% [31]. One study reported that the removal percentage achieved by using polyamide RO membrane was 95%–98% [32]. The results of a study revealed that the fluoride removal rate by the RO method varies from 45% to 90% at pH = 5.5 to 7 [23].

3.5. Dialysis and Electrodialysis

Dialysis is based on the diffusion of solutes through the membrane despite utilizing a membrane to retain solutes. Electrodialysis (ED) is an electrochemical segregation of ions that are moved via resin membranes using DC voltage [4]. In their study, Ben Sik Ali Ali et al. showed that the yield of the electrodialysis technique was 86.2% for defluoridation [33]. Another study reported that the fluoride removal efficiency of electrodialysis was from 80% to 90% [34]. The results of a study revealed that electrodialysis technique could remove 50–60% of fluoride within 6 min [35]. One study showed that the fluoride removal efficiency of electrodialysis was from 50% to 90% [36]. Another study claimed that the removal rate of fluoride from drinking water by electrodialysis method was 92% [37].

3.6. Ion Exchange

The resins are expensive and make the treatment uneconomical; however, resins can be regenerated simply. Unfortunately, the regeneration process generates a large quantity of fluoride-loaded waste and disposal is needed for such waste, which is a drawback of this process. However the process efficiency is rather low and powerfully influenced by the presence of other anions (i.e., sulphates, carbonates, nitrates, phosphates, etc.) [6, 34]. Samadi et al. explained that the maximum capacity was achieved 13.7 mg/g at pH = 7 by ion exchange method [38]. Another study reported the maximum fluoride loading of 15.77 g/kg of resin [39].

3.7. Nanoparticles (NPs)

Nanotechnology involves the synthesis, development, and specification of nanosized particles (1–100 nm) and has become one of the most active ways of research for purifying polluted water [6].

Among several techniques, nanotechnology has appeared as a potential method for fluoride removal over recent years. The utilization of NPs suggests the potential usage for the polluted water treatment. Some of the distinguished features have demonstrated NPs as superb fluoride adsorbents. These features include high reactivity, small size, excellent catalytic activity, potential reactivity, high surface area, simple separation, and numerous active sites for adsorption. High adsorption qualification, free active valences, and surface energies of NPs have resulted from the previously mentioned features [4].

The maximum perceived adsorption of fluoride by the CaO NPs was 92% within 30 min of exposure time and an adsorbent dose of 0.6 g/L [40]. The study by Jokar et al. has stated that polyaniline/Fe₃O₄ nanocomposite with an elimination capacity of 97.48 and 78.56 mg/g was achieved within 4 h at the optimal pH of 4 and 7, respectively [41].

The fluoride adsorption efficiency of nano-MgO was found to be 90% when using an adsorbent dose of 0.6 g/L [6]. In a study by Bazrafshan et al., the efficiency of more than 89% was observed in fluoride removal where the removal capacity was 357 mg F/g CuO NPs [42]. The maximum adsorption of fluoride by using Al₂O₃/Carbon nanotubes was obtained 28.7 mg/g at pH 6 [43].

The maximum adsorption of fluoride by using P/γ Fe₂O₃ NPs was found to be 99% within 30 min [44]. One study showed that the adsorption capacity of the porous MgO nanoplates was more than 97% in 20 min [45]. The removal of fluoride from aqueous media using lanthanum and cerium modified mesoporous alumina (La/MA and Ce/MA) was studied, and it was found that the maximum adsorption capacity of La/MA was 26.45 mg/g, and the capacity of La/MA was more than Ce/MA and mesoporous alumina [46]. One study showed that the fluoride removal efficiency of the mineral-substituted hydroxyapatite nanocomposite (mHAp) adsorbent is 93% [47]. Another study by Dubey et al. demonstrated that the maximum adsorption of fluoride by using NPs of gamma alumina and alcoholic aluminum chloride was 23 mg/g [48]. Another study showed that the maximum removal of fluoride was achieved at an optimal condition of pH 5.0 and a dose of 1.8 g/L and was found to be 94% using nZVI grafted alumina process [49].

3.8. Bionanocomposites and Carbon-Based Adsorbents

Bionanocomposites as an effective adsorbent for fluoride removal were developed in recent studies. The biomass from plants, agronomical wastes, and industrial by-products can be used for efficient fluoride uptake, as well as solving their disposal problem [22].

Carbon-based adsorbents have also been studied broadly for fluoride removal as carbon has a high affinity for fluoride anions [50]. One study reported the use of low-cost activated carbon from Pithecellobium dulce carbon for fluoride removal from water and compared it with commercial activated carbon [22]. Ajisha and Rajagopal used pyrolyzed Delonix regia pod carbon for fluoride removal from water. In this method, the maximum removal of 97% was achieved in optimum status [51].

Another study by Bazrafshan et al. demonstrated that fluoride removal capacity for ZnCl₂-treated Eucalyptus leaves was 3.5 mgF/g [52]. One study demonstrated that defluoridation capacity for bayerite/boehmite nanocomposites was 56.80 mg/L [53]. The maximum adsorption capacity was 0.75 mg/g using bone-char [2].

Another study reported the feasibility of chitin, chitosan, and lanthanum-modified chitosan as biosorbents for the removal of fluoride from aqueous media [54]. The maximum removal efficiency of fluoride from water was 82.72% using aluminium-impregnated potato plant ash [55]. The optimum defluoridation accomplished at the optimum time of 60 min was 96% using Bermuda grass biosorbent [56].

Raw marine (algae, bivalves, sea star, brittle star, and coral reef) adsorbents are used to remove fluoride from aqueous medium [57]. The efficacy of peel powders of Ananas comosus and Citrus sinensis to remove fluoride from water was above 90% at pH 6 for Citrus sinensis peel powder and above 90% at pH 4 for Ananas comosus peel powder for exposure of time for 60 min [58]. The study by Tefera et al. illustrated that the maximum adsorption yield was found to be 86% in 60 min using activated carbon of avocado seeds [59]. Another study reported that a maximum fluoride removal of 85.4% was observed using activated carbon of Crocus sativus leaves at the best state of primary fluoride level of 6.5 mg/L and exposure time of 70 min [60]. Another study by Chatterjee et al. found the maximum fluoride removal capacity to be 150 mg/g using carbonized bone meal [61].

3.9. Electrocoagulation (EC)

EC is a simple and a beneficial technique for fluoride removal, but there is a challenge of high turbidity in the purified water. In this method, the availability of electricity has to be ensured, and charge loading has been found to be a vital factor in defluoridation experiments [62, 63]. The EC technique’s capability for fluoride removal from industrial wastewater rate was found to be 80% [2]. Another study showed the capability of EC for fluoride removal from tap water to be 90% [64]. In a study, Mureth et al. found the EC technique removal yield to be 90% at the best electrolysis time of 30 min [65]. Another study reported the EC technique removal yield of 96% [66].

In a study by Missaoui on EC treatment for fluoride removal from brackish water, the removal efficiency up to 52% was achieved under optimal status [67]. The study by Chibania et al. reported the fluoride removal of over 85% in 20 min using EC technique [36]. One study indicated that electrochemical technique for defluoridation has shown a good yield for the removal of fluoride and aluminum concurrently using aluminum electrodes under 230 V DC [68]. One study demonstrated that EC technique with iron and aluminum electrodes could favorably remove fluoride from the aqueous media [69]. The study by Graça et al. has demonstrated that continuous EC process can remove 97% of fluoride from 5 L of water with a level of 15 mg F/L [70]. Another study by Betancor-Abreu reported the efficiency of EC treatment for fluoride removal from underground waters, to be up to 85.9% under optimal status [71].

3.10. Freeze Concentration

This method is effective to remove various organic and inorganic contaminants from industrial sewage/liquid waste and can be used to remove pollutants from water during the formation of ice crystals, particularly in the areas where natural cool energy is available [72]. Freeze desalination techniques possess benefits of low operating temperatures, which minimize scaling and corrosion challenges [11]. The fluoride removal yield of freeze concentration was between 75% and 85% at −15°C to −20°C [73]. Another study showed that freeze desalination for fluoride removal from tap water was 62% [11].

3.11. Hybrid Methods

Researchers doing hybrid treatments from the past years have also admired the adsorption and precipitation techniques. Hybrid methods include RO and NF, EC and microelectrolysis, MF and UF, precipitation-adsorption, precipitation/crystallization, MOFs, and EC and floatation. The study by Dhadge et al. demonstrated that a hybrid EC-filtration is capable of removing fluoride from water by 93.2% [74]. Another study reported the maximum fluoride removal with an ultimate fluoride level of 0.43 mg/L using EC-microfiltration hybrid technique [75]. Haldar et al. showed the developments in fluoride removal from drinking water using MOFs [76]. Another study showed that the fluoride adsorption capacity of MOF-801 is 40 mg/L at 303 K [77]. One study stated that the theoretical fluoride adsorption capacity was up to 42.19 mg/L at 298 K using MOF-MIL-96(AL) method [78]. Sandoval et al. reported a removal rate of 73% for EC using a filter-press flow reactor for fluoride removal from groundwater [79]. One study stated that NF/RO processes were proved to remove both fluoride and NOM from Tanzanian waters [80].

3.12. Worldwide Conditions of Fluoride Concentrations

The largest source of potable water is groundwater, and the majority of the populace use groundwater for potable and agriculture intentions [81]. The highest concentration of fluoride (0.1–15.0 mg/L) was found in Sweden, and the lowest concentration (0.03–1.14 mg/L) was found in Italy (Table 4 and Figure 1). Most of the African countries have regions where fluoride levels are higher than the 1.5 mg/L maximum value recommended by the WHO. In Asia, countries with high fluoride levels in the groundwater and surface water, for example, India and China, are the two most populated and the worst affected, and in North America, some regions in the United States, Mexico, and Canada require water deflouridation because fluorine is present in high levels in the groundwater. In Latin America, Peru, Ecuador, and Argentina possess groundwater with high levels of fluoride. Excess fluoride in groundwater is not a popular challenge in European countries. In some areas of Europe, adding fluoride to drinking water is necessary due to lack of natural fluoride, but some countries, like Spain (Icod de Los Vinos) and Norway (Hordaland), possess groundwater with excess fluoride levels. Apart from Spain, Sweden, and Norway, some districts in Germany also possess high levels of fluoride in their groundwater [81].

Table 4

Amount of fluoride level in groundwater of several nations.

Country	Region/province/city	Fluoride level (mg/L)	Ref.
Ethiopia	South Ethiopian	Shallow wells: 0.5–1.29; deep wells: 0.48–5.61	[93]
Malawi	South Malawi	1.5–6	[94]
Iran	West Azerbaijan	Warm seasons: 0.01–3; cold seasons: 0.01–4	[95]
Iran	Poldasht	0.27–10.3	[96]
India	Peddavagu	0.6–3.6	[97]
India	Telangana	0.4–2.2	[98]
Thailand	Lamphun and Northern Thailand	0.01–14.12	[99]
China	Northern Anhui Province	0.55–2.06	[100]
China	Semiarid	0.11–6.33	[101]
China	Northwestern China	0.12–13.30	[102]
Sweden	Kalmar	0.1–15.0	[103]
United States	–	0.7–4.0	[104]
Italy	Aosta Valley Region	0.03–1.14	[105]
Nigeria	Southwestern Nigeria	Mean:1.23	[106]
Ghana	Upper East Region of Ghana	0.5–4.6	[107]
Mexico	Central region in Mexico	0.56–1.60	[108]
Pakistan	Sindh and Punjab	0.1–3.9, and 0.1–10.3	[109]
Sudan	Tiraat El-Bijah and Um Duwanban	0.45–1.36	[110]
Tanzania	East African Rift	0.5–10	[111]
Argentina	Del Azul Creek basin	Above 1.5	[112]
Benin	Central Benin	1.5–3.02	[113]

[figure omitted; refer to PDF]

The elimination of fluoride by RO and NF is effective, with removal performances of 90% to 99.8%. Limitations of these processes include scaling, fouling, high energy, and fund expenditures. Disadvantages of coagulation with lime and aluminum sulphate were sludge production, high cost, and challenge of final disposal. The removal efficiency depends on raw water pH, coagulant type, coagulant dose, and water composition. Ion exchange is the most effective and extensively used technique with an elimination performance of 90 to 95%. Adsorption is one of the most efficient strategies to remove fluoride from water. In addition, its removal performance is between 56% and 100%. The removal is chiefly based on pH, initial level of pollutant, adsorbent dosage rate, type of adsorbent, flow rate of water, contact time, contaminant solubility, and temperature. The fluoride removal by biosorption process was 52 to 90%. The most important strengths of biosorption include low price, high performance, low production waste, regeneration of biosorbent, being ecofriendly, and possibility of pollutant recovery. In sum, research and development works on fluoride removal from different types of water have advanced considerably, which is required to result in a commercially practicable technique for fluoride removal from different types of water.

4. Conclusions and Future Recommendations

This study explained the adsorption efficiency of a wide range of methods for fluoride removal from water. Various methods were investigated in this research, such as adsorption (biosorbents, NPs, and bioremediations), ion exchange, NF, freeze concentration, RS, electrolysis, coagulation, MOFs, and EC. Adsorption process was the method most commonly used for fluoride removal from water. According to the findings of this study, the highest concentration of fluoride (0.1–15.0 mg/L) was found in Sweden, and the lowest concentration (0.03–1.14 mg/L) was found in Italy.

Future needs include cheap, highly developed systems, with low waste, minimum wastage, and maximum utilization of the accessible waste at the full-scale to continue removal of fluoride. Therefore, the development of new production matters with enhanced physical and chemical characteristics for fluoride and lead removal from aqueous solutions requires high research effort. Defluoridation should be used where there is no other source of safe drinking water. Research into the suggested fluoride removal plans would be valuable for the development of removal methods.

Disclosure

The author declares that no funding sources or grants were attributed to this work.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences.

References

[1] S. S. Waghmare, T. Arfin, "Fluoride removal from water by various techniques," International Journal of Innovative Science Engineering and Technology, vol. 2, pp. 560-571, 2015.

[2] A. Kumar, A. Balouch, Abdullah, "Remediation of toxic fluoride from aqueous media by various techniques," International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, vol. 101 no. 4, pp. 482-505, DOI: 10.1080/03067319.2019.1669580, 2021.

[3] A. Fadaei, M. Amiri, "The association between applying sodium fluoride mouthwash and decayed missed filled teeth (DMFT) index in elementary students of Charharmahal and Bakhtiari province, Iran," World Applied Sciences Journal, vol. 24, pp. 140-145, 2013.

[4] A. Dhillon, S. Prasad, D. Kumar, "Recent advances and spectroscopic perspectives in fluoride removal," Applied Spectroscopy Reviews, vol. 52 no. 3, pp. 175-230, DOI: 10.1080/05704928.2016.1213737, 2017.

[5] I. Siaurusevičiūtė, R. Albrektienė, "Removal of fluorides from aqueous solutions using exhausted coffee grounds and iron sludge," Water, vol. 13, 2021.

[6] K. K. Yadav, N. Gupta, V. Kumar, S. A. Khan, A. Kumar, "A review of emerging adsorbents and current demand for defluoridation of water: bright future in water sustainability," Environment International, vol. 111, pp. 80-108, DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.11.014, 2018.

[7] D. Ahmadi, A. Khodabakhshi, S. Hemati, A. Fadaei, "Removal of diazinon pesticide from aqueous solutions by chemical–thermal-activated watermelon rind," International Journal of Environmental Health Engineering, vol. 9, 2020.

[8] V. B. Brião, F. Cuenca, A. Pandolfo, D. P. Cadore Favaretto, "Is nanofiltration better than reverse osmosis for removal of fluoride from brackish waters to produce drinking water?," Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 158, pp. 20-32, 2019.

[9] I. Bejaoui, A. Mnif, B. Hamrouni, "Performance of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration in the removal of fluoride from model water and metal packaging industrial effluent," Separation Science and Technology, vol. 49 no. 8, pp. 1135-1145, DOI: 10.1080/01496395.2013.878956, 2014.

[10] F. Edition, "Guidelines for drinking-water quality," WHO Chronicle, vol. 38, pp. 104-108, 2011.

[11] F. Melak, A. Ambelu, H. Astatkie, G. Du Laing, E. Alemayehu, "Freeze desalination as point-of-use water defluoridation technique," Applied Water Science, vol. 9,DOI: 10.1007/s13201-019-0913-0, 2019.

[12] V. Mohammadi, M. Tabatabaee, A. Fadaei, S. A. Mirhoseini, "Comparing activated carbon and magnetic activated carbon in removal of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate from aqueous solution by heterogeneous catalytic ozonation process," Iranian Journal of Catalysis, vol. 10, pp. 209-218, 2020.

[13] S. Bibi, A. Farooqi, K. Hussain, N. Haider, "Evaluation of industrial based adsorbents for simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride from drinking water," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 87, pp. 882-896, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.030, 2015.

[14] N. Chen, C. Feng, M. Li, "Fluoride removal on Fe-Al-impregnated granular ceramic adsorbent from aqueous solution," Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, vol. 16 no. 3, pp. 609-617, DOI: 10.1007/s10098-013-0659-6, 2014.

[15] A. A. Izuagie, W. M. Gitari, J. R. Gumbo, "Synthesis and performance evaluation of Al/Fe oxide coated diatomaceous earth in groundwater defluoridation: towards fluorosis mitigation," Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, vol. 51 no. 10, pp. 810-824, DOI: 10.1080/10934529.2016.1181445, 2016.

[16] S. Alemu, E. Mulugeta, F. Zewge, B. S. Chandravanshi, "Water defluoridation by aluminium oxide-manganese oxide composite material," Environmental Technology, vol. 35 no. 15, pp. 1893-1903, DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2014.885584, 2014.

[17] N. Nabbou, M. Belhachemi, M. Boumelik, T. Merzougui, D. Lahcene, Y. Harek, A. A. Zorpas, M. Jeguirim, "Removal of fluoride from groundwater using natural clay (kaolinite): optimization of adsorption conditions," Comptes Rendus Chimie, vol. 22 no. 2-3, pp. 105-112, DOI: 10.1016/j.crci.2018.09.010, 2019.

[18] G. Biswas, M. Dutta, S. Dutta, K. Adhikari, "A comparative study of removal of fluoride from contaminated water using shale collected from different coal mines in India," Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 23 no. 10, pp. 9418-9431, DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-5815-6, 2016.

[19] P. Mondal, S. George, "Removal of fluoride from drinking water using novel adsorbent magnesia-hydroxyapatite, Water, Air," & Soil Pollution, vol. 226,DOI: 10.1007/s11270-015-2515-2, 2015.

[20] A.-D. Noura, T. Abu-Sharar, "Kinetics of fluoride adsorption onto native and Mg (OH) 2-amended limestone," Applied Water Science, vol. 11, 2021.

[21] M. Mobarak, A. Q. Selim, E. A. Mohamed, M. K. Seliem, "Modification of organic matter-rich clay by a solution of cationic surfactant/H 2 O 2 : a new product for fluoride adsorption from solutions," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 192, pp. 712-721, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.044, 2018.

[22] S. Dubey, M. Agrawal, A. B. Gupta, "Advances in coagulation technique for treatment of fluoride-contaminated water: a critical review," Reviews in Chemical Engineering, vol. 35, pp. 109-137, 2019.

[23] S. Dubey, M. Agarwal, A. B. Gupta, "Recent developments in defluoridation of drinking water in India," Environmental Pollution, pp. 345-356, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-5792-2_28, 2018.

[24] M. Kumar, M. N. Babu, T. R. Mankhand, B. D. Pandey, "Precipitation of sodium silicofluoride (Na2SiF6) and cryolite (Na3AlF6) from HF/HCl leach liquors of alumino-silicates," Hydrometallurgy, vol. 104 no. 2, pp. 304-307, DOI: 10.1016/j.hydromet.2010.05.014, 2010.

[25] A. Dargahi, Z. Atafar, M. Mohammadi, A. Azizi, A. Almasi, M. Ahagh, "Study the efficiency of alum coagulant in fluoride removal from drinking water," International Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, vol. 8, pp. 16772-16778, 2016.

[26] I. Bejaoui, A. Mnif, B. Hamrouni, "Influence of operating conditions on the retention of fluoride from water by nanofiltration," Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 29 no. 1-3, pp. 39-46, DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2011.1836, 2011.

[27] S. Chakrabortty, M. Roy, P. Pal, "Removal of fluoride from contaminated groundwater by cross flow nanofiltration: transport modeling and economic evaluation," Desalination, vol. 313, pp. 115-124, DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2012.12.021, 2013.

[28] A. Mnif, M. Ben Sik Ali, B. Hamrouni, "Effect of some physical and chemical parameters on fluoride removal by nanofiltration," Ionics, vol. 16 no. 3, pp. 245-253, DOI: 10.1007/s11581-009-0368-7, 2010.

[29] S. J. Wimalawansa, "Purification of contaminated water with reverse osmosis: effective solution of providing clean water for human needs in developing countries," International journal of emerging technology and advanced engineering, vol. 3, pp. 75-89, 2013.

[30] P. I. Ndiaye, P. Moulin, L. Dominguez, J. C. Millet, F. Charbit, "Removal of fluoride from electronic industrial effluentby RO membrane separation," Desalination, vol. 173 no. 1, pp. 25-32, DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2004.07.042, 2005.

[31] B. Assefa, "Defluoridation of Ethiopian rift valley region water using reverse osmosis membranes," Zede Journal, vol. 23, 2006.

[32] V. Gedam, J. Patil, S. Kagne, R. Sirsam, P. Labhasetwar, "Performance evaluation of polyamide reverse osmosis membrane for removal of contaminants in ground water collected from Chandrapur district," Journal of Membrane Science & Technology, vol. 2,DOI: 10.4172/2155-9589.1000117, 2012.

[33] M. Ben Sik Ali, B. Hamrouni, M. Dhahbi, "Electrodialytic defluoridation of brackish water: effect of process parameters and water characteristics," Clean - Soil, Air, Water, vol. 38, pp. 623-629, DOI: 10.1002/clen.200900301, 2010.

[34] M. Grzegorzek, K. Majewska-Nowak, A. E. Ahmed, "Removal of fluoride from multicomponent water solutions with the use of monovalent selective ion-exchange membranes," The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 722,DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137681, 2020.

[35] F. Djouadi Belkada, O. Kitous, N. Drouiche, S. Aoudj, O. Bouchelaghem, N. Abdi, H. Grib, N. Mameri, "Electrodialysis for fluoride and nitrate removal from synthesized photovoltaic industry wastewater," Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 204, pp. 108-115, DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2018.04.068, 2018.

[36] A. Chibani, A. Barhoumi, S. Ncib, W. Bouguerra, E. Elaloui, "Fluoride removal from synthetic groundwater by electrocoagulation process: parametric and energy evaluation," Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 157, pp. 100-109, DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2019.24087, 2019.

[37] S. Gmar, I. Ben Salah Sayadi, N. Helali, M. Tlili, M. Ben Amor, "Desalination and defluoridation of tap water by electrodialysis," Environmental Processes, vol. 2 no. S1, pp. 209-222, DOI: 10.1007/s40710-015-0112-4, 2015.

[38] M. T. Samadi, M. Zarrabi, M. N. Sepehr, S. M. Ramhormozi, S. Azizian, A. Amrane, "Removal of fluoride ions by ion exchange resin: kinetic and equilibrium studies," Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ), vol. 13, 2014.

[39] G. J. Millar, S. J. Couperthwaite, D. B. Wellner, D. C. Macfarlane, S. A. Dalzell, "Removal of fluoride ions from solution by chelating resin with imino-diacetate functionality," Journal of water process engineering, vol. 20, pp. 113-122, DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.10.004, 2017.

[40] G. Patel, U. Pal, S. Menon, "Removal of fluoride from aqueous solution by CaO nanoparticles," Separation Science and Technology, vol. 44 no. 12, pp. 2806-2826, DOI: 10.1080/01496390903014425, 2009.

[41] M. Jokar, R. Foroutani, M. H. Safaralizadeh, K. Farhadi, "Synthesis and characterization of polyaniline/Fe3O4 magnetic nanocomposite as practical approach for fluoride removal process," Annual Research & Review in Biology, vol. 4 no. 21, pp. 3262-3273, DOI: 10.9734/arrb/2014/9108, 2014.

[42] E. Bazrafshan, D. Balarak, A. H. Panahi, H. Kamani, A. H. Mahvi, "Fluoride removal from aqueous solutions by cupricoxide nanoparticles," Fluoride, vol. 49, 2016.

[43] H. J. Kim, K. Choi, Y. Baek, D.-G. Kim, J. Shim, J. Yoon, J.-C. Lee, "High-performance reverse osmosis CNT/polyamide nanocomposite membrane by controlled interfacial interactions," ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 6 no. 4, pp. 2819-2829, DOI: 10.1021/am405398f, 2014.

[44] S. Ahmadi, S. Rahdar, C. A. Igwegbe, A. Rahdar, N. Shafighi, F. Sadeghfar, "Data on the removal of fluoride from aqueous solutions using synthesized P/ γ -Fe2O3 nanoparticles: a novel adsorbent," Methods (Orlando), vol. 6, pp. 98-106, DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2018.12.009, 2019.

[45] Z. Yu, C. Xu, K. Yuan, X. Gan, H. Zhou, X. Wang, L. Zhu, G. Zhang, D. Xu, "Template-free synthesis of MgO mesoporous nanofibers with superior adsorption for fluoride and Congo red," Ceramics International, vol. 44 no. 8, pp. 9454-9462, DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.02.162, 2018.

[46] Y. He, L. Zhang, X. An, G. Wan, W. Zhu, Y. Luo, "Enhanced fluoride removal from water by rare earth (La and Ce) modified alumina: adsorption isotherms, kinetics, thermodynamics and mechanism," The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 688, pp. 184-198, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.175, 2019.

[47] A. Nagaraj, M. A. Munusamy, M. Ahmed, S. Suresh Kumar, M. Rajan, "Hydrothermal synthesis of a mineral-substituted hydroxyapatite nanocomposite material for fluoride removal from drinking water," New Journal of Chemistry, vol. 42 no. 15, pp. 12711-12721, DOI: 10.1039/c8nj02401d, 2018.

[48] S. Dubey, A. Singh, B. Nim, I. B. Singh, "Optimization of molar concentration of AlCl3 salt in the sol-gel synthesis of nanoparticles of gamma alumina and their application in the removal of fluoride of water," Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology, vol. 82 no. 2, pp. 468-477, DOI: 10.1007/s10971-017-4336-9, 2017.

[49] M. Agarwal, S. Dubey, R. Bisht, "Synthesis and characterization of nZVI grafted alumina and its application for fluoride removal from drinking water: equilibrium and kinetics study," Periodica Polytechnica - Chemical Engineering, vol. 63, pp. 73-84, 2019.

[50] S. Joshi, M. Adhikari, R. R. Pradhananga, "Adsorption of fluoride ion onto zirconyl-impregnated activated carbon prepared from lapsi seed stone," Journal of Nepal Chemical Society, vol. 30, pp. 13-23, 2012.

[51] M. Angelina Thanga Ajisha, K. Rajagopal, "Fluoride removal study using pyrolyzed Delonix regia pod, an unconventional adsorbent," International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 12 no. 1, pp. 223-236, DOI: 10.1007/s13762-013-0485-8, 2015.

[52] E. Bazrafshan, N. Khoshnamvand, A. H. Mahvi, "Fluoride removal from aqueous environments by zncl 2-treated eucalyptus leaves as a natural adsorbent," Fluoride, vol. 48, pp. 315-320, 2015.

[53] Y. Jia, B.-S. Zhu, Z. Jin, B. Sun, T. Luo, X.-Y. Yu, L.-T. Kong, J.-H. Liu, "Fluoride removal mechanism of bayerite/boehmite nanocomposites: roles of the surface hydroxyl groups and the nitrate anions," Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 440, pp. 60-67, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2014.10.069, 2015.

[54] S. P. Kamble, S. Jagtap, N. K. Labhsetwar, D. Thakare, S. Godfrey, S. Devotta, S. S. Rayalu, "Defluoridation of drinking water using chitin, chitosan and lanthanum-modified chitosan," Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 129 no. 1-3, pp. 173-180, DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2006.10.032, 2007.

[55] S. B. Ghosh, R. Bhaumik, N. K. Mondal, "Optimization study of adsorption parameters for removal of fluoride using aluminium-impregnated potato plant ash by response surface methodology," Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, vol. 18 no. 4, pp. 1069-1083, DOI: 10.1007/s10098-016-1097-z, 2016.

[56] T. K. Rout, R. Verma, R. V. Dennis, S. Banerjee, "Study the removal of fluoride from aqueous medium by using nano-composites," Journal of Encapsulation and Adsorption Sciences, vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 38-52, DOI: 10.4236/jeas.2015.51004, 2015.

[57] G. F. El-Said, E.-S. M. Abdelrehim, M. E.-S. Elba, S. M. A. Kawy, "A critical study of interactive fluoride adsorption by raw marine organisms and a synthetic organic 2-amino-3-cyano-4 (4-nitrophenyl)-6-phenylpyridine as adsorbent tools," Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 191,DOI: 10.1007/s10661-019-7465-5, 2019.

[58] N. Gandhi, D. Sirisha, K. C. Sekhar, "Adsorption of Fluoride (F-) from aqueous solution by using pineapple (ananas comosus) peel and orange (citrus sinensis) peel powders," International Journal of Environmental Bioremediation & Biodegradation, vol. 4, pp. 55-67, 2016.

[59] N. Tefera, Y. Mulualem, J. Fito, "Adsorption of fluoride from aqueous solution and groundwater onto activated carbon of Avocado seeds," Water Conservation Science and Engineering, vol. 5 no. 3-4, pp. 187-197, DOI: 10.1007/s41101-020-00093-7, 2020.

[60] M. H. Dehghani, M. Farhang, M. Alimohammadi, M. Afsharnia, G. Mckay, "Adsorptive removal of fluoride from water by activated carbon derived from CaCl 2 -modified Crocus sativus leaves: equilibrium adsorption isotherms, optimization, and influence of anions," Chemical Engineering Communications, vol. 205 no. 7, pp. 955-965, DOI: 10.1080/00986445.2018.1423969, 2018.

[61] S. Chatterjee, M. Mukherjee, S. De, "Defluoridation using novel chemically treated carbonized bone meal: batch and dynamic performance with scale-up studies," Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 25 no. 18, pp. 18161-18178, DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-2025-z, 2018.

[62] M. M. Emamjomeh, M. Sivakumar, "Fluoride removal by a continuous flow electrocoagulation reactor," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90 no. 2, pp. 1204-1212, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.06.001, 2009.

[63] M. Sadeghi, A. Fadaei, M. Tadrisi, A. Bay, A. Naghizadeh, "Performance evaluation of a biological landfill leachate treatment plant and effluent treatment by electrocoagulation," Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 115, pp. 82-87, DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2018.22263, 2018.

[64] D. Ghosh, C. R. Medhi, M. K. Purkait, "Treatment of fluoride containing drinking water by electrocoagulation using monopolar and bipolar electrode connections," Chemosphere, vol. 73 no. 9, pp. 1393-1400, DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.08.041, 2008.

[65] R. Mureth, R. Machunda, K. N. Njau, D. Dodoo-Arhin, "Assessment of fluoride removal in a batch electrocoagulation process: a case study in the Mount Meru Enclave," Scientific African, vol. 12,DOI: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00737, 2021.

[66] D. Das, B. K. Nandi, "Simultaneous removal of fluoride and Fe (II) ions from drinking water by electrocoagulation," Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, vol. 8,DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2019.103643, 2020.

[67] K. Missaoui, W. Bouguerra, C. Hannachi, N. Gannouni, B. Hamrouni, "Defluoridation of South Tunisian brackish water by alum coagulation/flocculation: a preliminary work," Journal: Journal of Advances in Chemistry, vol. 5, 2017.

[68] R. Sinha, S. Mathur, U. Brighu, "Aluminium removal from water after defluoridation with the electrocoagulation process," Environmental Technology, vol. 36 no. 21, pp. 2724-2731, DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2015.1043958, 2015.

[69] E. Bazrafshan, K. A. Ownagh, A. H. Mahvi, "Application of electrocoagulation process using iron and aluminum electrodes for fluoride removal from aqueous environment," E-Journal of Chemistry, vol. 9 no. 4, pp. 2297-2308, DOI: 10.1155/2012/102629, 2012.

[70] N. S. Graça, A. M. Ribeiro, A. E. Rodrigues, "Removal of fluoride from water by a continuous electrocoagulation process," Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 58, pp. 5314-5321, 2019.

[71] A. Betancor-Abreu, V. Mena, S. González, S. Delgado, R. Souto, J. Santana, "Design and optimization of an electrocoagulation reactor for fluoride remediation in underground water sources for human consumption," Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 31,DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.100865, 2019.

[72] C.-s. Luo, W.-w. Chen, W.-f. Han, "Experimental study on factors affecting the quality of ice crystal during the freezing concentration for the brackish water," Desalination, vol. 260 no. 1-3, pp. 231-238, DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2010.04.018, 2010.

[73] Y. Yang, Y. Lu, J. Guo, X. Zhang, "Application of freeze concentration for fluoride removal from water solution," Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 19, pp. 260-266, DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.05.009, 2017.

[74] V. L. Dhadge, C. R. Medhi, M. Changmai, M. K. Purkait, "House hold unit for the treatment of fluoride, iron, arsenic and microorganism contaminated drinking water," Chemosphere, vol. 199, pp. 728-736, DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.02.087, 2018.

[75] M. Changmai, M. Pasawan, M. K. Purkait, "A hybrid method for the removal of fluoride from drinking water: parametric study and cost estimation," Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 206, pp. 140-148, DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2018.05.061, 2018.

[76] D. Haldar, P. Duarah, M. K. Purkait, "MOFs for the treatment of arsenic, fluoride and iron contaminated drinking water: a review," Chemosphere, vol. 251,DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126388, 2020.

[77] X.-H. Zhu, C.-X. Yang, X.-P. Yan, "Metal-organic framework-801 for efficient removal of fluoride from water," Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, vol. 259, pp. 163-170, DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2017.10.001, 2018.

[78] X. Wang, H. Zhu, T. Sun, Y. Liu, T. Han, J. Lu, H. Dai, L. Zhai, "Synthesis and study of an efficient metal-organic framework adsorbent (MIL-96 (Al)) for fluoride removal from water," Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2019,DOI: 10.1155/2019/3128179, 2019.

[79] M. A. Sandoval, R. Fuentes, J. L. Nava, O. Coreño, Y. Li, J. H. Hernández, "Simultaneous removal of fluoride and arsenic from groundwater by electrocoagulation using a filter-press flow reactor with a three-cell stack," Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 208, pp. 208-216, DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2018.02.018, 2019.

[80] J. Shen, A. I. Schäfer, "Factors affecting fluoride and natural organic matter (NOM) removal from natural waters in Tanzania by nanofiltration/reverse osmosis," The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 527, pp. 520-529, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.037, 2015.

[81] V. Kimambo, P. Bhattacharya, F. Mtalo, J. Mtamba, A. Ahmad, "Fluoride occurrence in groundwater systems at global scale and status of defluoridation–state of the art," Groundwater for Sustainable Development, vol. 9,DOI: 10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100223, 2019.

[82] L. Xu, G. Chen, C. Peng, H. Qiao, F. Ke, R. Hou, D. Li, H. Cai, X. Wan, "Adsorptive removal of fluoride from drinking water using porous starch loaded with common metal ions," Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 160, pp. 82-89, DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.12.052, 2017.

[83] H. Wang, Q. Feng, K. Liu, Z. Li, X. Tang, G. Li, "Highly efficient fluoride adsorption from aqueous solution by nepheline prepared from kaolinite through alkali-hydrothermal process," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 196, pp. 72-79, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.015, 2017.

[84] A. B. Nasr, C. Charcosset, R. B. Amar, K. Walha, "Fluoride removal from aqueous solution by Purolite A520E resin: kinetic and thermodynamics study," Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 54, pp. 1604-1611, 2015.

[85] W. Yang, S. Tian, Q. Tang, L. Chai, H. Wang, "Fungus hyphae-supported alumina: an efficient and reclaimable adsorbent for fluoride removal from water," Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 496, pp. 496-504, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2017.02.015, 2017.

[86] T. Akafu, A. Chimdi, K. Gomoro, "Removal of fluoride from drinking water by sorption using diatomite modified with aluminum hydroxide," Journal of analytical methods in chemistry, vol. 2019,DOI: 10.1155/2019/4831926, 2019.

[87] H. Cai, L. Xu, G. Chen, C. Peng, F. Ke, Z. Liu, D. Li, Z. Zhang, X. Wan, "Removal of fluoride from drinking water using modified ultrafine tea powder processed using a ball-mill," Applied Surface Science, vol. 375, pp. 74-84, DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.03.005, 2016.

[88] T. Getachew, A. Hussen, V. M. Rao, "Defluoridation of water by activated carbon prepared from banana (Musa paradisiaca) peel and coffee (Coffea arabica) husk," International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 12 no. 6, pp. 1857-1866, DOI: 10.1007/s13762-014-0545-8, 2015.

[89] D. Balarak, Y. Mahdavi, E. Bazrafshan, A. H. Mahvi, Y. Esfandyari, "Adsorption of fluoride from aqueous solutions by carbon nanotubes: determination of equilibrium, kinetic, and thermodynamic parameters," Fluoride, vol. 49, 2016.

[90] W. M. Gitari, A. A. Izuagie, J. R. Gumbo, "Synthesis, characterization and batch assessment of groundwater fluoride removal capacity of trimetal Mg/Ce/Mn oxide-modified diatomaceous earth," Arabian Journal of Chemistry, vol. 13 no. 1,DOI: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2017.01.002, 2020.

[91] K. Singh, D. H. Lataye, K. L. Wasewar, "Removal of fluoride from aqueous solution by using bael (Aegle marmelos) shell activated carbon: kinetic, equilibrium and thermodynamic study," Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, vol. 194, pp. 23-32, DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluchem.2016.12.009, 2017.

[92] X. Zhao, D. Liu, H. Huang, W. Zhang, Q. Yang, C. Zhong, "The stability and defluoridation performance of MOFs in fluoride solutions," Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, vol. 185, pp. 72-78, DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2013.11.002, 2014.

[93] M. Haji, D. Wang, L. Li, D. Qin, Y. Guo, "Geochemical evolution of fluoride and implication for F− enrichment in groundwater: example from the bilate river basin of southern main Ethiopian rift," Water, vol. 10 no. 12,DOI: 10.3390/w10121799, 2018.

[94] M. J. Addison, M. O. Rivett, H. Robinson, A. Fraser, A. M. Miller, P. Phiri, P. Mleta, R. M. Kalin, "Fluoride occurrence in the lower East African rift system, southern Malawi," The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 712,DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136260, 2020.

[95] F. B. Asghari, A. A. Mohammadi, Z. Aboosaedi, M. Yaseri, M. Yousefi, "Data on fluoride concentration levels in cold and warm season in rural area of Shout (West Azerbaijan, Iran), Data in brief," 2017.

[96] M. Yousefi, M. Ghoochani, A. Hossein Mahvi, "Health risk assessment to fluoride in drinking water of rural residents living in the Poldasht city, Northwest of Iran," Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 148, pp. 426-430, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.10.057, 2018.

[97] N. Adimalla, S. K. Vasa, P. Li, "Evaluation of groundwater quality, Peddavagu in Central Telangana (PCT), South India: an insight of controlling factors of fluoride enrichment," Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, vol. 4 no. 2, pp. 841-852, DOI: 10.1007/s40808-018-0443-z, 2018.

[98] A. Narsimha, S. Rajitha, "Spatial distribution and seasonal variation in fluoride enrichment in groundwater and its associated human health risk assessment in Telangana State, South India," Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, vol. 24 no. 8, pp. 2119-2132, DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2018.1438176, 2018.

[99] C. J. Chuah, H. R. Lye, A. D. Ziegler, S. H. Wood, C. Kongpun, S. Rajchagool, "Fluoride: a naturally-occurring health hazard in drinking-water resources of Northern Thailand," The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 545, pp. 266-279, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.069, 2016.

[100] C. Hao, W. Zhang, H. Gui, "Geochemical behaviours and formation mechanisms for elevated fluoride in the drinking groundwater in Sulin coal-mining district, Northern Anhui Province, China, Polish," Journal of Environmental Studies, vol. 30, pp. 3565-3578, 2021.

[101] J. Chen, H. Wu, H. Qian, Y. Gao, "Assessing nitrate and fluoride contaminants in drinking water and their health risk of rural residents living in a semiarid region of Northwest China," Exposure and Health, vol. 9 no. 3, pp. 183-195, DOI: 10.1007/s12403-016-0231-9, 2017.

[102] H. Su, J. Wang, J. Liu, "Geochemical factors controlling the occurrence of high-fluoride groundwater in the western region of the Ordos basin, northwestern China," Environmental Pollution, vol. 252, pp. 1154-1162, DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.06.046, 2019.

[103] A. Augustsson, T. Berger, "Assessing the risk of an excess fluoride intake among Swedish children in households with private wells - expanding static single-source methods to a probabilistic multi-exposure-pathway approach," Environment International, vol. 68, pp. 192-199, DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.03.014, 2014.

[104] P. B. McMahon, C. J. Brown, T. D. Johnson, K. Belitz, B. D. Lindsey, "Fluoride occurrence in United States groundwater," The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 732,DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139217, 2020.

[105] A. K. Tiwari, R. Ghione, M. De Maio, M. Lavy, "Evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes and groundwater quality for suitability of drinking and irrigation purposes: a case study in the Aosta Valley region, Italy," Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 10,DOI: 10.1007/s12517-017-3031-z, 2017.

[106] C. P. Emenike, I. T. Tenebe, P. Jarvis, "Fluoride contamination in groundwater sources in Southwestern Nigeria: assessment using multivariate statistical approach and human health risk," Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 156, pp. 391-402, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.03.022, 2018.

[107] L. Craig, J. M. Thomas, A. Lutz, D. L. Decker, "Determining the optimum locations for pumping low-fluoride groundwater to distribute to communities in a fluoridic area in the Upper East Region, Ghana," Chemical Geology, vol. 476, pp. 481-492, DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2017.12.001, 2018.

[108] M. E. Irigoyen-Camacho, A. García Pérez, A. Mejía González, R. Huizar Alvarez, "Nutritional status and dental fluorosis among schoolchildren in communities with different drinking water fluoride concentrations in a central region in Mexico," The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 541, pp. 512-519, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.085, 2016.

[109] W. Ali, M. W. Aslam, M. Junaid, K. Ali, Y. Guo, A. Rasool, H. Zhang, "Elucidating various geochemical mechanisms drive fluoride contamination in unconfined aquifers along the major rivers in Sindh and Punjab, Pakistan," Environmental Pollution, vol. 249, pp. 535-549, DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.043, 2019.

[110] A. Ramadan, I. Ghandourb, "Dental fluorosis in two communities in Khartoum state, Sudan, with potable water fluoride levels of 1.36 and 0.45 mg/L, L," Fluoride, vol. 49, pp. 509-520, 2016.

[111] P. Bhattacharya, F. Lesafi, R. Filemon, F. Ligate, J. Ijumulana, F. Mtalo, "Geogenic fluoride and arsenic contamination in the groundwater environments in Tanzania," Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, .

[112] M. E. Zabala, M. Manzano, L. Vives, "Assessment of processes controlling the regional distribution of fluoride and arsenic in groundwater of the Pampeano Aquifer in the Del Azul Creek basin (Argentina)," Journal of Hydrology, vol. 541, pp. 1067-1087, DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.023, 2016.

[113] A. S. Avocefohoun, B. A. Gbaguidi, H. Sina, O. Biaou, C. S. Houssou, L. Baba-Moussa, "Fluoride in water intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis stains among children in Central Benin," International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 71-77, 2017.