Advertisement

Influence of flow rate and particle size on local equilibrium in column percolation tests using crushed masonry

  • Nicole BandowEmail author
  • Michael Finkel
  • Peter Grathwohl
  • Ute Kalbe
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

Column leaching tests are frequently used and accepted for investigation of release of hazardous substances from solid materials. Independent of differences due to the field of application or national regulations, column tests assume that local equilibrium is established in the experiment which facilitates transfer of results to field conditions. In the process of harmonization and standardization within Europe the question on the influence of flow rate and grain size distribution on the local equilibrium was raised. Thus, a set of experiments using two different masonry materials with varying grain size distribution and flow rate were conducted including stop/flow experiments. Results are compared to a numerical model which takes intraparticle pore diffusion-controlled release of Mo and V into the percolating water into account. Due to the relatively high intraparticle porosity of the materials (24–29%) data and model indicate that initially equilibrium-state conditions prevail followed by rapidly decreasing concentrations. The model fits data for Mo and V reasonably well; however, after the initial decline of concentrations (at L/S > 2) extended tailing is observed especially of elements occurring as oxides, which is not captured by the model.

Keywords

Leaching Porosity Stop/flow experiments Intraparticle diffusion model Vanadium Molybdenum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Free samples of masonry were provided by the manufactures. We thank Gabriele Christoph, Renate Helm, Katja Nordhauß and Peter Walzel for technical assistance as well as Annett Zimathies and Carsten Prinz for porosity measurements. This work was partly funded by CEN/NEN in the framework of project No 11810594. We are thankful for the constructive cooperation within the project with Ole Hjelmar (project leader) and André van Zomeren. The authors acknowledge the support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)—Germany under the Grant 281741268 (SFB 1253) and by Umweltbundesamt (UBA)—Germany under the Grant FKZ 371374228/2.

Supplementary material

10163_2019_827_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Flyhammar P, Bendz D (2006) Leaching of different elements from subbase layers of alternative aggregates in pavement constructions. J Hazard Mater 137:603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    del Valle-Zermeño R, Formosa J, Prieto M, Nadal R, Niubó M, Chimenos JM (2014) Pilot-scale road subbase made with granular material formulated with MSWI bottom ash and stabilized APC fly ash: environmental impact assessment. J Hazard Mater 266:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwab O, Bayer P, Juraske R, Verones F, Hellweg S (2014) Beyond the material grave: Life Cycle Impact Assessment of leaching from secondary materials in road and earth constructions. Waste Manage 34:1884–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyer C, Konrad W, Rügner H, Bauer S, Liedl R, Grathwohl P (2009) Model-based prediction of long-term leaching of contaminants from secondary materials in road constructions and noise protection dams. Waste Manage 29:839–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hjelmar O, Holm J, Crillesen K (2007) Utilisation of MSWI bottom ash as sub-base in road construction: first results from a large-scale test site. J Hazard Mater 139:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mulder E, de Jong TPR, Feenstra L (2007) Closed cycle construction: an integrated process for the separation and reuse of C&D waste. Waste Manag 27:1408–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dijkstra JJ, van der Sloot HA, Comans RNJ (2002) Process identification and model development of contaminant transport in MSWI bottom ash. Waste Manage 22:531–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grathwohl P, Susset B (2009) Comparison of percolation to batch and sequential leaching tests: theory and data. Waste Manage 29:2681–2688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Susset B, Grathwohl P (2011) Leaching standards for mineral recycling materials—a harmonized regulatory concept for the upcoming German Recycling Decree. Waste Manag 31:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hjelmar O, Hyks J, Wahlström M, Laine-Ylijoki J, van Zomeren A, Comans R, Kalbe U, Schoknecht U, Krüger O, Grathwohl P, Wendel T, Abdelghafour M, Mehu J, Schiopu N, Lupsea M (2013) Robustness validation of TS-2 and TS-3 developed by CEN/TC351/WG1 to assess release from products to soil, surface water and groundwater, Final report https://www.nen.nl/web/file?uuid=e56cca92-7959-4885-bc3b-d803f5692e7a&owner=37da2561-2ebf-4eef-87d6-f5a4c1760a25. Accessed 5 June 2018
  11. 11.
    Grathwohl P (2014) On equilibration of pore water in column leaching tests. Waste Manage 34:908–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dijkstra JJ, Meeussen JCL, Van der Sloot HA, Comans RNJ (2008) A consistent geochemical modelling approach for the leaching and reactive transport of major and trace elements in MSWI bottom ash. Appl Geochem 23:1544–1562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hyks J, Astrup T, Christensen TH (2009) Long-term leaching from MSWI air-pollution-control residues: leaching characterization and modeling. J Hazard Mater 162:80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brusseau ML, Hu Q, Srivastava R (1997) Using flow interruption to identify factors causing nonideal contaminant transport. J Contam Hydrol 24:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wehrer M, Totsche KU (2008) Effective rates of heavy metal release from alkaline wastes—quantified by column outflow experiments and inverse simulations. J Contam Hydrol 101:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wehrer M, Totsche KU (2003) Detection of non-equilibrium contaminant release in soil columns: delineation of experimental conditions by numerical simulations. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 166:475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koch S, Flühler H (1993) Non-reactive solute transport with micropore diffusion in aggregated porous media determined by a flow-interruption method. J Contam Hydrol 14:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Zomeren A, van der Laan SR, Kobesen HBA, Huijgen WJJ, Comans RNJ (2011) Changes in mineralogical and leaching properties of converter steel slag resulting from accelerated carbonation at low CO2 pressure. Waste Manag 31:2236–2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    CEN/TS 16637-3: 2016-12 Construction products—assessment of release of dangerous substances—Part 3: horizontal up-flow percolation testGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larsson MA, Baken S, Gustafsson JP, Hadialhejazi G, Smolders E (2013) Vanadium bioavailability and toxicity to soil microorganisms and plants. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:2266–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Gestel CAM, McGrath SP, Smolders E, Ortiz MD, Borgman E, Verweij RA, Buekers J, Oorts K (2012) Effect of long-term equilibration on the toxicity of molybdenum to soil organisms. Environ Pollut 162:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karius V, Hamer K (2001) pH and grain-size variation in leaching tests with bricks made of harbour sediments compared to commercial bricks. Sci Total Environ 278:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finkel M, Grathwohl P, Cirpka OA (2016) A travel time-based approach to model kinetic sorption in highly heterogeneous porous media via reactive hydrofacies. Water Resour Res 52:9390–9411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ogata A, Banks RB (1961) A solution of the differential equation of longitudinal dispersion in porous media, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Papers, 411-AGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Finkel M, Liedl R, Teutsch G (1998) Modelling surfactant-enhanced remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ Model Softw 14:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Finkel M, Liedl R, Teutsch G (2002) Modelling reactive transport of organic solutes in groundwater with a lagrangian streamtube approach. In: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (ed) Geochemical processes: conceptual models for reactive transport in soil and groundwater. Research Report. Wiley‐VCH, Weinheim, Germany, pp 115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hansen N, Ostermeier A (2001) Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evol Comput 9:159–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Gerven T, Geysen D, Stoffels L, Jaspers M, Wauters G, Vandecasteele C (2005) Management of incinerator residues in Flanders (Belgium) and in neighbouring countries. A comparison. Waste Manage 25:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Garderen N, Clemens FJ, Kaufmann J, Urbanek M, Binkowski M, Graule T, Aneziris CG (2012) Pore analyses of highly porous diatomite and clay based materials for fluidized bed reactors. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 151:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rübner K, Prinz C, Adolphs J, Hempel S, Schnell A (2015) Microstructural characterisation of lightweight granules made from masonry rubble. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 209:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hyks J, Astrup T, Christensen TH (2009) Leaching from MSWI bottom ash: evaluation of non-equilibrium in column percolation experiments. Waste Manage 29:522–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leal AMM, Blunt MJ, LaForce TC (2014) Efficient chemical equilibrium calculations for geochemical speciation and reactive transport modelling. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 131:301–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lopez Meza S, Kalbe U, Berger W, Simon F-G (2010) Effect of contact time on the release of contaminants from granular waste materials during column leaching experiments, vol 30. Waste Management, New York, pp 565–571Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kalyoncu Erguler G, Erguler ZA, Akcakoca H, Ucar A (2014) The effect of column dimensions and particle size on the results of kinetic column test used for acid mine drainage (AMD) prediction. Miner Eng 55:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kalbe U, Berger W, Simon FG, Eckardt H, Christoph G (2007) Results of interlaboratory comparisons of column percolation tests. J Hazard Mater 148:714–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garrabrants AC, Kosson DS, Kariher RD, Seignette P, van der Sloot PFAB, Stefanski HA, Baldwin LM (2012) Interlaboratory validation of the leaching environmental assessment framework (LEAF) Method 1314 and Method 1315, in: Agency, U.E.P. (Ed.)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim J, Hyun S (2015) Nonequilibrium leaching behavior of metallic elements (Cu, Zn, As, Cd, and Pb) from soils collected from long-term abandoned mine sites. Chemosphere 134:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and TestingBerlinGermany
  2. 2.UmweltbundesamtBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Center of Applied GeosciencesUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations