Advertisement

Enhanced remediation of arsenic and chromium co-contaminated soil by eletrokinetic-permeable reactive barriers with different reagents

  • Yunfeng Xu
  • Jiangpeng Li
  • Wei Xia
  • Ying Sun
  • Guangren Qian
  • Jia Zhang
Research Article
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

The present work focused on the effects of different reagents on the remediation of arsenic and chromium co-contaminated soil by electrokinetic technology coupled with permeable reactive barrier (EK-PRB). In a running of EK-PRB, reductant (ascorbic acid, sodium citrate) and chelating agent (EDTA-2Na) were used to pretreat contaminated soil together with CaAl-LDH as reactive materials for PRB. As a result, the chelating agent improved the removals of As and Cr in co-contaminated soil. However, the reducing agent only increased As removal. When 0.05 M sodium citrate was used in pretreatment, the As removal attained the maximum of 50.5%, although Cr removal was only 44.1% at the same time. When the contaminated soil was pretreated with 0.01 M EDTA-2Na, the Cr removal increased to 54.28%, although As removal was only 26.3%. After EK-PRB, the As and Cr were efficiently captured by CaAl-LDH, resulting in maximal fixed amounts of 126.5 mg/kg (As) and 1507.6 mg/kg (Cr). The XRD and FITR analyses of LDH indicated that As was mainly adsorbed on the surface of LDH. As for Cr, it was mainly intercalated into interlayer of LDH.

Keywords

Electrokinetic remediation Permeable reactive barrier CaAl-LDH As and Cr co-contaminated soil Reductant Chelating agent 

Notes

Funding information

This project is financially supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 21878183) and Innovative Research Team in University (No. IRT13078).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_3842_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

References

  1. Abbas MHH, Abdelhafez AA (2013) Role of EDTA in arsenic mobilization and its uptake by maize grown on an As-polluted soil. Chemosphere 90:588–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Hamdan AZ, Reddy KR (2008) Transient behavior of heavy metals in soils during electrokinetic remediation. Chemosphere 71:860–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baek K, Kim D-H, Park S-W, Ryu B-G, Bajargal T, Yang J-S (2009) Electrolyte conditioning-enhanced electrokinetic remediation of arsenic-contaminated mine tailing. J Hazard Mater 161:457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnhart J (1997) Chromium chemistry and implications for environmental fate and toxicity. J Soil Con 6:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Begum ZA, Rahman IMM, Tate Y, Sawai H, Maki T, Hasegawa H (2012) Remediation of toxic metal contaminated soil by washing with biodegradable aminopolycarboxylate chelants. Chemosphere 87:1161–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blesa MA, Weisz AD, Morando PJ, Salfity JA, Magaz GE, Regazzoni AE (2000) The interaction of metal oxide surfaces with complexing agents dissolved in water. Coord Chem Rev 196:31–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cang L, Zhou D-M, Alshawabkeh AN, Chen H-F (2007) Effects of sodium hypochlorite and high pH buffer solution in electrokinetic soil treatment on soil chromium removal and the functional diversity of soil microbial community. J Hazard Mater 142:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cao X, Guo J, Mao J, Lan Y (2011) Adsorption and mobility of Cr(III)-organic acid complexes in soils. J Hazard Mater 192:1533–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung HI, Lee M (2007) A new method for remedial treatment of contaminated clayey soils by electrokinetics coupled with permeable reactive barriers. Electrochim Acta 52:3427–3431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corma A, Fornés V, Martín-Aranda RM, Rey F (1992) Determination of base properties of hydrotalcites: condensation of benzaldehyde with ethyl acetoacetate. J Catal 134:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jang M, Hwang JS, Il Choi S (2007) Sequential soil washing techniques using hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide for remediating arsenic-contaminated soils in abandoned iron-ore mines. Chemosphere 66:8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeon E-K, Ryu S-R, Baek K (2015) Application of solar-cells in the electrokinetic remediation of As-contaminated soil. Electrochim Acta 181:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jobbágy M, Regazzoni AE (2011) Dissolution of nano-size Mg–Al–Cl hydrotalcite in aqueous media. Appl Clay Sci 51:366–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim EJ, Lee J-C, Baek K (2015) Abiotic reductive extraction of arsenic from contaminated soils enhanced by complexation: arsenic extraction by reducing agents and combination of reducing and chelating agents. J Hazard Mater 283:454–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim EJ, Jeon E-K, Baek K (2016) Role of reducing agent in extraction of arsenic and heavy metals from soils by use of EDTA. Chemosphere 152:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim H-A, Lee K-Y, Lee B-T, Kim S-O, Kim K-W (2012) Comparative study of simultaneous removal of As, Cu, and Pb using different combinations of electrokinetics with bioleaching by Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. Water Res 46:5591–5599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li Y, Gao B, Wu T, Sun D, Li X, Wang B, Lu F (2009) Hexavalent chromium removal from aqueous solution by adsorption on aluminum magnesium mixed hydroxide. Water Res 43:3067–3075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luo C, Tian Z, Yang B, Zhang L, Yan S (2013) Manganese dioxide/iron oxide/acid oxidized multi-walled carbon nanotube magnetic nanocomposite for enhanced hexavalent chromium removal. Chem Eng J 234:256–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF (2001) Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated soils and groundwater: an evaluation. Eng Geol 60:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parello ML, Rojas R, Giacomelli CE (2010) Dissolution kinetics and mechanism of Mg–Al layered double hydroxides: a simple approach to describe drug release in acid media. J Colloid Interface Sci 351:134–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Qian G, Feng L, Zhou JZ, Xu Y, Liu J, Zhang J, Xu ZP (2012) Solubility product (Ksp)-controlled removal of chromate and phosphate by hydrocalumite. Chem Eng J 181:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosestolato D, Bagatin R, Ferro S (2015) Electrokinetic remediation of soils polluted by heavy metals (mercury in particular). Chem Eng J 264:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roychowdhury T, Tokunaga H, Uchino T, Ando M (2005) Effect of arsenic-contaminated irrigation water on agricultural land soil and plants in West Bengal, India. Chemosphere 58:799–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shahid M, Shamshad S, Rafiq M, Khalid S, Bibi I, Niazi NK, Dumat C, Rashid MI (2017) Chromium speciation, bioavailability, uptake, toxicity and detoxification in soil-plant system: a review. Chemosphere 178:513–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suzuki T, Moribe M, Okabe Y, Niinae M (2013) A mechanistic study of arsenate removal from artificially contaminated clay soils by electrokinetic remediation. J Hazard Mater 254:310–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tahmasbian I, Sinegani AAS, Thi Thu Nhan N, Che R, Phan TD, Bai SH (2017) Application of manures to mitigate the harmful effects of electrokinetic remediation of heavy metals on soil microbial properties in polluted soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:26485–26496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tessier A, Campbell PGC, Bisson M (1979) Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metals. Anal Chem 51:844–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tokunaga S, Hakuta T (2002) Acid washing and stabilization of an artificial arsenic-contaminated soil. Chemosphere 46:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wei M, Chen J, Wang X (2016) Removal of arsenic and cadmium with sequential soil washing techniques using Na(2) EDTA, oxalic and phosphoric acid: optimization conditions, removal effectiveness and ecological risks. Chemosphere 156:252–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Whittleston RA, Stewart DI, Mortimer RJG, Tilt ZC, Brown AP, Geraki K, Burke IT (2011) Chromate reduction in Fe (II)-containing soil affected by hyperalkaline leachate from chromite ore processing residue. J Hazard Mater 194:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams PN, Price AH, Raab A, Hossain SA, Feldmann J, Meharg AA (2005) Variation in arsenic speciation and concentration in paddy rice related to dietary exposure. Environ Sci Technol 39:5531–5540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu Y, Xia W, Hou H, Zhang J, Qian G (2017) Remediation of chromium-contaminated soil by electrokinetics and electrokinetics coupled with CaAl-LDH permeable reaction barrier. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:20479–20486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yao Z, Li J, Xie H, Yu C (2012): Review on remediation technologies of soil contaminated by heavy metals. In: Jinhui L , Hualong H (Editors), Seventh International Conference on Waste Management and Technology. Procedia Environ Sci,, 16 pp. 722–729Google Scholar
  34. Yeung AT, Gu Y-Y (2011) A review on techniques to enhance electrochemical remediation of contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 195:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yuan C, Chiang T-S (2007) The mechanisms of arsenic removal from soil by electrokinetic process coupled with iron permeable reaction barrier. Chemosphere 67:1533–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yuan C, Hung C-H, Chen K-C (2009) Electrokinetic remediation of arsenate spiked soil assisted by CNT-Co barrier—the effect of barrier position and processing fluid. J Hazard Mater 171:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang W, Huang H, Tan F, Wang H, Qiu R (2010) Influence of EDTA washing on the species and mobility of heavy metals residual in soils. J Hazard Mater 173:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhong L, Yang J (2012) Reduction of Cr(VI) by malic acid in aqueous Fe-rich soil suspensions. Chemosphere 86:973–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zou Z, Qiu R, Zhang W, Dong H, Zhao Z, Zhang T, Wei M, Cai X (2009) The study of operating variables in soil washing with EDTA. Environ Pollut 157:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental and Chemical EngineeringShanghai UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations