Sulphate reducing bacteria to precipitate mercury after electrokinetic soil remediation
- 80 Downloads
Combined treatment with electroremediation and sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) was tested in laboratory and pilot scale. The contaminated soil came from a chlor-alkali factory and contained about 100 mg/kg Hg. Iodide/iodine complexing agent was used to mobilize mercury. Mercury iodide complexes were moved to the anode solution using an electric field. The anode solution was then mixed with hydrogen sulphide (H2S) containing water, causing precipitation of mercury sulphide. The H2S was produced at site by a SRB reactor. Precipitation problems arising from the nature of the anode solution were expected, since this solution is highly acidic, very oxidised and may contain iodide/iodine that strongly complexes mercury and can hinder mercury sulphide precipitation. Mercury concentrations in the anode solution were up to 65.7 mg/L (field) and 15.4 mg/L (lab. scale). Reduction of mercury in the water was >93% at all times. Iodide did not hinder the process: Nonetheless, in the lab system, iodide concentration was high in the anode solution but mercury reduction was> 99.9%. The redox potential was sufficiently low for HgS precipitation during the experiments, except for a short period, when the mercury removal decreased to 94%. Sulphate reducing bacteria are shown as a viable tool for the treatment of mercury contaminated, acidic, oxidative, iodide containing water, such as that produced by electrokinetic remediation. A second SRB step or other water treatment is required to reduce the mercury concentration to environmentally acceptable levels. Redox potential is the most sensitive factor in the system.
KeywordsHydrogen sulphide in situ on site wastewater treatment soil contamination iodide
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barnes, L. J., (1994). Emerging technology for bioremediation of metals. J. L. Means and R. E. Hinchee. Boca Raton, Lewis Public Cop., 39–43.Google Scholar
- Ho, S. V.; Athmer, C; Sheridan, P. W.; Hughes, B. M.; Orth, R.; McKenzie, D.; Brodsky, P. H.; Shapiro, A. M.; Sivavec, T. M.; Salvo, J.; Schultz, D.; Landis, R.; Griffith, R.; Shoemaker, S., (1999). The lasagna technology for in situ soil remediation 2 Large field test. Environ. Sci. Technol., 33(7), 1092–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kolmert, Å., (1999). Sulfate-reducing bacteria in bioremediation processes. Lund, Lund University.Google Scholar
- Lageman, R.; Pool, W., (2001). Thirteen years electro-reclamation in the Netherlands. EREM 2001 - 3rd. Symposium and status report on electrokinetic remediation, Karlsruhe, Germany, Angewandte Geologi Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
- Lifvergren, T., (2001). Remediation of mercury polluted soil. Örebro studies in Environmental science 1. Örebro, Sweden, Örebro University.Google Scholar
- Lifvergren, T.; Suer, P.; Wievegg, U., (2000). Microwave-assisted digestion of mercury polluted soil. 11th. Annual international conference on heavy metals in the Environment, University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
- Monhemius, A. J., (1977). Precipitation diagrams for metal hydroxides, sulphides, arsenates and phosphates. Transactions of the institutions of mining and metallurgy section C-Mineral processing and extractive metallurgy: C202–C206.Google Scholar
- Monserrate, E.; Häggblom, M. M., (1997). Dehalogenation and biodegradation of brominated phenols and bezoic acids under Iron-Reducing, Sulfidogenic and Methanogenic Conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 63(10), 3911–3915.Google Scholar
- Naturvårdsverket, (1997). Slutförvar av kvicksilver (Final disposal of mercury). Stockholm, Naturvårdsverket.Google Scholar
- Suer, P.; Lifvergren, T., (2001). Electrokinetic remediation of mercury contaminated soil with iodide addition. 6th. International conference on mercury as a global pollutant, Minamata Japan.Google Scholar
- Swedish governmental bill, (1997/98). Nr 145.Google Scholar