Effect of Na+ on Removal Behaviors of Heavy Metals from Contaminated Silty Soils Flushed by EDTA

  • Yan WangEmail author
  • Jiadong Wen
  • Keke Li
  • Yiting Jin
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


A series of Pb and Cu contaminated silty soil columns were made to simulate contaminated site, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium saltdihydrate (EDTA) was used to flush contaminated soils. The concentration of Na+ and heavy metal concentrations were considered to study the removal behaviors of heavy metals. Studies show that the existence of Na+ inhibits the removal efficiency of both Cu and Pb from contaminated silty soils. The inhibitory effect of Na+ on Cu removal efficiency becomes smaller when increasing the concentration of Cu, and removal ratio of Cu is decreased by 25.8–39.0% when the concentration of Na+ is 100 mg/kg. The inhibitory effect of Na+ on Pb removal efficiency becomes stronger when increasing the concentration of Pb, and removal ratio of Pb is decreased by 10.1–29.4% when the concentration of Na+ is 200 mg/kg. The removal difference caused by different concentration of Na+ is not that obvious as increasing the concentration of heavy metals in contaminated soils. The results can provide some theoretical basis for in situ soil flushing to remediate heavy metal contaminated soil.


Removal Heavy metal Contaminated silty soil Flushing 



The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the National Science Foundation of China (grant 51678311 and 51308310) and Key Project for Social Development of Ningbo City (Grant 2017C510002) for their financial support of this study. Also, this study is sponsored by K. C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University.


  1. 1.
    Gusiatin ZM, Klimiuk E (2012) Metal (Cu, Cd and Zn) removal and stabilization during multiple soil washing by saponin. Chemosphere 86:383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maity JP, Huang YM, Hsu CM, Wu CI, Chen CC, Li CY, Jean JS, Chang YF, Chen CY (2013) Removal of Cu, Pb and Zn by foam fractionation and a soil washing process from contaminated industrial soils using soapberry-derived saponin: a comparative effectiveness assessment. Chemosphere 92:1286–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Torres LG, Lopez RB, Beltran M (2012) Removal of As, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn from a highly contaminated industrial soil using surfactant enhanced soil washing. Phys Chem Earth, Parts A/B/C 37–39:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freitas EV, Nascimento CW, Souza A, Silva FB (2013) Citric acid-assisted phytoextraction of lead: a field experiment. Chemosphere 92:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zaheer IE, Ali S, Rizwan M, Farid M, Shakoor MB, Gill RA, Najeeb U, Iqbal N, Ahmad R (2015) Citric acid assisted phytoremediation of copper by Brassica napus L. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 120:310–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Navarro A, Cardellach E, Corbella M (2011) Immobilization of Cu, Pb and Zn in mine-contaminated soils using reactive materials. J Hazard Mater 186:1576–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kos B, Leštan D (2004) Chelator induced phytoextraction and in situ soil washing of Cu. Environ Pollut 132:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khalid S, Shahid M, Niazi NK, Murtaza B, Bibi I, Dumat C (2017) A comparison of technologies for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. J Geochem Explor 182:247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deng T, Zhang B, Li F, Jin L (2017) Sediment washing by EDTA and its reclamation by sodium polyamidoamine-multi dithiocarbamate. Chemosphere 168:450–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qiao J, Sun H, Luo X, Zhang W, Mathews S, Yin X (2017) EDTA-assisted leaching of Pb and Cd from contaminated soil. Chemosphere 167:422–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jean-Soro L, Bordas F, Bollinger JC (2012) Column leaching of chromium and nickel from a contaminated soil using EDTA and citric acid. Environ Pollut 164:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mancini G, Bruno M, Polettini A, Pomi R (2011) Chelant-assisted pulse flushing of a field Pb-contaminated soil. Chem Ecol 27:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luciano A, Viotti P, Torretta V, Mancini G (2013) Numerical approach to modelling pulse-mode soil flushing on a Pb-contaminated soil. J Soils Sediments 13(1):43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang WH, Tsang DCW, Chen H, Huang L (2013) Remediation of an electroplating contaminated soil by EDTA flushing: chromium release and soil dissolution. J Soils Sediments 13(2):354–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu PJ, Yang BF, Dong CX, Chen LK, Cao XY, Zhao J, Wu LH, Luo YM, Christie P (2014) Assessment of EDTA heap leaching of an agricultural soil highly contaminated with heavy metals. Chemosphere 117:532–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naghipour D, Gharibi H, Taghavi K, Jaafari J (2016) Influence of EDTA and NTA on heavy metal extraction from sandy-loam contaminated soils. J Environ Chem Eng 4(3):3512–3518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naghipour D, Jaafari J, Ashrafi SD, Mahvi AH (2017) Remediation of heavy metals contaminated silty clay loam soil by column extraction with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and nitrilo triacetic acid. J Environ Eng ASCE 143(8):04017026CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Architectural, Civil Engineering and EnvironmentNingbo UniversityNingboChina

Personalised recommendations