Advertisement

Performance Evaluation of Stabilised/Solidified Contaminated Model Soil Using PC-Based and MgO-Based Binders

  • Fei Wang
  • Zhengtao Shen
  • Haibo Yu
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

The physical and chemical performances of stabilised/solidified contaminated model soil were investigated to reveal the benefit of stabilisation/solidification treatment using novel binders over conventional binders. Different combinations of binders selected from materials including Portland cement (PC), ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS), pulverised fly ash (PFA) and magnesia (MgO) were mixed with contaminated soil, the water/cement (w/c) ratio at 0.5:1 was used in this study. The strength and the leaching properties of these mixes via the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test and the batch leaching test are presented. The immobilisation degree under different mixes and strength difference under two w/c ratios are discussed. The results show that although less binder dosage was applied in mixes with a w/c ratio at 0.5:1, all these mixes produced higher UCS values than mixes with a w/c ratio at 1:1 (the ratio used in the field taken from previous studies). Moreover, the leachate concentrations of Ni, Cu and Zn in all mixes were far below their drinking water standards at 0.02 mg/l, 2 mg/l and 3 mg/l, respectively. Although most mixes cannot meet the regulative requirement of immobilising Pb, the Pb immobilisation degrees of MgO-based mixes (>99.95%) were found higher than PC-based mixes (98.8%).

Keywords

Heavy metals Strength Stabilisation/solidification MgO Soil remediation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China (Grant No. 51608113). The second author would like to thank the Killam Trusts of Canada for kindly providing the Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Postdoctoral Fellowship.

References

  1. Abunada Z (2015) Innovative soil mix technology constructed permeable reactive barrier for groundwater remediation. PhD thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Tabbaa A (2013) Reactive magnesia cement, pp 523–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BS EN 12457-2 (2002) Characterisation of waste-leaching-compliance test for leaching of granular waste materials and sludges. British Standard, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Conner JR (1990) Chemical fixation and solidification of hazardous wastes. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Dermatas D, Meng X (2003) Utilization of fly ash for stabilization/solidification of heavy metal contaminated soils. Eng Geol 70:377–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodarzi AR, Movahedrad M (2017) Stabilization/solidification of zinc-contaminated kaolin clay using ground granulated blast-furnace slag and different types of activators. Appl Geochem 81:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harrison J (2003) The case for and ramifications of blending reactive magnesia with Portland cement. In: 28th conference on our world in concrete and structures, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  8. Jin F (2014) Characterisation and performance of reactive MgO-based cements with supplementary cementitious materials. PHD thesis, Cambridge University, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Jin F, Al-Tabbaa A (2014) Evaluation of novel reactive MgO activated slag binder for the immobilisation of lead and zinc. Chemosphere 117:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Poon CS, Lio KW, Tang CI (2001) A systematic study of cement/PFA chemical stabilisation/solidification process for the treatment of heavy metal waste. Waste Manag Res 19(4):276–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. The Private Water Supplies Regulations, HMSO, Water England Document No. 3101 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. Tresintsi S, Simeonidis K, Katsikini M, Paloura EC, Bantsis G, Mitrakas M (2014) A novel approach for arsenic adsorbents regeneration using MgO. J Hazard Mater 265:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wang F, Al-Tabbaa A (2014) Leachability of 17-year old stabilised/solidified contaminated site soils. In: GeoCongress 2014: geo-characterization and modeling for sustainability, ASCE, Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Wang F, Wang H, Al-Tabbaa A (2015a) The performance of blended conventional and novel binders in the in-situ stabilization/solidification of a contaminated site soil. J Hazard Mater 285:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang F, Wang H, Al-Tabbaa A (2015b) Time-dependent performance of soil mix technology stabilised/solidified contaminated site soils. J Hazard Mater 286:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang F, Jin F, Shen Z, Al-Tabbaa A (2016) Three-year performance of in-situ mass stabilised contaminated soils using novel MgO-bearing binders. J Hazard Mater 318:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang F, Shen Z, Al-Tabbaa A (2018) PC-based and MgO-based binders stabilised/solidified heavy metal contaminated model soil: strength and heavy metal speciation in early stage.  https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.17.p.194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wastewater Technology Centre (1991) Proposed evaluation protocol for cement-based solidified wastes. Report EPS 3/HA/9, Environment CanadaGoogle Scholar
  19. Wheeler P (1995) Leachate repellent. Ground Eng 28(5):20–22Google Scholar
  20. Zampetakis T, Yiannoulakis H, Meidani A et al (2014) Use of magnesia cement in industrial waste cementation. In: 34th cement and concrete science conference 2014, University of SheffieldGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, School of TransportationSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Atmospheric SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Jiangsu Rainfine Environmental Science and Technology Co., Ltd.NanjingChina

Personalised recommendations