Skip to main content

Reactive soil barriers for removal of chromium(VI) from contaminated soil

  • Conference paper
Book cover Highway and Urban Environment

Part of the book series: Alliance For Global Sustainability Bookseries ((AGSB,volume 12))

  • 1235 Accesses

The aim of this project was to find effective reactive materials as use in soil-bed barriers, for remediation of soil contaminated with chromium at Stallbacka industrial area in Sweden. Materials with different reduction/ adsorption capacities of Cr(VI)/Cr(III) were tested in laboratory and in a field pilot-scale experiment. Concentrations of total Cr and Cr(VI) in the soil, highly contaminated with ferrochrome slag, were exceeding the guideline values for contaminated sites in Sweden.

Zero-valent iron (Fe0) filling, FeSO4 o7H2O, Na2SO3, field pine bark, modified pine bark, pine sawdust, and sphagnum peat were tested in batch or columns in mixture with the contaminated soil. All the materials, except peat, showed a good ability to reduce Cr(VI) in the batch experiments, and were chosen for further dynamic studies in columns. Iron sulphate and sodium sulphite were both shown to have a good ability to quickly reduce Cr(VI) in the columns, but the use might result in leaching of Fe and SO2- 4 to surface and groundwater. For field bark it took a longer time to reduce/ adsorb the same amounts of chromium, but it was functional for a longer time.

Reactive soil-bed barriers were constructed in field: soil with embedded layers of FeSO4, pine bark underlying the soil, and soil without any reactive material layer. The iron sulphate was determined not to be suitable for the soil treatment, due to the high percentage of coarse materials in the soil texture, and thereby a quick washout of FeSO4 during the water infiltration. The field reactive soil barrier with pine bark was proven to be effective in reducing Cr(VI), and also had the capacity to adsorb both total and dissolved chromium leaching from the contaminated soil.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (2005) Permeable reactive barriers: lessons learned/new directions. PRB-4. Washington, DC. Also at www.itrcweb.org

  2. Vidic RD (2001) Permeable reactive barriers: case study review, Technology evaluation report, TE-01-01. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  3. Birke V, Burmeier H, Rosenau D (2003) Design, construction, and operation of tailored permeable reactive barriers. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manage 7:264-280

    Google Scholar 

  4. Powell RM, Puls RW, Powell PD (2002) Cost analysis of permeable reactive barriers for remediation of groundwater. In: Gavaskar AR, Chen ASC, Monterey CA (eds.) Proceedings of the international conference on remediation of chlorinated and recalcitrant compounds, 3rd edn., United States, May 20-23, 2002, 104-11. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hansel CM, Wielinga BW, Fendorf S (2003). Fate and stability of Cr following reduction by microbial generated Fe (II). Department of Geological and Environmental Science, Stanford University, MFG, Inc., Fort Collins, CO

    Google Scholar 

  6. Palmer CD, Wittbrodt PR (1991) Processes affecting the remediation of chromium-contaminated sites. Environ Health Perspec 92:25-40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Palmer CD, Puls R (1994) Natural attenuation of hexavalent chromium in groundwater and soil. EPA/540S-94. US Environmental Protection Agency. Groundwater issue

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sass BM, Rai D (1987) Volubility of amorphous chromium(III)-iron(III) hydroxide solid solutions. Inorg Chem 26:2228-2232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Walter GR, Yiannakakais A, Chammas G (2001) Applying geochemical methods to remediate chromium contamination. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc, Tucson, AZ

    Google Scholar 

  10. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency(2002). Contaminated sites. Report 5053

    Google Scholar 

  11. U.S. EPA (2002) In situ treatment of soil and groundwater contaminated with chromium - technical resource guide. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/625/R-005, October, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fetter CW (1999) Contaminant hydrogeology. 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beukes JP, Pienaar JJ, Lachmann G, Giesekke EW (1999) The reduction of hexavalent chromium by sulphite in wastewater. Water SA 25:363-370

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bailey SE, Olin TJ, Bricka RM, Adrian DD (1999) A review of potentially low-cost sorbents for heavy metals. Wat Res 33:2469-2479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharma DC, Forster CF (1995) Column studies into the adsorption of chro-mium(VI) using sphagnum moss peat. Bioresour Technol 52:261-267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. DSNR’s Centre for Natural Resources (CNR) Wellington Laboratory (1999) Soil survey standard test method. Also at http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/ soil/soil_pubs/soil_tests/pdfs/mc.pdf

  17. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (1998) 20. edn., Lenore S. Clesceri et al. (eds.) American Public Health Association Board. California Environmental Protection Agency, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kalmykova Y, Strömvall A-M, Steenari B-M (2006a) Alternative materials for adsorption of heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons from contaminated leachates. Environ Technol (submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kalmykova Y, Strömvall A-M, Steenarie B-M (2006b) Adsorption of Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn on sphagnum peat from solutions with low metal concentrations. J of Hazard Mat (submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Seaman JC, Bertsch PM, Schwallie L (1999) In situ Cr(VI) reduction within coarse-textured, oxide-coated soil and aquifer systems using Fe(II) solutions. Environ Sci Technol 33:938-944

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Geelhoed JS, Meeussen JCL, Roe MJ, Hillier S, Thomas RP, Farmer JG, Paterson E (2003) Chromium remediation or release? Effect of iron(II)sulfate addition on chromium(VI) leaching from columns of chromite ore processing residue, Environ Sci Technol 37:3206-3212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this paper

Cite this paper

Strömvall, AM., Norin, M., Inanta, H. (2007). Reactive soil barriers for removal of chromium(VI) from contaminated soil. In: Morrison, G.M., Rauch, S. (eds) Highway and Urban Environment. Alliance For Global Sustainability Bookseries, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6010-6_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics