remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil washing residues with amino polycarboxylic acids
Post on 26-Jun-2016
Embed Size (px)
Journal of Hazardous Materials 173 (2010) 697704
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Hazardous Materials
journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com
Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil wpolycar
Zandra A KroBert Allaa SAKAB AB, SEb Man-Technol , SE-7c Solventic AB,
a r t i c l
Article history:Received 20 AReceived in reAccepted 28 AAvailable onlin
Keywords:Heavy metalsAmino polycarboxylic acidsSoilRemediationEDDSMGDA
he aS) anhad perimestrucafter
signicant differences in extraction efciencies. Extraction with citric acid was generally less efcient,however equal for Zn (mainly) after 10d. Metal removal was similar in batch and WTC-mixer systems,which indicates that a dynamic mixer system could be used in full-scale. Use of biodegradable aminopolycarboxylic acids for metal removal, as a second step after soil washing, would release most remain-ing metals (Cu, Pb and Zn) from the present soils, however only after long leaching time. Thus, a full-scaleprocedure, based on enhanced metal leaching by amino polycarboxylic acids from soil of the present
The relemade soil ctal problemunlike orgathe soil or bquantities ooption, dueOne commois soil washne soil co(sand and ginated soilsmall soil pinorganic coheavy meta
E-mail add1 Present ad
0304-3894/$ doi:10.1016/j.kind, would require a pre-leaching step lasting several days in order to be efcient. 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
ase of heavy metals and other pollutants in society hasontamination one of the most important environmen-s. Heavy metals cannot be mineralized or decomposed,nic contaminants, and must therefore be removed frome physically and/or chemically contained . The largef polluted soils make landll disposal an unrealisticto environmental constraints and space limitations.nly used method for remediation of contaminated soiling, which is a technique that uses water to separatemponents (clay and silt) from the coarse componentsravel) in a mechanical process. The volume of contam-is reduced, since the contaminants tend to bind to thearticles. Soil washing can be used on both organic andntaminants, but the main target contaminant group isls [2,3]. In the design of a washing process, treatment
ding author at: SAKAB AB, SE-692 85 Kumla, Sweden.2872300.ress: firstname.lastname@example.org (Z. Arwidsson).dress: Eurons Environment Sweden AB, P.O. Box 737, SE-531 17eden.
duration is of major concern. The time required to arrive at a givenclean-up goal is depending on the nature of the metal retentionmechanism and the inuence of factors such as pH, soil type (com-position, exchange properties, etc.), the presence of natural organicmatter, age of the contamination, and the presence of other inor-ganic contaminants [2,4]. Synthetic complexing agents, chelatorsin particular, are sometimes used in combination with soil wash-ing to further enhance the removal of metals. However, many ofthese chelators have long degradation times in soil, resulting intoxicity and stress to the community of soil-living microbes andeco systems .
There are many factors to consider when deciding whether anarticial chelating agent can be used in full-scale remediation ornot. The chelating agents need to be added in excess in relationto the contaminant concentration, since they generally are non-selective and form complexes with most of the major polyvalentcations present in the soil (i.e., Fe, Mn, as well as Ca, Mg, etc.). Thechemical state of the metals in the soil also affects the efciency ofthe chelators, sincemetals in recently contaminated soils, aswell asin articially contaminated laboratory system, are more labile andaccessible than metals in soils that are historically contaminated[2,6]. Furthermore, the chosen agent must be biodegradable but atthe same time has a high metal binding capacity. It is also desirablethat the chelator can be recovered and used several times, consid-
see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.jhazmat.2009.08.141boxylic acids
rwidssona,b,, Kristin Elgh-Dalgrenb, Thomas vonrdb, Patrick van Heesb,1
-692 85 Kumla, Swedenogy-Environment Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, rebro UniversitySE-591 35 Motala, Sweden
e i n f o
pril 2009vised form 28 August 2009ugust 2009e 4 September 2009
a b s t r a c t
Removal of Cu, Pb, and Zn by tethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDwas tested. Three soil samples, whichwereutilized in the leaching tests. Expmixer system (Water Treatment Conefcient in removing Cu, Pb, and Zn/ locate / jhazmat
ashing residues with amino
nhelma, Ragnar Sjbergc,
01 82 rebro, Sweden
ction of the two biodegradable chelating agents [S,S]-d methylglycinediacetic acid (MGDA), as well as citric acid,reviously been treated by conventional soil washing (water),ntswereperformed inbatches (0.3 kg-scale) andwith aWTC-
tion, 10kg-scale). EDDS and MGDA were most often equally1060min. Nonetheless, after 10d, there were occasionally
698 Z. Arwidsson et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 173 (2010) 697704
ering the economy of a full-scale process using chemicals that areexpensive.
In the past, EDTA (ethylenediamineacetic acid) has been themost widely used chelating agent for extracting metals fromcontaminatcomplexatiability in thand can thwith the mEDDS ([S,S]an environm(methylglycronmentallcould be usof adsorbedin a techniction couldpH have neof corrosionstituents.
The aimable complsoil after asolutions (nMGDA, andformed. EDbinding nitstructure. Mposition inCitric acid cgroup (nottors were tsoil washincan be useventional smetals remwash that hdue to theboxylic acidin terms offull-scale rea subsequeing agents?capacity ofnor to comporigin or coformance othe metal frfrom sites wwith EDDS/times, can bdure.
2.1. Soil cha
The soilmetal conta
A: A sandysite with
B: A sandymatter;
C: A clay-dfrom a st
Table 1Total acid leachablea metal concentrations (mgkg1), pHb, and ignition residuec, LOI(%) in soils A, B and C. N=3, mean SD. MKM=Limits for soil usage on areas that areless sensitive, established by the Swedish Protection Agency .
owaver to sC, 2hexceeding
threposifractan 5r thing esep
al byrrieses wromf there
ith pammin si
ashinxchaed tn oftionwou
thanitatiophapresent leaching experiments were performed on the
es that still carried considerable levels of heavy metals, i.e.,t reach the desired remediation levels (MKMlimits for soilon areas that are less sensitive, c.f. Table 1), that are estab-by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)he total metal concentrations of the soil residues (acid diges-M HNO3) are given in Table 1, and the distribution of metals,ned by sequential leaching, is given in Fig. 1, based on theprocedure , slightly modied.
Water-soluble (water; 20 C)Cation exchangeable (1.0M NH4Ac, pH 7; 20 C)Carbonates and hydroxides (1.0M NH4Ac, pH 5.0; 85 C)Hydrous oxides (0.043M NH2OHHCl in 25% acetic acid (v/v); 85 C)Labile organics and amorphous metal suldes (0.02M HNO3 and 30%H2O2 (3:5, v/v), pH 2.0; 85 C); after completed leaching 3.2M NH4Acin 20% HNO3 +water was appliedConsolidated organics, metal suldes and residual fraction (microwavedigestion in 7M HNO3)ed soils . EDTA has a high capacity for metalon and extraction but a comparably low biodegrad-e environment . EDTA is also quite mobile in soilsereby be transported to the groundwater, togetherobilized metals [7,8]. In several previous studies,
-ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid) has been proposed asentally friendly and safe chelant [14,1723]. MGDA
inediacetic acid) is another example of a more envi-y friendly chelator [14,17]. Mineral acids like nitric acided to produce a low pH that would lead to a releasehydrolyzed (cationic) metals from the soil. However,al scale it would be an advantage if a metal mobiliza-be achieved at a near neutral pH. Solutions with lowgative effects on the soil washing equipment in terms, and also lead to irreversible damage to the soil con-
of this studywas to test the capacity of somebiodegrad-exing agents for removal of metals remaining in theconventional soil wash procedure. A batch study usingeutral pH) with the two chelating agents EDDS andcitric acid as a reference for comparison, was per-
DS, with four carboxylic groups and two potentiallyrogen positions in the molecule, is similar to EDTA inGDA, with three carboxylic groups and one nitrogenthe molecule, is similar to NTA (nitrilotriacetic acid).ontains three carboxylic groups, as well as a hydroxy
complexing at low or near neutral pH). The same chela-ested in a 10kg-scale using equipment designed forg (Water Treatment Construction), WTC-mixer, whichd in a full-scale process in combination with a con-oil washing technique. The key issues were: (1) Canaining in contaminated soil, after conventional soil-as removed themetal carryingne-fraction, be releasedaction of the selected biodegradable amino polycar-s? (2) How do these agents compare with citric acidmetal removing capacity? (3) Is it feasible to design amediation process based on soil-wash, combined withnt leaching step using biodegradable strong complex-Thus, the aim is neither to establish the complexingEDDS and MGDA, which is already well-documented,are results from unique contaminated soils of variousmpile data from different cases in a review of the per-f EDDS and MGDA. The main purpose is to nd out ifaction remaining after soil-wash, in some selected soilsith old and aged metal contamination, can be removed
MGDA, and if the WTC-procedure, giving short leachinge utilized in a one-step soil-wash remediation proce-