Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 190, Issue 1–4, pp 197–207 | Cite as

Surfactant-Enhanced Removal of Cu (II) and Zn (II) from a Contaminated Sandy Soil

Article

Abstract

Batch tests were conducted to know the effectiveness of using surfactants only and surfactants with a complexing agent to remove Cu (II) and Zn (II) from an artificially contaminated sandy soil. SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate), AOT (alpha-olefin sulfonate) and Tx-100 (Triton X-100) were the surfactants selected as the washing liquids. Complexing agent EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) was also selected for washing the soil. To avoid external factors from interfering with the cleaning process, artificial soil formed by a mixture of clean sand and bentonite was used to form contaminated soil samples. The amount of organic matter present was insignificant. Compared to extraction by distilled water, tests indicated that a six-fold increase in copper extraction occurred due to the presence of surfactants and/or the complexing agent EDTA. Compared to extraction by distilled water, zinc extraction by surfactants and or the complexing agent EDTA was nearly 1.2 to 1.3 times more. Effects of competition as well as interference associated with the adsorption and desorption of these metals are also very briefly reported.

Keywords

Surfactants SDS AOT Tx-100 Complexing agents Soil washing Site remediation Zinc Copper Heavy metals Soil pollution 

1 Introduction

Heavy metals have densities generally larger than 5 g/cm3. Cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc are commonly encountered hazardous heavy metals and are in the EPA’s list of priority pollutants (Cameron 1992). Heavy metals in soils generally occur in five fractions: exchangeable, carbonate, Fe–Mn oxide, organic and residual fractions. Sewage sludge, fertilizers, pesticides and wastes from metal industries are sources of Zn in the soil. Copper forms complexes with organic matter in the soil and is strongly held on inorganic and organic exchange sites present on soil particles. Hence, it is relatively more difficult to remove copper from soil (Alloway 1990; Cameron 1992). To enhance metal removal, leaching agents, pH adjusters, and surfactants and chelating agents may be added to the wash water (Deuren et al. 2002; Abdul and Gibson 1991). In the ex situ process, the contaminated earth is removed and washed with washing solutions. This type of soil washing is both cumbersome and more expensive (Davis and Singh 1995).

1.1 Adsorption and Desorption of Metals

Cation exchange, specific adsorption, organic complexation and co-precipitation are the mechanisms involved in the adsorption of ions by soil particles (Alloway 1990). Temminghoff et al. (1994) observed that copper desorption from a sandy soil and the complexation of copper by dissolved organic fractions are strongly dependent on pH. Wu et al. (1999) found that copper was preferentially sorbed on organic matter associated with the coarse clay fraction.

The effectiveness of CaCl2, HCl and EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) in removing lead from soils artificially contaminated with a lead compound [Pb (NO3)2] has been determined on the basis of systematic batch (Cline and Reed 1995) and column (Reed et al. 1996) tests. Concentrated HCl may cause the destruction of the soil structure due to mineral dissolution and lead to decreased soil productivity (Reed et al. 1996).

Recently, Christophi and Axe (2000) studied the important phenomena of interference and competition among copper, lead and cadmium while getting adsorbed to a goethite surface. They demonstrated that adsorption increased with metal electronegativitity (Cu > Pb > Cd) and gave a critical review of previous studies (Gadde and Laitinen 1974; Benjamine and Leckie 1981; Zasoski and Burau 1988) related to competition among metals to get adsorbed to soils.

1.2 Soil Pollutant Removal by Surfactants and Complexing Agents

Surfactants remove organics from soils using mechanisms of mobilization and solubilization. Surfactants increase mobility of hydrophobic organic compounds at lower concentrations. At high concentrations, they enhance the solubilization of many hydrophobic organic compounds by increasing the solubility of contaminants through micellar solubilization (Edward et al. 1994; Harwell 1992; Wilson and Clarke 1994; Huang et al. 1997; Duffield et al. 2003). Based on batch tests, Zhang and Lo (2007) have found the optimum conditions such as pH and surfactant concentration for the removal of marine diesel fuel from soils, using surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and EDTA, in the presence and absence of lead in the soil.

Metal contamination in the soil occurs as solubilized contaminant in the soil moisture, as adsorbed contaminant on the soil surface and as chemically fixed contaminant in soil compounds (Evanko and Davia 1997). Although surfactants have shown potential for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils, research in the area of surfactant enhanced metal removal from soils is not very extensive. Doong et al. (1998) reported on surfactant enhanced desorption rates of cadmium, lead and zinc. They found that complexing agents such as EDTA and diphenylthiocarbazone (DPC) could alter the metal removal efficiency. Gadelle et al. (2001) noted that anionic surfactants Witconate AOK (sodium C14–16 olefin sulfonate) and T77 (sodium oleyl n-methyl taurate) effectively remove uranium [U (VI)] from acidic soils by cation exchange. Using surfactants SDS, CTAB (cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide) and Tx-100 (Triton X-100), Mohammad and Jabeen (2003) studied the separation of heavy metal cations on soil amended silica gel layers. SDS has also been shown to be most effective in the micellar-enhanced ultra filtration (MEUF) method for heavy metal removal from water (Ahmadi et al. 1995).

Surfactants have low toxicity and relatively favorable biodegradability (Deshpande et al. 1999). Hence, one prefers them to complexing agents for site remediation. In a field setting, the presence of multiple competing ions is more frequent than the existence of a single contaminant. Only a few detailed studies (Christophi and Axe 2000) have dealt with the topics of competition and interference related to heavy metal adsorption/desorption in soils.

Effective metal removal from a soil is linked to the soil type and its horizon, age, cation capacity (CEC), pH, organic content and the interference effects of other inorganic soil contaminants (Reed et al. 1996). Soil matrix, hydraulic conductivity and the speciation of the metal can also alter the efficiency of soil remediation. The effectiveness of a soil washing solution is hence site specific. Modeling and mechanisms governing the performance of surfactants in the remediation of soils contaminated with Cu (II) and Zn (II) is complicated due to the complexity of soil system and the variety of factors involved. Consequently, the role of surfactants in site remediation is not completely clear.

Complexing agents are very effective in extracting heavy metals from the soil (Ellis et al. 1986; Eliot and Brown 1989; Peters 1999; and Reed et al. 1996). Hong et al. (1995) showed that chelate S-carbonxymethylcysteine (SCMC) removed and released copper reversibly. Based on systematic column-washing experiments, Davis and Singh (1995) concluded that efficient soil washing occurred when chelating agents are used at low flow rates. Davis and Hotha (1998) have also shown that the extent of lead removal is a function of the form of lead contaminating the soil and point out that EDTA alters the soil pH and is relatively expensive. Zhang and Lo (2006) have determined the optimum conditions related to metal concentration in soil and pH conditions, for effective removal of lead and/or zinc from soils, using EDTA.

1.3 Objectives of the Present Study

The present study mainly evaluates the potential of surfactants to enhance the remediation of sandy soils artificially contaminated by Cu (II) and Zn (II). To this end, batch experiments were conducted to investigate the sorption/desorption behavior of these two heavy metals in an artificially contaminated sandy soil. This ensured that adsorption or desorption mechanisms are not unduly influenced by external factors as in natural soils. These factors may include other metals, metal compounds and organics. For field applications, tests should be extended to include specific natural soils to include these effects. Distilled water, a complexing agent (EDTA), two anionic surfactants SDS and AOT (alpha-olefin sulfonate) and a nonionic surfactant Tx-100 (Triton X-100) were used as metal extracting agents. Effects of competition as well as interference associated with the sorption and desorption of metals were also noted. The selected surfactants have been used in the past as washing fluids and had no large harmful impact on soils.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Materials

The materials used mainly consisted of soil samples, target contaminants and surfactants. Cu (II) and Zn (II) in the form of Cu (NO3)2 1/2H2O and Zn (NO3)2 7H2O were the contaminants. HNO3 (70%) was used for digestion. Analytical-reagent grade chemicals were obtained from Fisher scientific (Canada). Distilled water was used for washing, diluting and for use as a control. Analytical-reagent grade SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate), AOT (dioctyl sulfosuccinate), and Tx-100 (Triton X-100) were the surfactants used to represent anionic and nonionic surfactants. EDTA was the complexing agent chosen. Analytical-reagent grade surfactants and EDTA were obtained from Sigma Chemical Co. USA (1993).

2.2 Soil Samples

The soil used in this study contained 98% of Ottawa sand and 2% of bentonite by weight. Sand was obtained from Geneq Inc., Canada, and bentonite was purchased from Sial Inc., Canada. The low content of bentonite ensured that in the secondary tests involving competition for adsorption sites for two metals, true competition for adsorption sites existed due to scarcity of such sites. Also, lower clay content is expected to reduce clogging of water passages in columns tests that are planned for future studies.

Commercially available bentonite has a particle size which passes through the 325 mesh. The Ottawa sand grain size (Table 1) used in this study corresponds to clean sand passing through 40 mesh. Very fine sand particles got washed away during cleaning by distilled water. The specific surface area of sand is estimated to be close to 0.1 m2/g (Chiou and Rutherford 1993). Dm denotes the mean particle size (diameter) in Table 1. Hydraulic conductivity of soil sample (98% sand and 2% bentonite) was experimentally found from permeameter tests to be 3.63 × 10−3cm/s (Li 2004).
Table 1

Characteristics of sand and bentonite

Characteristics

Bentonite

Sand

CEC (meq/100 g)

105a

0

Organic matter % (at 550°C)

3.1

0.12

pH in water

6.7

9.4

Particle size Dm (mm)

0.044 (mesh 325)

0.42 (mesh 40)

Dm Mean diameter in millimeters

aDaniels et al. (2004)

2.3 Soil Sample 1

The soil samples were artificially contaminated in the laboratory. Batch experiments were conducted to investigate different parameters involved in the surfactant-enhanced removal of heavy metals from contaminated soils. Metal salt solutions containing 4,000 mg/l of Cu (NO3)2 and 4,000 mg/l of Zn (NO3)2 were added to sand and bentonite separately. The solution to sand ratio was 1 l/4 kg and the solution to bentonite ratio was 1 l/0.1 kg. The addition of the metallic solution was followed by shaking them separately on a wrist action shaker (Burrell Scientific, USA) at 60 oscillations/min for 24 hours at a temperature of 25 ± 2°C. After centrifugation at 3,000 rpm for 15 min, the supernatant was removed and the two soil samples were stored for 1 month separately. The last operation in preparing the soil samples involved the addition of 0.10 g of contaminated bentonite and 4.90 g of contaminated sand to each sampling tube. Since the quantity of metal retained in both soils was quite small, it was reasonable to assume that the combined soil still contained 2% of bentonite. Table 2 shows the contamination levels of soil samples. The resulting sample containing both metals is termed as sample 1.
Table 2

Soil sample 1

Cu (II) concentration (mg/kg soil)

Zn (II) concentration (mg/kg soil)

1,216

1,152

To get metal concentration, samples were digested by 70% of HNO3 and shaken at 60 oscillations/min for 24 h. Sample analysis by the atomic absorption (AA) Spectrophotometer (Perkin Elmer A Analyst 100) yielded metal concentrations to the nearest 0.1 mg/l.

2.4 Soil Samples 2 and 3

To study the interaction between Cu (II) and Zn (II), parallel experiments were conducted to compare the results with and without metal interactions. A metal salt solution containing 4,000 mg/l of only Cu (II) was added to the samples of sand and bentonite to form a new sample termed as soil sample 2. Metal salts containing 4,000 mg/l of only Zn (II) were added to the sand and bentonite samples to form another new sample termed as soil sample 3. The procedures to prepare soil samples 2 and 3 were identical to the procedures followed to prepare soil sample 1.

2.5 Batch Experiments

All soil samples were dried at 105°C for a minimum of 24 h before usage. Typically, in all batch experiments, 5.000 g (4.900 g of sand + 0.1000 g of bentonite) of the contaminated soil samples were weighed and placed in the reactor formed of 50 ml capacity plastic Nylon centrifuge sample tubes. For each test, 40 ml of washing solutions at varying concentrations were added to these reactors (sample tubes). All the gravimetric measurements were done with a sartorius balance capable of measuring to the nearest 0.001 g. The samples were equilibrated in a wrist action shaker at 60 oscillations/month for 24 h and later centrifuged for 20 min. The supernatant was taken for subsequent AA analysis to find the metal concentration. All tests were done in triplicate. The average value of the three tests and the extreme values (maximum and minimum) are shown in the sketches.

3 Results

3.1 Sample 1: Effect of Surfactant Concentration

Some of the results of batch extraction tests are shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. For all cases, the soil to liquid ratio was 1 g/8 ml. The stated critical micelle concentrations (CMCs) in the sketches are based on data related to CMC in water reported by Mukerjee and Mysels (1971). Doong et al. (1996) asserted that more Tx-100 was needed to reach the CMC in the soil–water system than in the presence of water alone, since a good portion of Tx-100 gets sorbed on to the soil and that this may let the surfactant get adsorbed to the soil particles to displace the bound metal. The initial pHs shown in the sketches denote the pH values of the surfactant solution before it was added to the soil sample. The final pHs denote the pH noted after shaking soil samples for 24 h. The metal removed was expressed in milligrams of metal per liter of solution (mg/l). The solid/liquid ratio was 5 g/40 ml. Also, \(1{{\;{\text{mg}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\;{\text{mg}}} {\text{l}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\text{l}}}\;\left( {{\text{metal}}\;{\text{ion}}} \right)\;{\text{ = }}\;{{{\text{1}}\;{\text{mg}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{1}}\;{\text{mg}}} {\text{l}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\text{l}}}\;{\text{ $ \times $ }}\;{{{\text{40}}\;{\text{ml}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{40}}\;{\text{ml}}} {{\text{5}}\;{\text{g}}\;{\text{ = }}\;{{{\text{8}}\;{\text{mg}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{8}}\;{\text{mg}}} {{\text{kg}}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\text{kg}}}}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\text{5}}\;{\text{g}}\;{\text{ = }}\;{{{\text{8}}\;{\text{mg}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\text{8}}\;{\text{mg}}} {{\text{kg}}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\text{kg}}}}}}\).
Fig. 1

Batch extraction of Cu (II) from contaminated soil by Tx-100 initial pH = 5.15–5.38, final pH = 6.34–6.52

Fig. 2

Batch extraction of Zn (II) from contaminated soil by Tx-100 initial pH = 5.15–5.38, final pH = 6.34–6.52

Fig. 3

Batch extraction of Cu (II) from contaminated soil by SDS initial pH = 4.38–3.54, final pH = 6.32–6.76

Fig. 4

Batch extraction of Zn (II) from contaminated soil by SDS initial pH = 4.38–3.54, final pH = 6.32–6.76

Fig. 5

Batch extraction of Cu (II) from contaminated soil by AOT initial pH = 5.81–7.76, final pH = 6.21–7.39

Fig. 6

Batch extraction of Zn (II) from contaminated soil by AOT initial pH = 5.81–7.76, final pH = 6.21–7.39

3.1.1 Sample 1: Cu [II] AND Zn [II] Removal by Surfactants

Figures 1, 3 and 5 show the removal of Cu [II] by surfactants. Cu [II] (Fig. 1) removal reaches a high value, when the concentration of Tx-100 is close to 0.5 mM (=2.17 CMC). No gain in Cu [II] removal occurs with an increase in the concentration of Tx-100 beyond 2.17 CMC. For SDS, Cu [II] removal rate reaches a peak near 1.25 CMC and remains constant at higher concentrations of SDS. For AOT, the peak removal rate is reached when the concentration reaches 1.1 CMC. Beyond 1.1 CMC, there is a decrease in Cu [II] removal. With an increase in concentration beyond CMC, the micelles that trapped the metal ions appeared as a precipitate and got attached to the soil particles and failed to reach the supernatant solution. Especially in the case of Cu (II), a greenish blue patch of matter was clearly discernible on top of the sediment in the sampling tubes. Consequently, at concentrations higher than the CMC, a further increase in Cu [II] concentration in the supernatant (Figs. 3 and 5) should not be expected. In tests with nonionic surfactant Tx-100, no metal precipitation was observed at surfactant concentrations above its CMC.

Results for surfactant Tx-100 show that desorbed Zn [II] concentrations increase with increasing surfactant concentration until Cs = 0.5 mM = 2.17 CMC (Fig. 2). For SDS (Fig. 4) and AOT (Fig. 6), Zn (II) removal reaches a peak at concentrations equal to 1.25 CMC and 1.11 CMC, respectively. For a higher surfactant concentration of SDS and AOT, Zn [II] removal does not get altered very much, compared to the peak Zn [II] removal rate.

The results indicate that higher rates of Zn [II] and Cu [II] removal generally occur at concentrations close to 2.17 CMC for the non-ionic surfactant Tx-100 (Figs. 1, 2 and 3). For both SDS and AOT, higher metal removal rates for Zn [II] and Cu [II] occur at concentrations higher than their CMCs. This suggests that the micelles indirectly cause the mobilization and removal of these metals. Table 3 shows the optimal concentrations of surfactants related to the removal of Cu [II] and Zn [II].
Table 3

Effectiveness of surfactants in removing Cu [II] and Zn [II] from soil sample 1

Number

Surfactant

Optimal Concentration (mM)

Ratio to CMC

Max. Cu (II) removed (mg/l)

Ratio to Cu (II) removed by water

Max. Zn (II) removed (mg/l)

Ratio to Zn (II) removed by water

1

TX-100

0.50

2.17

2.13

7.98

32.40

1.26

2

SDS

10.00

1.25

1.65

6.25

36.80

1.43

3

AOT

1.25

1.11

1.60

5.99

34.67

1.35

At equilibrium, distilled water removed 0.2 mg/l of Cu (II) and 25.7 mg/l Zn (II) through solubilization. The highest desorbed concentrations of Cu (II) were 2.17 and 1.25 mg/l and 1.11 ppm in Tx-100 (Fig. 1), SDS (Fig. 3) and AOT (Fig. 5) amended washing systems, respectively. This corresponds to 7.98, 6.25 and 5.99 times greater mobilization of soil bound Cu [II] by surfactants than that mobilized by distilled water.

The desorbed concentrations of soil bound Zn (II) were 32.4, 36.8 and 34.67 mg/l, respectively, in Tx-100 (Fig. 2), SDS (Fig. 4) and AOT (Fig. 6) amended washing systems. This corresponds to 1.26, 1.43, and 1.35 times greater mobilization of soil bound Zn [II] by surfactants than that mobilized by distilled water. The optimal concentration was generally at a concentration close to or in excess of CMC. For the present tests, reported critical micelle concentrations (CMCs) are based on data related to CMC in water. Loss of surfactant occurs due to adsorption to soil. Hence, the surfactant attains CMC at higher concentrations when soil is present.

Most natural (soil) surfaces are negatively charged and are expected to adsorb relatively less anionic surfactants resulting in lower losses. Hence, they have higher efficiency in removing metals from soils (Harwell 1992). Bourbonais et al. (1995) too expect anionic surfactants to exhibit better metal removal efficiency than nonionic surfactants, because amphoteric and cationic surfactants tend to form strong complexes with soil minerals. However, present results, indicate that significant differences in metal extraction (Table 3) were not present.

3.2 Sample 1: Removal of Cu [II] and Zn [II] Using EDTA and Surfactants

Figure 7 illustrates the results of extraction of Cu (II) and Zn (II) with EDTA only. The extraction efficiency increased with increasing concentration of EDTA. The final pH were, respectively, 5.34, 2.46 and 2.34 when 1, 5 and 10 mM EDTA were used. The increased metal extraction capability of EDTA at higher concentrations appears to have been caused by the increased solubility of the metals at lower pH values.
Fig. 7

Extraction of Cu (II) and Zn (II) with EDTA

Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the extraction efficiency of Cu (II) and Zn (II) by a combination of surfactants and EDTA (5 mM). Cu (II) removal rate by a combination of EDTA and SDS (10 mM) was nearly twice the removal rate of Cu (II) by EDTA alone (Fig. 8). The mixture of EDTA and SDS (10 mM) removed 95% of Cu (II). The removal of Cu (II) was also improved by the addition of Tx-100 to EDTA. AOT did not significantly improve Cu (II) removal compared to EDTA alone (Fig. 8). EDTA (5 mM) was effective in the removal of Zn [II] without any additives. Hence, for combinations of surfactants with EDTA (5 mM), the enhancement of the removal of Zn [II] was not as effective (Fig. 9). Removal rate of Zn [II] by distilled water and the three surfactants were somewhat similar (20%). However, the combination of SDS (10 mM) and EDTA was extremely effective in removing almost all of Zn (II) in the sandy soil (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8

Extraction of Cu (II) by surfactants with EDTA (5 mM EDTA)

Fig. 9

Desorption of Zn (II) by surfactants with EDTA (5 mM EDTA)

3.3 Samples 1, 2 and 3: Metal Interaction and Competition

Figure 10 presents the results of metal interaction and competition tests in the retention mode for the three soil samples based on the AA analysis data of metal concentrations. For soil sample 1, the results indicate that the amount of Cu (II) retained (1,216 mg/kg) was slightly higher than the amount of Zn (II) retained (1,152 mg/kg) indicating that Cu (II) has a slightly higher affinity to the soil matrix adsorption sites than Zn (II). Metal concentration results (Fig. 10) related to soil; samples 1 and 2 suggest that for sample 1, the presence of Zn (II) marginally reduces the retention of Cu (II). However, results for samples 1 and 3 show that in the presence of Cu (II), retention of Zn (II) is significantly reduced. Results confirm the higher affinity of Cu (II) for soil adsorption sites.
Fig. 10

Interaction study related to metal adsorption

Figures 11 and 12 present the results of metal interaction and competition tests in the desorption mode for soil samples 1, 2 and 3. The extraction study for soil sample 1 (Fig. 11) shows that a large amount (17.9%) of Zn (II) can be desorbed by distilled water alone. On the other hand, for soil sample 1, only a small amount (0.17%) of Cu (II) is desorbed by distilled water. This observation holds good qualitatively for tests with sample 1 when the surfactant SDS was used as the soil washing solution (Fig. 12). This behavior of Zn (II) can again be traced to the fact that Zn (II) is not bound as strongly as Cu (II) to the adsorption sites of the soil matrix. Considering samples 1 and 2, the results (Fig. 11) indicate that the presence of Zn (II) in the soil significantly reduces Cu (II) desorption. Quantitatively, Figs. 11 and 12, respectively, show that in water (Fig. 11), Cu (II) desorption decreases from 0.63 to 0.23% and in SDS (Fig. 12) from 3.1 to 1.7%, when Zn (II) is also present in the soil (sample 1). These sketches also indicate that when Cu (II) is present, Zn (II) desorption increases to 17.7% from 5.3% in water (samples 3 and 1 of Fig. 11) and increases to 25.4% from 7.1% in SDS (samples 1 and 1 of Fig. 12).
Fig. 11

Interaction study related to metal desorption (solvent: distilled water)

Fig. 12

Interaction study related to metal desorption (solvent: 10 mM SDS solution)

4 Conclusions

Batch tests indicated that surfactants such as SDS, AOT and Tx-100 are effective in enhancing removal of Cu [II] and Zn [II] from an artificially contaminated sandy soil that contained 98% clean sand and 2% Bentonite. Tests confirmed the relatively large affinity of Cu [II] to bind strongly with soil particles and resist desorption, when distilled water is the washing fluid. However, distilled water alone was able to remove a high percentage of Zn [II], confirming the relatively weak affinity of Zn [II] to soil particles. Higher rates of Zn [II] and Cu [II] removal generally occurred at concentrations close to 2.17 CMC for the non-ionic surfactant T-x 100 (Figs. 1, 2 and 3). For both SDS and AOT, higher metal removal rates for Zn [II] and Cu [II] occurred at concentrations only slightly higher than their CMCs. This suggests that the micelles indirectly cause the mobilization and removal of these metals and that relatively, there is more surfactant loss to the soil in the case of the non ionic surfactant Tx-100.

The highest desorbed concentrations of Cu (II) in Tx-100, SDS and AOT amended washing systems, respectively, correspond to 7.98, 6.25 and 5.99 times greater mobilization of soil bound Cu [II] by surfactants than that mobilized by distilled water alone. The desorbed concentrations of soil bound Zn (II), respectively, in Tx-100 (Fig. 2), SDS (Fig. 4) and AOT amended washing systems correspond to 1.26, 1.43, and 1.35 times greater mobilization by surfactants than that mobilized by distilled water alone.

The mixture of EDTA and SDS (10 mM) removed 95% of Cu (II). The removal of Cu (II) was also improved by the addition of Tx-100 to EDTA. The combination of SDS (10 mM) and EDTA was extremely effective in removing almost all of Zn (II) from the sandy soil.

In tests involving adsorption of Cu (II and Zn (II), the presence of Zn (II) marginally reduced the retention of Cu (II). However, in the presence of Cu (II), the retention of Zn (II) is significantly reduced. This confirms the higher affinity of Cu (II) for the soil adsorption sites.

Cu (II) desorption decreases when Zn (II) is also present in the soil. Quantitatively, when Zn (II) is also present in the soil, Cu (II) desorption in water decreases from 0.63% to 0.23% and in SDS from 3.1 to 1.7%. However, when Cu (II) is present, Zn (II) desorption increases to 17.7% from 5.3% in water and to 25.4% from 7.1% in SDS.

References

  1. Abdul, A. S., & Gibson, T. L. (1991). Laboratory studies of surfactant-enhanced washing of polychlorinated biphenyl from sandy material. Environmental Science & Technology, 25(4), 665–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmadi, S., Huang, Y. C., Batchelor, B., & Koseoglu, S. (1995). Binding of heavy metals to derivatives of cholesterol and sodium dodecyl sulfate. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 121(9), 645–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alloway, B. J. (1990). Heavy metals in soils. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamine, M. M., & Leckie, J. O. (1981). Competitive adsorption of Cd, Cu, Zn and Pb on the amorphous iron oxyhydroxide. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 83, 410–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourbonais, K. A., Compeau, G. C., & MacCellan, L. K. (1995). Evaluating effectiveness of in situ soil flushing. In R. C. Knox, & J. H. Harwell (Eds.), Surfactant-enhanced subsurface remediation (pp. 161–176). ACS symposium series 594.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, R. E. (1992). Guide to site and soil description for hazardous waste site characterization (1): Metals, EPA report 600/4–91/029.Google Scholar
  7. Chiou, C. T., & Rutherford, D. W. (1993). Sorption of N2 and EGME vapors on some soils, clays, and mineral oxides and determination of sample surface areas by use of sorption data. Environmental Science & Technology, 27, 1587–1594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christophi, C. A., & Axe, L. (2000). Competition of Cd, Cu, and Pb adsorption on goethite. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 154(1), 245–267.Google Scholar
  9. Cline, S. R., & Reed, B. R. (1995). Lead removal from soils via bench-scale soil washing techniques. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 121(10), 700–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniels, J. L., Inyang, H. I., & Chien, C. C. (2004). Verification of contaminant sorption by soil–Bentonite barrier materials using electron scanning microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 120(8), 910–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, A. P., & Hotha, B. (1998). Washing of various lead compounds from a contaminated soil column. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 124(11), 1066–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, A. P., & Singh, I. (1995). Washing of Zinc (II) from a contaminated column. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 121(2), 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deshpande, S., Shiau, B. J., Wade, D., Sabatini, A. D., & Harwell, J. H. (1999). Surfactant selection for enhancing ex situ soil washing. Water Research, 33(2), 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deuren, J. V., Lloyd, T., Chetry, S., Liou, R., & Pec, J. (2002). Remediation technologies screening matrix and reference guide, 4th edn. (http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-3.html).
  15. Doong, R., Lei, W. G., Chen, T. F., Lee, C. Y., Chen, J. H., & Chang, W. H. (1996). Effect of anionic and nonionic surfactants on sorption and micellar solubilization of monocyclic aromatic compounds. Water Science and Technology, 34(7–8), 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doong, R., WU, H. A., & Lei, W. G. (1998). Surfactant enhanced remediation of cadmium contaminated soils. Water Science and Technology, 37(8), 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffield, A. R., Ramamurthy, A. S., & Campanelli, J. R. (2003). Surfactant enhanced mobilization of mineral oil with porous media. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 143(3), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edward, D. A., Adeel, Z., & Luthy, R. G. (1994). ‘Distribution of nonionic surfactant and phenanthrene in a sediment/aqueous system. Environmental Science & Technology, 28, 1550–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eliot, H. A., & Brown, G. A. (1989). Comparative evaluation of NTA and EDTA for extractive decontamination of Pb-polluted soils. Water, Air and soil pollution, 45, 361–369.Google Scholar
  20. Ellis, W. d., Fogg, T. R., & Tafuri, A. N. (1986). Treatment of soils contaminated with heavy metals, land disposal, remedial action. Incineration and treatment of hazardous waste, 12th Annual. Rsch. Symposium, EPA 600/9–86/022, (Cincinnati), 201–207.Google Scholar
  21. Evanko, C. R., & Davia, A. D. (1997). Remediation of metal-contaminated soils and groundwater. Report of Ground water remediation technologies analysis center.Google Scholar
  22. Gadde, R., & Laitinen, H. A. (1974). Studies of heavy metal adsorption by hydrous iron and manganese oxides. Analytical Chemistry, 46, 2022–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gadelle, F., Wan, J., & Tokunaga, T. K. (2001). Removal of uranium (VI) from contaminated sediments by surfactants. Journal of environmental quality, 30, 470–478.Google Scholar
  24. Harwell, J. H. (1992). Factors affecting surfactant performance in ground water remediation application. In D. A. Sabatini, & R. C. Knox (Eds.), Transport and remediation of subsurface contaminants (pp. 124–132). ACS Symposium series 491, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Hong, A., Chen, T. C., & Okey, R. W. (1995). Chelating extraction of lead and copper from soil with S-carboxymethylcysteine. Water Environment Research, 67, 971–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang, C., Van Benschoten, T. C., Healy, T. C., & Ryan, M. E. (1997). Feasibility study of surfactant use for remediation of organic and metal contaminated soils. Journal of Soil Contamination, 6(5), 537–556.Google Scholar
  27. Li, X. (2004). Surfactant enhanced washing of Cu (II) and Zn (II) from a contaminated sandy soil. MASc thesis, Building, Civil and Env. Engg. Dept, Concordia Univ., Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Mohammad, A., & Jabeen, N. (2003). TLC studies and separation of heavy metal cation on soil amend silica gel layers developed with surfactant-mediated solvent systems. Indian Journal of Chemical Technology, 10, 79–86.Google Scholar
  29. Mukerjee, P., & Mysels, K. J. (1971). Critical micelle concentrations of aqueous surfactant systems. National standard data series, 36. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  30. Peters, R. W. (1999). ‘Chelate extraction of heavy metals from contamination soils. Journal of Hazardous Materials’, 66(1–2), 151–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reed, B. E., Carriere, P. C., & Moore, R. (1996). Flushing of a Pb (II) contaminated soil using HCl, EDTA, and CaCl’2. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 122(1), 48–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sigma (1993). Sigma information sheet. www.sigmaaldrich.com/cgibin/hsrun/Suite7/Suite/HAHT.
  33. Temminghoff, E. J. M., Van Der Zec, S. E. A. T. M., & Keizer, M. G. (1994). The influence of pH on the desorption and speciation of copper in a sandy soil. Soil Science, 158(6, 3), 398–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, D. J., & Clarke, A. N. (1994) Soil surfactant flushing/washing. In D. J. Wilson, & A. N. Clarke (Eds.), Hazardous waste site soil remediation: Innovative technologies. Marcel Dekker, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Wu, J., Laird, D. A., & Thompson, M. L. (1999). Sorption and desorption of copper on soil clay components. Journal of Environmental Quality, 28(1), 334–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang, W., & Lo, I. M. C. (2006). EDTA-enhanced washing for remediation of Pb-and/or Zn-contaminated soils. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 133(5), 548–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang, W., & Lo, I. M. C. (2007). Chemical-enhanced washing for remediation of soils contaminated with marine diesel fuel in the presence/absence of Pb. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 133(5), 548–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zasoski, R. J., & Burau, R. G. (1988). Sorption and sorptive interactions of cadmium and zinc on hydrous manganese oxide. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 52, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations