Advertisement

Centripetal filtration of groundwater to improve the lifetime of an MgO recycled refractory filter: observations and technical challenges

  • Carl de Repentigny
  • Gérald J. Zagury
  • Benoît CourcellesEmail author
Research Article
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

In the context of improving permeable reactive barrier (PRB) filters, axial and a centripetal column tests were performed to compare their evolution in terms of chemical and hydraulic performances. For both tests, the MgO reactive media, made of crushed (< 10 mm) spent MgO–C refractory bricks was used to treat water contaminated with Co and Ni by raising the pH and promoting hydroxide precipitation. As opposed to the traditional cylindrical axial configuration, the centripetal column consists of an annulus of reactive media through which the water flows from the outer radius towards the inner radius. Under similar conditions (total reactive mass, porosity), the centripetal column is expected to delay the breakthrough of contaminants because of its higher cross-section and lower flow speeds at the entrance of the media. However, as we found in this study, the design of a granular radial filter poses several technical problems. Indeed, a breakthrough of the contaminants, accompanied by a decline in pH, was observed much sooner in the centripetal (100 pv) than in the axial (375 pv) filter. This lower performance was deemed to be due to a hydraulic shortcut and was supported by the results of a tracer test (average renewal volume much lower (199 ml) than the theoretical one (7530 ml)) as well as the observation of preferential clogging upon dismounting the radial filter. While the design of a filter that induces a purely radial flow still poses a technical challenge, this study contributes to advance the knowledge for centripetal radial filtration of groundwater in PRBs.

Keywords

Permeable reactive barriers Magnesium oxide Metals precipitation Radial filtration Groundwater 

Notes

Funding

The authors would like to thank the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Blumetric Environmental Inc. for supporting this research.

References

  1. Bildstein O (1998) Modélisation géochimique des interactions eau-gaz-roche. Application à la diagenèse minérale dans les réservoirs géologiques [Geochemical modeling of water-gas-rock interactions. Application to mineral diagenesis in geological reservoirs] (Doctoral thesis). University of Strasbourg 1, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. Caraballo MA, Rötting TS, Silva V (2010) Implementation of an MgO-based metal removal step in the passive treatment system of Shilbottle, UK: column experiments. J Hazard Mater 181:923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cortina J-L, Lagreca I, De Pablo J, Cama J, Ayora C (2003) Passive in situ remediation of metal-polluted water with caustic magnesia: evidence from column experiments. Environ Sci Technol 37:1971–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Courcelles B (2012) Radial Filtration in permeable reactive barriers. IJEPR 1:107–113Google Scholar
  5. Courcelles B, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A, Gouvenot D, Esnault-Filet A (2011) Influence of precipitates on hydraulic performance of permeable reactive barrier filters. Int J Geomech 11:142–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Repentigny C, Courcelles B, Zagury GJ (2018) Spent MgO-carbon refractory bricks as a material for permeable reactive barriers to treat a nickel- and cobalt-contaminated groundwater. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:23205–23214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demirci A, Leu F, Bailey FJ (2012) Comparison of radial and axial flow chromatography for monoclonal antibody downstream processing at bench and pilot scales. Am J Biochem Biotechnol 8:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gustavsson P-E, Larsson P-O (2001) Continuous superporous agarose beds in radial flow columns. J Chromatog A 925:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ITRC (2011) Permeable reactive barrier: technology update (No. PRB-5). Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, PRB: Technology Update Team, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Lowell PS, Meserole FB, Parsons TB (1977) Precipitation chemistry of magnesium sulfite hydrates in magnesium oxide scrubbing (No. EPA/600/7-77/109). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Macías F, Caraballo MA, Rötting TS, Pérez-López R, Nieto JM, Ayora C (2012) From highly polluted Zn-rich acid mine drainage to non-metallic waters: implementation of a multi-step alkaline passive treatment system to remediate metal pollution. Sci Total Environ 433:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Navarro A, Chimenos JM, Muntaner D, Fernandez AI (2006) Permeable reactive barriers for the removal of heavy metals: lab-scale experiments with low-grade magnesium oxide. Ground Water Monit Remediat 26:142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oustadakis P, Agatzini-Leonardou S, Tsakiridis PE (2006) Nickel and cobalt precipitation from sulphate leach liquor using MgO pulp as neutralizing agent. Miner Eng 19:1204–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rötting TS, Cama J, Ayora C, Cortina J-L, De Pablo J (2006) Use of caustic magnesia to remove cadmium, nickel, and cobalt from water in passive treatment systems: column experiments. Environ Sci Technol 40:6438–6443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rötting TS, Ayora C, Carrera J (2008) Improved passive treatment of high Zn and Mn concentrations using caustic magnesia (MgO): particle size effects. Environ Sci Technol 42:9370–9377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schiller JE, Tallman DN, Khalafalla SE (1984) Mineral processing water treatment using magnesium oxide. Environ Prog 3:136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Terringo J III (1987) Magnesium hydroxide reduces sludge/improves filtering. Pollut Eng 19:78–83Google Scholar
  18. Tsaur Y, Shallcross D (1997) Comparison of simulated performance of fixed ion exchange beds in linear and radial flow. Solvent Extr Ion Exc 15:689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. USEPA (2008) Green remediation: incorporating environmental practices into remediation of contaminated sites (No. EOA 542-R-08-002). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency ResponseGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Geological and Mining EngineeringPolytechnique MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations