Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 354–363 | Cite as

Remediation of an electroplating contaminated soil by EDTA flushing: chromium release and soil dissolution

  • Weihua Zhang
  • Daniel C. W. TsangEmail author
  • Hao Chen
  • Long Huang
SOILS, SEC 3 • REMEDIATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED OR DEGRADED LANDS • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

Remediation of soils contaminated with Cr (as Cr(III) complexes/precipitates and/or Cr(VI) oxyanion) and cationic metals (Cu, Ni, Zn, and Pb) by ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) flushing has been challenging and rarely investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of EDTA flushing for metal extraction of soil from an electroplating site, with a specific focus on chromium release and soil dissolution.

Materials and methods

Column flushing tests were performed on a sandy soil contaminated by electroplating activities in the field. Three EDTA concentrations (5, 10, and 20 mM) and flow interruptions were employed to investigate the operation of EDTA flushing.

Results and discussion

Results demonstrated that Cr, Cu, and Ni were continuously released along with dissolution of Fe, Al, Mg, and Mn throughout the entire flushing process (up to 600 pore volumes), whereas Zn and Pb removal primarily occurred in the first 50–200 pore volumes. By comparing the Cr and Fe release patterns, the observed Cr release by EDTA flushing possibly resulted from a combination of dissolution of Fe oxides, dissolution of metal–chromate precipitates, and ligand competition for the surface sites (substitution reaction). The latter two mechanisms appeared to be more influential at the early stage. It was also revealed that soil dissolution was predominant, and metal extraction became inefficient at the later stage of flushing, especially with the concentrated EDTA solution. On the other hand, when the flushing process was temporarily paused (i.e., flow interruptions), Cr, Cu, Ni, and Zn concentrations elevated, whereas Pb levels in the effluent decreased, indicating the significance of rate-limited metal exchange of newly formed metal–EDTA complexes.

Conclusions

In consideration of EDTA utilization efficiency and potential ecological risks, diluted EDTA solution is recommended for field applications.

Keywords

Chromium release EDTA flushing Metal exchange Soil dissolution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (project no. 40802088), the research fund program of Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Control and Remediation Technology, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities from Chinese Ministry of Education, and the State Scholarship Fund from China Scholarship Council for the financial support of this study.

References

  1. Arias JA, Peralta-Videa JR, Ellzey JT, Viveros MN, Ren M, Mokgalaka-Matlala NS, Castillo-Michel H, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2010) Plant growth and metal distribution in tissues of Prosopis juliflora-velutina grown on chromium contaminated soil in the presence of Glomus deserticola. Environ Sci Technol 44:7272–7279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cai XW, Zhang XH, Zhang H (2011) Effect of exogenous organic acids application on Cr uptake by Leersia hexandra Swartz. Asian J Chem 23:1777–1779Google Scholar
  3. Di Palma L (2009) Influence of indigenous and added iron on copper extraction from soil. J Hazard Mater 170:96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. do Nascimento CWA, Amarasiriwardena D, Xing B (2006) Comparison of natural organic acids and synthetic chelates at enhancing phyto-extraction of metals from a multi-metal contaminated soil. Environ Pollut 140:114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Environmental Protection Agency of the United States (USEPA 1995) Test methods for evaluation of solid waste, third ed. In: Laboratory Manual Physical/Chemical Methods SW 86–40. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. European Chemical Bureau (ECD) (2004) European union risk assessment report on Na4EDTA. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  7. Favas PJC, Pratas J, Gomes MEP, Cala V (2011) Selective chemical extraction of heavy metals in tailings and soils contaminated by mining activity: environmental implications. J Geochem Explora 111:160–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finzgar N, Lestan D (2007) Multi-step leaching of Pb and Zn contaminated soils with EDTA. Chemosphere 66:824–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finzgar N, Zumer A, Leštan D (2006) Heap leaching of Cu contaminated soil with [S, S]-EDDS in a closed process loop. J Hazard Mater 135:418–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcia R, Gonzalez JA, Rubio V, Arteaga C, Galan A (2011) Soil contamination in dumps on the karstic areas from the plateaus (Southeast of Madrid, Spain). Water Air Soil Pollut 222:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gheju M, Pode R, Manea F (2011) Comparative heavy metal chemical extraction from anaerobically digested biosolids. Hydromet 108:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Han FX, Su Y, Sridhar BBM, Monts DL (2004) Distribution, transformation and bioavailability of trivalent and hexavalent chromium in contaminated soil. Plant Soil 265:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hauser L, Tandy S, Schulin R, Nowack B (2005) Column extraction of heavy metals from soils using the biodegradable chelating agent EDDS. Environ Sci Technol 39:6819–6824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jean L, Bordas F, Bollinger JC (2007) Chromium and nickel mobilization from a contaminated soil using chelants. Environ Pollut 147:729–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jean-Soro L, Bordas F, Bollinger JC (2012) Column leaching of chromium and nickel from a contaminated soil using EDTA and citric acid. Environ Pollut 164:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khopkar SM (1998) Basic concept for analytical chemistry, 2nd edn. New Age International Limited, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  17. Korolczuk M, Grabarczyk M (2005) Evaluation of ammonia buffer containing EDTA as an extractant for Cr(VI) from solid samples. Talanta 66:1320–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leštan D, Luo CL, Li XD (2008) The use of chelating agents in the remediation of metal-contaminated soils: a review. Environ Pollut 153:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lim TT, Tay JH, Wang JY (2004) Chelating-agent-enhanced heavy metal extraction from a contaminated acidic soil. J Environ Eng-ASCE 130:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lo IMC, Tsang DCW, Yip TCM, Wang F, Zhang WH (2011a) Influence of injection conditions on EDDS-flushing of metal-contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 192:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lo IMC, Tsang DCW, Yip TCM, Wang F, Zhang WH (2011b) Significance of metal exchange in EDDS-flushing column experiments. Chemosphere 83:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mancini G, Bruno M, Polettini A, Pomi R (2011) Chelant-assisted pulse flushing of a field Pb-contaminated soil. Chem Ecol 27:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pansu M, Gautheyrou J (2006) Handbook of soil analysis. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polettini A, Pomi R, Calcagnoli G (2009) Assisted washing for heavy metal and metalloid removal from contaminated dredged materials. Water Air Soil Pollut 196:183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sahuquillo A, Rigol A, Rauret G (2002) Comparison of leaching tests for the study of trace metals remobilisation in soils and sediments. J Environ Monit 4:1003–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinam G, Sinha S, Mallick S (2011) Effect of chromium on accumulation and antioxidants in Cucumis utillissimus L: response under enhanced bioavailability condition. J Environ Sci-China 23:506–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tingborn A, Wannirien E (1979) Treatise on analytical chemistry. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Tsang DCW, Lo IMC, Chan KL (2007a) Modeling the transport of metals with rate-limited EDTA-promoted extraction and dissolution during EDTA-flushing of copper-contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 41:3660–3667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsang DCW, Zhang WH, Lo IMC (2007b) Copper extraction effectiveness and soil dissolution issues of EDTA-flushing of artificially contaminated soils. Chemosphere 68:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tsang DCW, Yip TCM, Lo IMC (2009) Kinetic interactions of EDDS with soils: 2. Metal–EDDS complexes in uncontaminated and metal-contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 43:837–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tsang DCW, Lo IMC, Surampalli RY (2012) Chelating agents for land decontamination Technologies. Environmental and Water Resources Institute. American Society of Civil Engineers, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  32. Turgut C, Pepe MK, Cutright TJ (2004) The effect of EDTA and citric acid on phytoremediation of Cd, Cr and Ni from soil using Helianthus annuus. Environ Pollut 131:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wasay SA, Barrington S, Tokunaga S (2001) Organic acids for the in situ remediation of soils polluted by heavy metals: soil flushing columns. Water Air Soil Poll 127:301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yip TCM, Tsang DCW, Ng KTW, Lo IMC (2009) Kinetic interactions of EDDS with Soils. 1. Metal re-sorption and competition under EDDS deficiency. Environ Sci Technol 43:831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yip TCM, Tsang DCW, Lo IMC (2010) Interactions of chelating agents with Pb-goethite at the solid–liquid interface: Pb extraction and re-adsorption. Chemosphere 81:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang WH, Tsang DCW, Lo IMC (2007) Removal of MDF and Pb from contaminated soils by EDTA- and SDS-enhanced washing. Chemosphere 66:2025–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang WH, Huang H, Tan FF, Wang H, Qiu RL (2010) Influence of EDTA washing on the species and mobility of heavy metals residual in soils. J Hazard Mater 173:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang WH, Tong LZ, Yuan Y, Huang H, Qiu RL (2011) Metal mobility and fraction distribution in a multi-metal contaminated soil chemically stabilized with different agents. ASCE J Hazard Toxic Radioactive Waste Manage 15:266–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang T, Wu YX, Huang XF, Liu JM, Zhang WH, Qiu RL (2012) Simultaneous extraction of Cr(VI) and Cu(II) from humic acid with new synthesized EDTA derivatives. Chemosphere 88(6):730–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zou ZL, Qiu RL, Zhang WH, Dong HY, Zhao ZH, Zhang T, Wei XG, Cai XD (2009) The study of operating variables in soil washing with EDTA. Environ Pollut 157:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weihua Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Daniel C. W. Tsang
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Hao Chen
    • 1
  • Long Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environmental Science and EngineeringSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  3. 3.Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Control and Remediation TechnologyGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Natural Resources EngineeringUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  5. 5.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations