Comparing chemical-enhanced washing and waste-based stabilisation approach for soil remediation
- 796 Downloads
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chemical-enhanced soil washing (with chelating agents, humic substances and inorganic acids) and soil stabilisation by inorganic industrial by-products (coal fly ash, acid mine drainage sludge and zero-valent iron) and organic resource (lignite) for timber treatment site remediation.
Materials and methods
Both remediation options were assessed in terms of extraction/leaching kinetics and residual leachability (toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, TCLP) of the major risk drivers, i.e. Cu and As.
Results and discussion
In chemical-enhanced soil washing, chelating agents only minimised the Cu leachability. Humic substances were ineffective while inorganic acids reduced the As leachability to the detriment of the soil quality. For the waste-stabilised soil, the short-term leaching potential (72 h) and long-term TCLP leachability (9 months) revealed that Fe-/Al-/Ca-rich AMD sludge and coal fly ash sequestered As through adsorption and (co-)precipitation, while carbonaceous lignite stabilised Cu with oxygen-containing functional groups. The short-term and long-term leaching of Cu and As into the soil solution was negligible in the presence of the waste materials. However, the waste-stabilised soil did not maintain sufficient Cu stability in the TCLP tests, in which acetate buffer induced significant mineral dissolution of the waste materials.
These results suggest that chelant-enhanced washing (significant reduction of Cu leachability) may be augmented with subsequent stabilisation with inorganic waste materials (effective control of As leachability), thus minimising the environmental risks of both Cu (heavy metal) and As (metalloid) while preserving the reuse value of the soil. Additional tests under field-relevant conditions are required to provide a holistic performance evaluation.
KeywordsChelating agents Industrial by-products Metal leachability Soil stabilisation Soil washing
The authors appreciate the financial support from the Foundation for Research Science and Technology Fund (SENZ0901) and the provision of field soil sample from Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd for this study.
- Council of the European Union (1999) Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of wasteGoogle Scholar
- Douglas L (2009) Olympic Watch—the main site. Engineering and Technology Magazine, The Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, 6, 4Google Scholar
- Neugschwandtner R, Tlustos P, Komarek M, Szakova J, Jakoubkova L (2012) Chemically enhanced phytoextraction of risk elements from a contaminated agricultural soil using Zea mays and Triticum aestivum: performance and metal mobilization over a three year period. Int J Phytoremediat 14:754–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Trakal L, Komarek M, Szakova J, Tlustos P (2011) Biochar application to metal-contaminated soil: evaluating of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn sorption behavior using single- and multi-element sorption experiment. Plant Soil Environ 57:372–380Google Scholar
- Tsang DCW, Lo IMC, Surampalli RY (2012) Design, implementation, and economic/societal considerations of chelant-enhanced soil washing. Chelating Agents for Land Decontamination Technologies. ISBN 978-0-7844-1218-3. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp 1–26Google Scholar
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) (2011) Remediation system evaluation—Vineland Chemical Company Superfund Site, Vineland, New Jersey. EPA-542-R-11-007, November 2011Google Scholar
- WHO (2011) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edn. World Health Organization, Switzerland. ISBN 978-92-4-154815-1Google Scholar