Advertisement

Characterization and evaluation of a tropical peat for the removal of Cr(VI) from solution

  • Marilia Mayumi Augusto dos Santos
  • Mirian Chieko Shinzato
  • Juliana Gardenalli de Freitas
Original Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Tropical peat soils present higher ash content than those generated at temperate climate areas. Therefore, this study evaluated the characteristics of a Brazilian organic soil (OS), commercialized as peat, as well as its capacity in removing Cr(VI) from contaminated waters. The OS is composed of 35.5 wt% of organic matter and 56 wt% of inorganic fraction (ash), which is formed by minerals and phytoliths rich in silica (29.2 wt%) and alumina (23.6 wt%). The Cr(VI) removal tests were carried out in batch and column systems using OS and solutions of Cr(VI) prepared with distilled water and groundwater. Batch tests revealed that the organic substances in the OS caused the reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III), with an efficiency depending on solution pH. At pH 5.0 the Cr(VI) removal was 0.45 mg g−1 in 24 h; whereas at pH 2.0, this removal increased to 1.10 mg g−1. Since this redox reaction is very slow, the removal of Cr(VI) at pH 5.0 increased to around 2 mg g−1 after 5 days. The removal of Cr(VI) was more effective in the column tests than in the batch test due to the greater solid/solution ratio, and their half-lives were 4.4 and 26.2 h, respectively. Chemical analysis indicated that Cr(VI) was reduced by the humic substances of OS, followed by the precipitation and/or adsorption of Cr(III) into the organic and inorganic components, as anatase. The presence of Cr(III) increased the stability of anatase structure, avoiding its transformation into rutile, even after being heated at 800 °C/2 h.

Keywords

Organic soil Ash Chromium Reduction Anatase 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Dr. José Guilherme Franchi for the donation of the peat samples from São Luiz do Paraitinga (SP) and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments.

References

  1. Ajouyed O, Hurel C, Ammari M et al (2010) Sorption of Cr(VI) onto natural iron and aluminum (oxy)hydroxides: effects of pH, ionic strength and initial concentration. J Hazard Mater 174:616–622.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.09.096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alleoni LRF, Mello JWV, Rocha WSD (2009) Eletroquímica, adsorção e troca iônica do solo. In: SBCS (ed) Química e mineralogia do solo—Parte II—Aplicações. Minas Gerais, ViçosaGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM (2014) D 653—14: soil, rock, and contained fluids. ASTM, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. Balan C, Bilba D, Macoveanu M (2008) Removal of cadmium (II) from aqueous solutions by sphagnum moss peat: equilibrium study. Env Eng Manag J 7:17–23Google Scholar
  5. Balan C, Volf I, Bulai P, Bilba D, Macoveanu M (2012) Removal of Cr(VI) form aqueous environment using peat moss: equilibrium study. Env Eng Manag J 11:21–28Google Scholar
  6. Banks MK, Schwab AP, Henderson C (2006) Leaching and reduction of chromium in soil as affected by soil organic content and plants. Chemosphere 62:255–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.05.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barlett RJ, James BR (1988) Mobility and bioavailability of chromium in soils. In: Nriagu JO, Nierboer E (eds) Chromium in the natural environment. Wiley, New York, pp 267–304Google Scholar
  8. Bellifa A, Pirault-Roy L, Kappenstein C, Choukchou-Braham A (2014) Study of effect of chromium on titanium dioxide phase transformation. Bull Mater Sci 37(3):669–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benites VM, Madar B, Machado PLOA (2003) Extração e fracionamento quantitativo de substâncias húmicas do solo: um procedimento simplificado de baixo custo. Comun Técnico 16:1–7Google Scholar
  10. Blowes DW, Ptacek CJ, Jambor JL (1997) In-situ remediation of Cr(VI)-contaminated groundwater using permeable reactive walls: laboratory studies. Environ Sci Technol 31:3348–3357.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es960844b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blowes DW, Ptacek CJ, Benner SG et al (2000) Treatment of inorganic contaminants using permeable reactive barriers. J Contam Hydrol 45:123–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(00)00122-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown P, Gill S, Allen SJ (2000) Metal removal from wastewater using peat. Water Res 34:3907–3916.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00152-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron CC, Esterle JS, Palmer CA (1989) The geology, botany and chemistry of selected peat-forming environments from temperate and tropical latitudes. Int J Coal Geol 12:105–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-5162(89)90049-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Camargo AO, Moniz AC, Jorge JA, Valadares JMAS (2009) Métodos de análise química, mineralógica e física de solos do Instituto Agronômico de Campinas - Boletim técnico 106. Instituto Agronômico do Estado de São Paulo, CampinasGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen CY, Lan GS (2000) Preparation of mullite by the reaction sintering of kaolinite\rand alumina. J Eur Ceram Soc 20:2519–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chimner RA, Ewel KC (2005) A tropical freshwater wetland: II. production, decomposition, and peat formation. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:671–684.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-005-0965-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crist RH, Martin JR, Choniko J, Crist DR (1996) Uptake of metals on peat moss: an ion exchange process. Environ Sci Technol 30:2456–2461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dević G (2015) An assessment of the chemical characteristics of early diagenetic processes in a geologically well-defined brown coal basin. Energy Sources Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 37:2559–2566.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2012.724147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardea-Torresdey JL, Tang L, Salvador JM (1996) Copper adsorption by esterified and unesterified fractions of sphagnum peat moss and its different humic substances. J Hazard Mater 48:191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Genutchen MT van, Alves WJ (1982) Analytical solutions of the one-dimensional convective dispersive solute transport equation, Boletim Té. US Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  21. Góes MA, Luz AB, Possa MV (2004) Amostragem. In: Luz AB, Sampaio J, Almeida SLM (eds) Tratamento de minérios, 4°. CETEM, Rio de Janeiro, pp 18–50Google Scholar
  22. Gu B, Chen J (2003) Enhanced microbial reduction of Cr(VI) and U(VI) by different natural organic matter fractions. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 67:3575–3582.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7037(03)00162-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haberhauer G, Feigl B, Gerzabek MH, Cerri C (2000) FT-IR Spectroscopy of organic matter in tropical soils: changes induced through deforestation. Appl Spectrosc 54(2):221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henryk K, Jarosław C, Witold Ż (2016) Peat and coconut fiber as biofilters for chromium adsorption from contaminated wastewaters. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:527–534.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5285-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hesse PR (1971) A textbook of soil chemical analysis. Chemical Publishing Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hsu TC, Guo GL, Chen WH, Hwang WS (2010) Effect of dilute acid pretreatment of rice straw on structural properties and enzymatic hydrolysis. Bioresour Technol 101:4907–4913.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang PJ, Chang H, Yeh CT, Tsai CW (1997) Phase transformation of TiO2 monitored by thermo-Raman spectroscopy with TGA/DTA. Thermochim Acta 297:85–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6031(97)00168-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang SW, Chiang PN, Liu JC et al (2012) Chromate reduction on humic acid derived from a peat soil—exploration of the activated sites on HAs for chromate removal. Chemosphere 87:587–594.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Janaki V, Kamala-Kannan S, Shanthi K (2015) Significance of Indian peat moss for the removal of Ni(II) ions from aqueous solution. Environ Earth Sci 74:5351–5357.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4547-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joosten H (2016) Changing paradigms in the history of tropical peatlands research. In: Osaki M, Tsuji N (eds) Tropical peatland ecosystems. Springer, Tokyo, pp 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kiehl EJ (1979) Manual de Edafologia—relações solo-planta. Ceres, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  32. Klavins M, Purmalis O, Rodinov V (2013) Peat humic acid properties and factors influencing their variability in a temperate bog ecosystem. Estonian J Ecol 62(1):35–52.  https://doi.org/10.3176/eco.2013.1.04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krumins J, Klavins M, Seglins V (2012) Comparative study of peat composition by using FT-IR spectroscopy. Mater Sci Appl Chem 26:106–114Google Scholar
  34. Liu W, Ni J, Yin X (2014) Synergy of photocatalysis and adsorption for simultaneous removal of Cr(VI) and Cr(III) with TiO2 and titanate nanotubes. Water Res 53:12–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.12.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu Y, Mou H, Chen L et al (2015) Cr(VI)-contaminated groundwater remediation with simulated permeable reactive barrier (PRB) filled with natural pyrite as reactive material: environmental factors and effectiveness. J Hazard Mater 298:83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Machado JMC, Oliveira LMCPE, Kamogawa MY (2011) Reciclagem do crômio de resíduos químicos provenientes da determinação de carbono oxidável em fertilizantes orgânicos. Quim Nova 34:131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mak MSH, Lo IMC (2011) Influences of redox transformation, metal complexation and aggregation of fulvic acid and humic acid on Cr(VI) and As(V) removal by zero-valent iron. Chemosphere 84:234–240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.04.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miyazawa M, Pavan MA, Oliveira EL de et al (2000) Gravimetric determination of soil organic matter. Braz Arch Biol Technol 43:475–478.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132000000500005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF (2001) Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated soils and groundwater: an evaluation. Eng Geol 60:193–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(00)00101-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Music S, Maljkovic M, Popovic S, Trojko R (1999) Formation of chromia from amorphous chromium hydroxide. Croat Chem Acta 72:789–802Google Scholar
  41. Nolan NT, Seery MK, Pillai SC (2009) Spectroscopic investigation of the anatase-to-rutile transformation of sol–gel-synthesized TiO2 photocatalysts. J Phys Chem C 113:16151–16157.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp904358g CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olazabal MA, Nikolaidis NP, Suib SA, Madariaga JM (1997) Precipitation equilibria of the chromium(VI)/iron(III) system and spectrospcopic characterization of the precipitates. Environ Sci Technol 31:2898–2902.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es9700865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Page SE, Rieley JO, Wüst R (2006) Lowland tropical peatlands of Southeast Asia. In: Martini IP, Cortizas AM, Chesworth W (eds) Peatlands: evolution and records of environmenal and climate changes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 145–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Palmer CD, Plus RW (1994) Natural attenuation of hexavalent chromium in groundwater and soils. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Priyantha N, Lim LBL, Wickramasooriya S (2016) Adsorption behaviour of Cr(VI) by Muthurajawela peat. Desalin Water Treat 57:16592–16600.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1081835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Russel JD (1987) Infrared methods. In: Wilson MJ (ed) A handbook of determinative methods in clay mineralogy. Blackie & Sons, London, pp 133–173Google Scholar
  47. Schnitzer M (1972) Chemical, spectroscopic, and thermal methods for the classification and characterization of humic substances. In: Povoledo D, Golterman HL (eds) Proceedings of international meeting on humic substances. PUDOC, Wageningen, pp 293–310Google Scholar
  48. Schwartz FW, Zhang H (2003) Fundamentals of groundwater. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharma DC, Forster CF (1993) Removal of hexavalent chromium using sphagnum moss peat. Water Res 7:1201–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sharma P, Bihari V, Agarwal SK et al (2012) Groundwater contaminated with hexavalent chromium [Cr (VI)]: a health survey and clinical examination of community inhabitants (Kanpur, India). PLoS One 7:3–9.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047877 Google Scholar
  51. Stevenson FJ (1994) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, and reaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Thiruvenkatachari R, Vigneswaran S, Naidu R (2008) Permeable reactive barrier for groundwater remediation. J Ind Eng Chem 14:145–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2007.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ulmanu M, Anger I, Fernández Y et al (2008) Batch chromium(VI), cadmium(II) and lead(II) removal from aqueous solutions by horticultural peat. Water Air Soil Pollut 194:209–216.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-008-9709-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (1999) Soil taxonomy, 2nd edn. USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1989) Evaluation of groundwater extraction remedies. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Responses, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1991) EPA method 2186—determination of dissolved hexavalent chromium in drinking water, groundwater and industrial wastewater effluents by ion chromatography. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2017) Chromium in drinking water. https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/chromium-drinking-water. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  58. Wada K and Okamura Y (1977) Measurements of exchange capacities and hydrolysis as means of characterizing cation and anion retentions by soils. Proceedings of the international seminar on soil environment and fertility management in intensive agriculture, Tokyo-Japan, pp 811–815Google Scholar
  59. WHO (World Health Organization) (2017) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edn. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilkin RT, Su C, Ford RG, Paul CJ (2005) Chromium-removal processes during groundwater remediation by a zerovalent iron permeable reactive barrier. Environ Sci Technol 39:4599–4605.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es050157x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilkin RT, Acree SD, Ross RR et al (2014) Fifteen-year assessment of a permeable reactive barrier for treatment of chromate and trichloroethylene in groundwater. Sci Total Environ 468–469:186–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wittbrodt PR, Palmer CD (1996) Reduction of Cr (VI) by soil humic acids. Eur J Soil Sci 47:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wu Y, Zhang Y, Qian J, Xin X, Hu S, Zhang S, Wei J (2017) An exploratory study on low-concentration hexavalent chromium adsorption by Fe (III)-cross-linked chitosan beads. R Soc Open Sci 4:170905.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170905 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wüst RAJ, Bustin RM, Lavkulich LM (2003) New classification systems for tropical organic-rich deposits based on studies of the Tasek Bera Basin, Malaysia. Catena 53:133–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00022-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yolcubal I, Akyol NH (2007) Retention and transport of hexavalent chromium in calcareous karst soils. Turk J Earth Sci 16:363–379Google Scholar
  66. Zehra T, Lim LBL, Priyantha N (2015) Removal behavior of peat collected from Brunei Darussalam for Pb(II) ions from aqueous solution: equilibrium isotherm, thermodynamics, kinetics and regeneration studies. Environ Earth Sci 74:2541–2551.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4273-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zengguang X, Yanqing W, Hui X (2013) Optimization of a PRB structure with modified chitosan restoring Cr(VI)-contaminated groundwater. Environ Earth Sci 68:2189–2197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1902-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhang J, Xu Y, Li W et al (2012) Enhanced remediation of Cr(VI)-contaminated soil by incorporating a calcined-hydrotalcite-based permeable reactive barrier with electrokinetics. J Hazard Mater 239–240:128–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.08.039 Google Scholar
  69. Zhilin DM, Schmitt-Kopplin P, Perminova IV (2004) Reduction of Cr(VI) by peat and coal humic substances. Environ Chem Lett 2:141–145.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-004-0085-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Ciências AmbientaisQuímica e Farmacêutica da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP-Campus Diadema)DiademaBrazil

Personalised recommendations