Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On-site remediation of chromium-contaminated sediments by combination of sediment washing and stabilization with magnesium oxide/limestone mixtures

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Soils and Sediments Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

The remediation of heavy-metalcontaminated soils and sediments is of significant value to industrial areas around the world. The spread of such pollutants can result in a potential risk of entering the groundwater system and being transported to potential receptors. Leaching techniques can be an effective treatment option for the metal removal from soils and sediments. This approach consists of washing or leaching the contaminated soil with an appropriate reagent and the subsequent treatment of the leaching in an above-ground installation (on-site treatment) where metals can be removed and concentrated into a smaller volume. Among the heavy metals, chromium is a commonly identified soil contaminant, particularly in sites with intensive economic activities including agriculture, industrial, mining and mineral,processing.

Objective

The objective of this work was the evaluation and development of a leaching process for the remediation of soils and sediments polluted with chromium at laboratory scale. Chromium soil pollution was generated after the breakdown of a channel containing chromium wastes from a tannery plant. The pollution extension has been estimated to be on the order of thousands of tonnes of soil to be treated, with chromium contents ranging from 500 to 17,000 mg kg-1 soil.

Methods

The whole process investigated in this study integrates three stages; a) chromium leaching from a sediment using a diluted sulphuric acid solution, b) treatment of the leaching effluents with a magnesium oxide/limestone mixture for the precipitation of chromium hydroxide after acidity neutralisation, and c) polishing step to remove the eventual remaining chromium by adsorption onto natural zeolite. The amount of contaminated sediment treated ranged from 0.5 to 2 kg with chromium contents of between 2000 and 17,000 mg kg-1.

Results and Discussion

The paper describes results on the performance of the process and the optimisation of steps including influence of acid sulphuric concentration, chromium removal efficiency as well as alkaline reactive mixture proportions. Effluents from the leaching cells showed a significant decay on the chromium concentration with the increase of leaching runs and a high content of acidity (pH values close to 0.5). The treatment of these effluents in a second cell containing magnesium oxide/ limestone mixtures resulted in a high efficiency in neutralisation of acidity (pH values around 7) and chromium removal (concentrations below 5 mg 1-1). The passage through a third compartment containing zeolite as an adsorbent decreased the chromium concentration below 0.5 mg 1-1,

Conclusions

From the results obtained on the chromium leaching and immobilisation with magnesium oxide/limestone mixture at a laboratory scale, it could be pointed out that: (a) diluted sulphuric acid solutions (3%) demonstrated a high efficiency on chromium removal from sandy polluted soils on the kilogram scale, (b) mixtures of magnesium oxide/limestone demonstrated a high capacity to neutralise the residual high acidity present on the effluents and to remove chromium by precipitation and (c) between the limestone and caustic magnesia mixtures, those containing more than 60% of caustic magnesia provide the higher efficiency.

Recommendation and Outlook

Future work would be directed to the evaluation of the integrated process of leaching and chromium precipitation on column at a scale of 100 to 1000 kg.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baciocchi R, Boni MR, D’Aprile L (2003): Chelant application for heavy rnetal contaminated soil remediation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management, 18th, 621–630

  2. Tokunaga S, Hakuta T (2001): Acid washing and stabilization of an artificial arsenic-contaminated soil. Chemosphere 46 (1)31–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kovalick WW, James SC, Bassin NJ (1995): NATO/CCMS pilot study for the treatment of contaminated land and groundwater. Soil & Environment 5 (Contaminated Soil 95, Vol. 2), 1553–1558

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis AP (2000): Chemical and engineering aspects of heavy metal-contaminated soils. Revista Internacional de Contaminacion Ambiental 16 (4) 169–174

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nonavinakere S, Rappa P (1995): Remedial action suitability for the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant site. Hazard Ind Waste 27, 129–34

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hobby MM (1996): Leaching method and basin apparatus for metal recovery from contaminated soil. US Patent 94-333742 19941103. Priority: US 91-730175 19910716

  7. Wasay SA, Barrington S, Tokunaga S (2001): Organic acids for the in situ remediation of soils polluted by heavy metals: soil flushing in columns. Water Air Soil Pollut 127 (1-4)301–314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brewster MD, Peters RW, Miller GA, Li W, Patton TL, Martino LE (1995): Physical/chemical treatment of metalscontaminated soil. Ed. Rao S Ramachandra. Waste Processing and Recycling in Mineral and Metallurgical Industries II, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Waste Processing and Recycling in Mineral and Metallurgical Industries, 2nd, Vancouver, B.C., Aug. 20–24, 1995, 539–565. Pub.: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Montreal, Quebec

    Google Scholar 

  9. Redwine JC (2000): Innovative technologies for remediation of arsenic in soil and groundwater. Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association’s Annual Conference & Exhibition, 93rd, Salt Lake City, UT, United States, June 18–22, 2000, 6851–6863. Publisher: Air & Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blowes DW, Puis RW, Bennett TA, Gillham RW, HantonFong CJ, Ptacek CJ (1997): In-situ porous reactive wall for treatment of Cr(VI) and trichloroethylene in groundwater, Conference Proceedings — International Containment Technology Conference, St. Petersburg, Fla., Feb. 9–12, 1997, 851–857. Publisher: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mihalich JP, Ayyaswami A (1997): The use of an in-situ metals precipitation technology to remediate groundwater at a Superfund site in Pennsylvania. A case study. Proceedings — WEFTEC ’97, Water Environment Federation Annual Conference & Exposition, 70th, Chicago, Oct. 18–22,1997. Publisher: Water Environment Federation, Alexandria 3, 27–35

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hua B, Deng B (2003): Influences of Water Vapor on Cr(VI) Reduction by Gaseous Hydrogen Sulfide. Environ Sci Technol 37 (20) 4771–4777

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Blessing TC, Rouse JV (2002):Keys to successful in-situ remediation of hexavalent chromium in soil and ground water, Proceedings — Annual Meeting of the American Wood Preservers’ Association 98, 47–51

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Storch P, Messer A, Palmer D, Pyrin R (2002): Pilot test for in situ geochemical fixation of chromium(VI) using calcium polysulfide, Ed.(s): Gavaskar, Arun R.; Chen, Abraham S. C. Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds2002, Proceedings of the International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, 3rd, Monterey, CA, United States, May 20–23, 2002,1989–1996. Publisher: Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  15. Paul CJ, Khan FA, Puis RW (2002): In situ reduction of chromium-contaminated groundwater, soils, and sediments by sodium dithionite. Editor(s): Naftz, David L., Handbook of Groundwater Remediation Using Permeable Reactive Barriers, 465–493. Publisher: Academic Press, San Diego, California

    Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor RW, Shen S, Bleam WF, Tu SI (2000): Chromate removal by dithionite-reduced clays: evidence from direct Xray adsorption near edge spectroscopy (XANES) of chromate reduction at clay surfaces. Clays Clay Miner 48 (6) 648–654

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Thornton EC, Amonette JE (1999): Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Treatment of Cr(VI)-Contaminated Sediment Samples from a Plating-Waste Disposal Site-Implications for in-situ Remediation. Environ Sci Technol 33 (22) 4096–4101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Thornton EC, Jackson RL (1994): Laboratory and field evaluation of the gas treatment approach for in-situ remediation of chromate-contaminated soils. Ed. Gee GW, Wing NR, In-Situ Remediation: Scientific Basis for Current and Future Technologies, Hanford Symposium on Health and the Environment, 33rd, Pasco, Wash., Nov. 7–11, 994, 2, 949–963. Publisher: Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  19. Huang CS, DeMars D (1990): Chemical fixation of chromium-contaminated soils — A case history. Proc Natl Conf Hazard. Wastes Hazard Mater 7th, 1990, 363–367, Pub Hazard Mater Res. Control Inst, Silver Spring, Md

    Google Scholar 

  20. Khan FA, Puls RW (2003): In situ abiotic detoxification and immobilization of hexavalent chromium. Ground Water Monit Remediat 23 (1) 77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith WA, Apel WA, Petersen JN, Peyton BM (2002): Effect of Carbon and Energy Source on Bacterial Chromate Reduction. Bioremed J 6 (3) 205–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Weeks A, Pamukcu S (1998): Electrokinetically enhanced reduction of Cr(VI) in porous media. Hazard Ind Wastes 30,41–48

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hansen HK, Ottosen LM, Kliem BK, Villumsen A (1997): Electrodialytic Remediation of Soils Polluted with Cu, Cr, Hg, Pb and Zn. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 70, 67–73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Williford CW, Bricka RM, Foster C (2002): Reduction of suspended solids following hydroclassification of metal-contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 92 (1) 63–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Higgins TE, Halloran AR, Petura JC (1997): Traditional and innovative treatment methods for Cr(VI) in soil. J Soil Contam 6 (6) 767–797

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Battelle (1997a): Physical Separation and Acid Leaching: A Demonstration of Small-Arms Range Remediation at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Final report prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) and U.S. Army Environmental Center under contract with NFESC, Port Hueneme, CA

    Google Scholar 

  27. Battelle (1997b): Physical Separation and Acid Leaching: A Demonstration of Small-Arms Range Remediation at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Implementation Guidance Handbook. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) and U.S. Army Environmental Center under contract with NFESC, Port Hueneme, CA

    Google Scholar 

  28. BDM (1997a): Demonstration of Physical Separation/Leaching Methods for the Remediation of Heavy Metals-Contaminated Soils at Small-Arms Range Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC) and Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center under contract with USAEC, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

    Google Scholar 

  29. BDM (1997b): Demonstration of Physical Separation/Leaching Methods for the Remediation of Heavy Metals-Contaminated Soils at Small-Arms Range Worldwide Search Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC) and Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center under contract with USAEC, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

    Google Scholar 

  30. Raghavan R, Dietz DH, Coles E (1988): Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review, EPA Report EPA 600/2-89/034

  31. US EPA (1989): Soils Washing Technologies for: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, Site Remediation [32] US EPA (1990): Soil Washing Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/017. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-228056

  32. Papassiopi N, Tampouris S, Skoufadis C, Kontopoulos A (1998): Integrated Leaching processes for the removal of heavy metals from heavily contaminated soils. Contaminated Soil 98, Thomas Telford, London, 461–470

    Google Scholar 

  33. Papassiopi N, Tampouris S, Skoufadis C, Kontopoulos A (1999): Removal of heavy metals from calcareous contaminated soils by EDTA leaching. Water Air Soil Pollut 109, 1–4, 1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Puls RW, Paul CJ, Powell RM (1999): The application of in situ permeable reactive (zero-valent) barrier technology for the remediation of chromate-contaminated groundwater: a field test. Appl Geochem 14, 989–1000

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fryar AE, Schwartz FW (1994): Modeling the removal of metals from groundwater by a reactive barrier: Experimental results. Water Resour Res 30 (12) 3455–3469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Cortina JL, 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, 1971–1977

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen XB, Wright JV, Conca JL, Peurrung LM (1997): Evaluation of Heavy Metal Remediation Using Mineral Apatite. Water Air Soil Pollut 98, 57–78

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Puigdomenech I (2004): Hydra/Medusa Chemical Equilibrium software (http://wl.156.teia.com/~ul5651596/). Inorganic Chemistry, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden

  39. Reuter MA (1994): Towards a generalized catalogue for the identification of reaction kinetics in metallurgy and minerals processing using neural nets. Minerals Engineering 7 (12) 1539–1554

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Deventer JSJ, Lorenzen L, Van der Merwe PF, Morrison DW, Van der Westhuysen JPW (1994): The fundamentals of unit operations in CIP plants: A progress report. Minerals Engineering 7 (2/3) 256–278

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ball JW, Nordstrom DK, Zachmann DW (1987): WATEQ4F. A personal computer fortran translation of the Geochemical model WATEQ2 with revised database. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Rep.87–50

  42. Diego I (2002): Environmental Restoration of Metall Polluted Soils, First On-line Spanish-American Seminar in Polluted Soils (EPA-IGME), 16th December 2002http:// cluin.org/studio/seminar.cfm

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Carlos Wildt

    Present address: Enviros-Spain, S.L., Passeig Rubí, 29-31, 08197, Valldoreix, Spain

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya, Diagonal 647, 08028, Barcelona, Spain

    Carlos Wildt, Oriol Gibert & José Luis Cortina

  2. Compañía General de Sondeos CGS, S.A., Avda. de Bruselas, 7, 28100, Madrid, Spain

    Carlos Wildt & Giuliana Coscera

Authors
  1. Carlos Wildt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oriol Gibert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Luis Cortina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giuliana Coscera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Luis Cortina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wildt, C., Gibert, O., Cortina, J.L. et al. On-site remediation of chromium-contaminated sediments by combination of sediment washing and stabilization with magnesium oxide/limestone mixtures. J Soils & Sediments 4, 184–191 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991139

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991139

Keywords

Search

Navigation