Environmental Geochemistry and Health

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 373–378 | Cite as

In situ removal of arsenic from groundwater by using permeable reactive barriers of organic matter/limestone/zero-valent iron mixtures

Original Paper

Abstract

In this study, two mixtures of municipal compost, limestone and, optionally, zero-valent iron were assessed in two column experiments on acid mine treatment. The effluent solution was systematically analysed throughout the experiment and precipitates from both columns were withdrawn for scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, X-ray diffractometry analysis and, from the column containing zero-valent iron, solid digestion and sequential extraction analysis. The results showed that waters were cleaned of arsenic, metals and acidity, but chemical and morphological analysis suggested that metal removal was not due predominantly to biogenic sulphide generation but to pH increase, i.e. metal (oxy)hydroxide and carbonate precipitation. Retained arsenic and metal removal were clearly associated to co-precipitation with and/or sorption on iron and aluminum (oxy)hydroxides. An improvement on the arsenic removal efficiency was achieved when the filling mixture contained zero-valent iron. Values of arsenic concentrations were then always below 10 μg/L.

Keywords

Acid mine drainage In situ remediation Permeable reactive barrier Organic matter Zero-valent iron Arsenic removal 

References

  1. Beak, D. G., & Wilkin, R. T. (2009). Performance of a zerovalent iron reactive barrier for the treatment of arsenic in groundwater: Part 2. Geochemical modeling and solid phase studies. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 106, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blowes, D. W., Ptacek, C. J., Benner, S. G., McRae, C. W. T., Bennett, T. A., & Puls, R. W. (2000). Treatment of inorganic contaminants using permeable reactive barriers. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 45, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brammer, H., & Ravenscroft, P. (2009). Arsenic in groundwater: A threat to sustainable agriculture in South and South-east Asia. Environment International, 35, 647–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burghardt, D., Simon, E., Knöller, K., & Kassahun, A. (2007). Immobilization of uranium and arsenic by injectible iron and hydrogen stimulated autotrophic sulphate reduction. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 94, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, C. M., Duncan, A. L., Littlejohn, D., Ure, A. M., & Garden, L. M. (1998). A critical evaluation of the three-stage BCR sequential extraction procedure to assess the potential mobility and toxicity of heavy metals in industrially-contaminated land. Analytica Chimica Acta, 363, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibert, O., de Pablo, J., Cortina, J. L., & Ayora, C. (2004). Chemical characterisation of natural organic substrates for biological mitigation of acid mine drainage. Water Research, 38, 4186–4196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hammack, R. W., Edenborn, H. M., & Dvorak, D. H. (1994). Treatment of water from an open-pit copper mine using biogenic sulfide and limestone: a feasibility study. Water Research, 28, 2321–2329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Herbert, R. B., Benner, S. G., & Blowes, D. W. (2000). Solid phase iron-sulfur geochemistry of a reactive barrier for treatment of mine drainage. Applied Geochemistry, 15, 1331–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lien, H. L., & Wilkin, R. T. (2005). High-level arsenite removal from groundwater by zero-valent iron. Chemosphere, 59, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ludwig, R. D., Smyth, D. J. A., Blowes, D. W., Spink, L. E., Wilkin, R. T., Jewett, D. G., et al. (2009). Treatment of arsenic, heavy metals, and acidity using a mixed ZVI-compost PRB. Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 1970–1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Roh, Y., Lee, S. Y., & Elless, M. P. (2000). Characterization of corrosion products in the permeable reactive barriers. Environmental Geology, 40, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Su, C., & Puls, R. W. (2003). In situ remediation of arsenic in simulated groundwater using zerovalent iron: Laboratory column tests on combined effects of phosphate and silicate. Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 2582–2587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Triszcz, J. M., Porta, A., & García Einschlag, F. S. (2009). Effect of operating conditions on iron corrosion rates in zero-valent iron systems for arsenic removal. Chemical Engineering Journal, 150, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tyrovola, K., & Nikolaidis, N. P. (2009). Arsenic mobility and stabilization in topsoils. Water Research, 43, 1589–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Waybrant, K. R., Blowes, D. W., & Ptacek, C. J. (1998). Selection of reactive mixtures for use in permeable reactive walls for treatment of mine drainage. Environmental Science and Technology, 32, 1972–1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilkin, R. T., Acree, S. D., Ross, R. R., Beak, D. G., & Lee, T. R. (2009). Performance of a zerovalent iron reactive barrier for the treatment of arsenic in groundwater: Part 1. Hydrogeochemical studies. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 106, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Younger, P. L., Banwart, S. A., & Hedin, R. S. (2002). Mine Water: Hydrology, Pollution, Remediation (1st ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Zouboulis, A. I., & Katsoyiannis, I. A. (2005). Recent advances in the bioremediation of arsenic-contaminated groundwater. Environment International, 31, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Gibert
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. de Pablo
    • 1
    • 3
  • J.-L. Cortina
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Ayora
    • 4
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering Department, ETSEIBUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Water Technology Center, CETaquaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Environmental Technology AreaCentre Tecnològic de ManresaManresaSpain
  4. 4.Institut de Ciències de la Terra Jaume AlmeraCSICBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations