Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 92–102 | Cite as

Calcium polysulphide, its applications and emerging risk of environmental pollution—a review article

  • Saad Mohammed Dahlawi
  • Samreen Siddiqui
Review Article

Abstract

Easy availability, preparation technique, and economic value make calcium polysulphide (CaS x ) a very useful inorganic chemical for various field and industrial applications. In this article, disparate applications of CaS x solution have been reviewed to suggest potential and future consolidation. This article also encompasses the physiochemical properties and production of CaS x solution, with critical appraisal on research focusing on CaS x application in agriculture industries and removal of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) from the environment. The kinetics of CaS x , technical issues associated with optimization of its dosage and environmental fate is also discussed in detail. This study covers almost all of the peer-reviewed research that has been performed since 1914. Some of the critiques in this article include the lack of integration between the exposure effect and the efficiency of treatment method, effects of oxidizing environments on the long-term performance of CaS x solution, and kinetics of CaS x solution with the PTEs. The working model of CaS x with PTEs is still system dependent, and therefore cannot be used with other applications. The kinetics of CaS x is described in detail with various phase stoichiometric reactions. Environmental fate is discussed based on applications, government reports, peer-reviewed articles and kinetics of CaS x , which provides a clear picture of emerging contaminants in the environment in relation to the insect resistance and ecotoxicology. Real time, lab based research articles are needed to identify toxicity limits of CaS x in environment in order to describe its effective permissible limit in environmental system. This review article provides a risk assessment of environmental pollution by CaS x based on its physicochemical characteristic, stoichiometry, kinetics, field, and industrial applications.

Keywords

Calcium polysulphide Heavy metals COPR Soil Wastewater Groundwater 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Authors would like to thanks University of Dammam for its support. Authors also like to thanks Miss Kelly Corriea for her suggestions in this review article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of any government organization and peer-reviewed research article authors.

References

  1. Adriano DC (1986) Trace elements in the environment. Chapter 5: chromium. Springer Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1997) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health pocket guide to chemical hazards. US Department of human health services (NIOSH) publication no. 97–140. US Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Aratani T, Yahikozawa K, Matoba H, Yasuhara S, Yano T (1978a) Conditions for the precipitation of heavy metals from wastewater by the lime sulfureted solution (calcium polysulfide) process. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 51:1755–1760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aratani T, Yasuyuki N, Matoba H, Yasuhara S, Yano T (1978b) The removal of heavy metals, phosphate, and COD substances from wastewater by the lime sulfureted solution (calcium polysulfide) process. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 51(9):2705–2709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auld SJM (1915) LVII.—the reaction between calcium hydroxide and sulphur in aqueous solution. J Chem Soc Trans 107:480–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey KL, Tilton F, Jansik DP, Ergas SJ, Marshall MJ, Miracle AL, Wellman DM (2012) Growth inhibition and stimulation of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 by surfactants and calcium polysulfide. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 80:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bewley RJF, Clarke S (2010) Field application of calcium polysulphide for ex situ treatment of soils contaminated with chromite ore processing residue. Land Contam Reclam 18:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgwardt RH (1984) Surface area of calcium oxide and kinetics of calcium sulphide formation. Environ Prog 3(2):129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosshard PP, Bachofen R, Brandl H (1996) Metal leaching of fly ash from municipal waste incineration by Aspergillus niger. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30(10):3066–3070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandra P, Sinha S, Rai UN (1997) Bioremediation of Cr from water and soil by vascular aquatic plants. In: Kruger EL, Anderson TA, Coats JR (eds) Phytoremediation of soil and water contaminants, ACS Symposium Series #664. American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp. 274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charboneau, B., Thomson, K.M., Wilde, R., Ford, B., Gerber, M. 2006 Hanford groundwater remediation. In: Proceedings of the WM’06 Conference, Tuscon, AZ, February 26–March 2Google Scholar
  12. Chen K, Morris J (1972) Kinetics of oxidation of aqueous sulfide by O2. Environ Sci Technol 6(6):529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen A, Qiu X, Sridharan K, Horne WG, Dodd RA, Hamdi AH, Elmoursi AA, Malaczynski GW (1996) Chromium plating pollution sources reduction by plasma source ion implantation. Surf Coat Tech 82:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen Q, Luo Z, Hills C, Xue G, Tyrer M (2009) Precipitation of heavy metals from wastewater using simulated flue gas: sequent additions of fly ash, lime and carbon dioxide. Water Res 43(10):2605–2614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chrysochoou M, Johnston CP (2015) Polysulfide speciation and reactivity in chromate-contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 281:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chrysochoou M, Ting A (2011) A kinetic study of Cr(VI) reduction by calcium polysulfide. Sci Total Environ 409(19):4072–4077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chrysochoou M, Fakra SC, Marcus MA, Deok HM, Dermatas D (2009a) Microstructural analyses of Cr(VI) speciation in chromite ore processing residue (COPR). Environ Sci Technol 43(14):5461–5466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chrysochoou M, Moon DH, Fakra S, Marcus M, Dermatas D, Christodoulatos C (2009b) Use of micro X-ray absorption spectroscopy and diffraction to delineate Cr(VI) speciation in COPR. Global Nest J 11(3):318–324Google Scholar
  19. Chrysochoou M, Ferreira DR, Johnston CP (2010) Calcium polysulfide treatment of Cr(VI)-contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 179(1–3):650–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chrysochoou M, Johnston CP, Dahal G (2012) A comparative evaluation of hexavalent chromium treatment in contaminated soil by calcium polysulfide and green-tea nanoscale zero-valent iron. J Hazard Mater 201-202:33–42.199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darakas E, Tsiridis V, Petala M, Kungolos A (2013) Hexavalent chromium release from lignite fly ash and related ecotoxic effects. J Environ Sci Heal A 48(11):1390–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dippenaar BJ (1958) Concentric ring blotch citrus. Its cause and control. S Afri J Agric Sci 1:83–99Google Scholar
  23. Dorman DC, Moulin FJ-M, McManus BE, Mahle KC, James RA, Struve MF (2002) Cytochrome oxidase inhibition induced by acute hydrogen sulfide inhalation: correlation with tissue sulfide concentrations in the rat brain, liver, lung, and nasal epithelium. Toxicol Sci 65(1):18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dresel PE, Wellman DM, Cantrell KJ, Truext MJ (2011) Review: technical land policy challenges in deep vadose zone remediation of metals and radionuclides. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:4207–4216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eckert JW, Eaks IL (1989) Postharvest disorders and diseases of citrus fruits. In: Reuther W, Calavan EC, Carman GE (eds) The citrus industry, vol 4. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 179–260Google Scholar
  26. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2010) Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance lime sulfur. EFSA J 8(11):1890–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Elesin MA, Pavlov AV, Berdov GI, Mashkin NA, Oglezneva IM (2002) Mechanism of hydration conversion of portland cement in calcium polysulfide solution. Russ J Appl Chem 75(6):883–887Google Scholar
  28. Farmer JG, Paterson E, Bewley RJF, Geelhoed JS, Hillier S, Meeussen JCL, Lumsdon DG, Thomas RP, Graham MC (2006) The implications of integrated assessment and modelling studies for the future remediation of chromite ore processing residue disposal sites. Sci Total Environ 360(1–3):90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freedman DL, Lehmicke L, Verce MF (2005) Reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene following abiotic versus biotic reduction of hexavalent chromium. Bioremediation Journal 9(2):87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Freese K, Miller R, Cutright TJ, Senko J (2014) Review of chromite ore processing residue (COPR): past practices, environmental impact and potential remediation methods. Current Environ Eng 1:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fruchter J (2002) In-situ treatment of chromium-contaminated groundwater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36(23):464A–472ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ganczarczyk JJ, Takoaka PT, Ohashi DA (1985) Application of polysulfide for pretreatment of spent cyanide liquors. Water Pollut Control Federation 57(11):1089–1093Google Scholar
  33. Graham MC, Farmer JG, Anderson P, Paterson E, Hillier S, Lumsdon DG (2006) Calcium polysulfide remediation of hexavalent chromium contamination from chromite ore processing residue. Sci Total Environ 364(1–3):32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gun J, Modestov A, Kamyshny A, Ryzkov D, Gitis V, Goifman A (2004) Electrospray ionization mass spectrometric analysis of aqueous polysulfide solutions. Microchim Acta 146:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haller MH (1952) Handling, transportation, storage, and marketing of peaches. USDA Biograph Bull 21:1–105Google Scholar
  36. Hartmut M, Baumann W, Becker B, Jay K, Paur H-R, Seifert H (2001) Adsorption of PCDD/F on MWI fly ash. Chemosphere 42:803–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hojjatie, M., Feinstein, Y., Lockhart, C.L.F. 2011. Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. US patent no. US034318 B1/US20110262343 A1, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  38. IETEG (Independent Environmental Technical Evaluation Group) 2005 In: Guertin J, Jacobs, JAC Avakian (Eds.), Chromium(VI) Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  39. IUPAC (International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry) 2015. Pesticide Properties Database. Lime sulphur. EC Regulation 1107/2009 (repealing 91/414). Accessed 11/16/2015.Google Scholar
  40. Jacobs, J.A., 2001. In-situ delivery methods for remediation of hexavalent chromium in soil and groundwater. Abstracts of the national meeting of the national association of engineering geologists and American institute of professional geologists, St Louis, MO; Oct 5.Google Scholar
  41. Jagupilla SC, Moon DH, Wazne M, Christodoulatos C, Kim MG (2009) Effects of particle size and acid addition on the remediation of chromite ore processing residue using ferrous sulfate. J Hazard Mater 168:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kalogirou, E., Themelis, N., Samaras, P., Karagiannidis, A., Kontogianni, ST., 2010. Fly ash characteristics from waste-to-energy facilities and processes for ash stabilization. ISWA World Congress 2010, Hamburg , Germany, 15–18 November 2010Google Scholar
  43. Kameshwari KSB, Pedaballe V, Narasimman LM, Kalyanaraman C (2014) Remediation of chromite ore processing residue using solidification and stabilization process. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 34:674–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kameshwari KSB, Narasimman LM, Pedaballe V, Kalyanaraman C (2015) Diffusion and leachability index studies on stabilization of chromium contaminated soil using fly ash. J Hazard Mater 297:52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kamyshny AJ, Goifman A, Gun J, Rizkov D, Ovadia L (2004) Equilibrium distribution of polysulfide ions in aqueous solutions at 25 °C: a new approach for the study of polysulfides’ equilibria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:6633–6644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kamyshny A, Gun J, Rikzov D, Voitsekovski T, Lev O (2007a) Equilibrium distribution of polysulfide ions in aqueous solutions at different temperatures by rapid single phase derivatization. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41:2395–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kamyshny A, Gun J, Rizkov D, Voitsekovski T, Lev O (2007b) Equilibrium distribution of polysulfide ions in aqueous solutions at different temperatures by rapid single phase derivatization. Environ Sci Technol 41:2395–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Katz SA, Salem H (1994) The biological and environmental chemistry of chromium. VCH Publishers, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Kelsall GH, Thompson I (1993) Redox chemistry of H2S oxidation by the British gas Stretford process, part II: electrochemical behavior of aqueous hydrosulphide (HS) solutions. J Appl Electrochem 23:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kim BR, Gaines WA, Szafranski MJ, Bernath EF, Miles AM (2002) Removal of heavy metals from automotive wastewater by sulfide preparation. J Environ Eng 128(7):612–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Klein, C., Hurlbut, C. S., Jr. 1985. Manual of mineralogy (20th edn.), John Wiley, pp. 352–353, ISBN 0–471–80580-7Google Scholar
  52. Knauf, A., Hartmann, P., Schmidt, A., Wirsching, F., 1973. Process for treating plaster of paris. US patent Publication number: US3770468 A, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  53. Lan Y, Deng B, Kim C, Thornton EC, Xu H (2005) Catalysis of elemental sulfur nanoparticles on chromium (VI) reduction by sulfide under anaerobic conditions. Environ Sci Echnol 39(7):207–2094Google Scholar
  54. Large EC (1940) The advance of fungi. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Levchenko LM, Galitskii AA, Kosenko VV, Sagidullin AK (2015) Development of semi-industrial synthesis of calcium polysulfide solution and determination of the content of sulfide ions in solution. Russian J Appl Chem 88(9):1403–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lewis M, Pryor R, Wilking L (2011) Fate and effects of anthropogenic chemicals in mangrove ecosystem: a review. Environ Pollut 159:2328–2346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Maletić SP, Watson MA, Dehlawi S, Diplock EE, Mardlin D, Paton GI (2015) Deployment of microbial biosensors to assess the performance of ameliorants in metal-contaminated soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Massalimov IA, Gazizyanovich MA, Rifhatovn SA, Nailevich KA, Maratovna ZR (2012) Obtaining sulfur nanoparticles from sodium polysulfide aqueous solution. J Chem Chem Eng 6:233–341Google Scholar
  59. Massalimov IA, Yanakhmetov MR, Chuykin AE, Mustafin AG (2013) Protection of building constructions with sulfur impregnating solution. Int J Sci 2:25–30Google Scholar
  60. Massalimov IA, Khusainov AN, Zainitdinova RM, Musavirova LR, Zaripova LR, Mustafin AG (2014) Chemical precipitation of sulfur nanoparticles from aqueous solutions. Russ J Appl Chem 87(6):700–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McCallan SEA (1967) History of fungicides. In: Torgeson DC (ed) Fungicides: an advanced treatise. 1 Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–37Google Scholar
  62. Melander AL (1914) Can insects become resistant to sprays? J Econ Entomol 7:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Messer, A., Storch, P, Palmer, D. 2004 In-situ remediation of chromium contaminated site using calcium polysulfide. Internal report. URS CorporationGoogle Scholar
  64. Mihara N, Soya K, Kuchar D, Fukuta T, Matsuda H (2008) Utilisation of calcium sulfide derived from waste gypsum board for metal containing wastewater treatment. Global NEST J 10:101–107Google Scholar
  65. Moon DH, Wazne M, Jagupilla SC, Christodoulatos C, Kim MG, Koutsospyros A (2008) Particle size and pH effects on remediation of chromite ore processing residue (COPR) using calcium polysulfide (CaS5). Sci Total Environ 399:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moon DH, Wazne M, Koutsospyros A, Christodoulatos C, Gevgilili H, Malik M, Kalyon DM (2009) Evaluation of the treatment of chromite ore processing residue by ferrous sulfate and asphalt. J Hazard Mater 166(1):27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nagib S, Inoue K (2000) Recovery of lead and zinc from fly ash generated from municipal incineration plants by means of acid and/or alkaline leaching. Hydrometallurgy 56(3):269–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nriagu JO, Nieboer E (eds) (1988) Chromium in natural and human environments. Wiley Interscience, New York, pp. 81–104Google Scholar
  69. Pakzadeh B, Batista JR (2011) Chromium removal from ion-exchange waste brines with calcium polysulfide. Water Res 45:3055–3064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Palmer JW, Davies SB, Shaw PW, Wünsche JN (2003) Growth and fruit quality of “Braeburn” apple (Malus domestica) trees as influenced by fungicide programs suitable for organic production. New Zeal Crop Hort 31:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Palou L, Usall J, Smilanick J, Aguilar M, Vinas I (2002) Evaluation of food additives and low-toxicity compounds as alternative chemical for the control of Penicillium digitatum and Penecillium italicum on citrus fruit. Pest Manag Sci 58:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pant, C.P. (1958) “Studies on the mode of action of insecticides”. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2262.Google Scholar
  73. Patent RU(11) 2 400 545(13) C1; Date of publication: 27.09.2010 Bull. 27. Method for demercuration of mercury-containing wastes for recycling said wastes.Google Scholar
  74. PBS, 2001. Pesticide resistance. Retrieved on December 06, 2015.Google Scholar
  75. Poulos PL (1949) The use of sodium hypochlorite for the control of the brown rot disease of peach in Delaware. Plant Dis Rep 33:413–415Google Scholar
  76. Rai D, Eary LE, Zachara JM (1989) Environmental chemistry of chromium. Sci Tot Environ 86:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Salvato JA (1992) Environmental engineering and sanitation, 4th edn. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Smilanick JL, Sorenson D (2001) Control of postharvest decay of citrus fruit with calcium polysulfide. Postharvest Biol Technol 21:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smith L, Kruszyna H, Smith RP (1977) The effect of methemoglobin on the inhibition of cytochrome c oxidase by cyanide, sulfide and azide. Biochem Pharmacol 26:2247–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Soya K, Mihara N, Kuchar D, Khbota M, Matsuda H, Fukuta T (2010) Selective sulfidation of copper, zinc and nickel in plating wastewater using calcium sulfide. Int J Civil Env Engg 2:93–97Google Scholar
  81. Storch P, Messer A, Palmer D, Pyrih R (2002) Pilot test for in situ geochemical fixation of chromium (VI) using calcium polysulfide, in: proceedings of the third international conference on remediation of chlorinated and recalcitrant compounds. Battelle Press, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
  82. Sun Y, Watanabe N, Qiao W, Gao X, Wang W, Zhu T (2010) Polysulfide as a novel chemical agent to solidify/stabilize lead in fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration. Chemospeher 81:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Syracuse Research Corporation, 1993. Toxicological profile for chromium. Prepared for U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, under Contract No. 205–88-0608.Google Scholar
  84. Tabata M, Ghaffar A, Shono A, Notomi K (2013) Hydrodechlorination/detoxification of PCDDs, PCDFs, and co-PCBs in fly ash by using calcium polysulfide. Waste Manag 33:356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Takaoka PT, Ganczarczyk JJ (1985) Feasibility of polysulfide detoxification of concentrated cyanide waste-water. Water Pollut Res J Can 20(1):118–128Google Scholar
  86. Tartar HV (1914) The reaction between Sulphur and calcium hydroxide in aqueous solution. J Am Chem Soc 36(3):495–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Thurston County Review, 2012. Lime sulphur (calcium polysulphide). CAS #: 1344–81-6.Google Scholar
  88. Tinjum JM, Benson CH, Edil TB (2008) Treatment of Cr (VI) in COPR using ferrous sulfate-sulfuric acid or cationic polysulfides. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(12):1791–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tweedy BG (1967) Elemental sulfur. In: Torgeson DC (ed) Fungicides: an advanced treatise, vol 2. Academic Press, New York, pp. 119–145Google Scholar
  90. USEPA. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Other Toxic Substances. Reregistration eligibility decision for inorganic polysulfides. List D—case no. 4054. September 30, 2005.Google Scholar
  91. Van Emden H, Harrington R (eds) (2007) Aphids as crop pests. CABI, Wallingford, Oxon, GBRGoogle Scholar
  92. Wazne M, Jagupilla SC, Moon DH, Christodoulatos C, Kim MG (2007) Assessment of calcium polysulfide for the remediation of hexavalent chromium in chromite ore processing residue (COPR). J Hazard Mater 143:620–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wazne M, Jagupilla SC, Moon DH, Christodoulatos C, Koutsospyros A (2008) Leaching mechanisms of Cr(VI) from chromite ore processing residue. J Environ Qual 37(6):2125–2134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Yahikozawa K, Aratani T, Ito R, Sudo T, Yano T (1978) Kinetic studies on the lime sulfureted solution (calcium polysulphide) process for the removal of heavy metals from wastewater. Bull Chem Soc Jap 51(2):613–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zayed AM, Terry N (2003) Chromium in the environment: factors affecting biological remediation. Plant Soil 249:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zhong L, Qafoku NP, Szecsody JE, Dresel PE, Zhang ZF (2009) Foam delivery of calcium polysulfide to the vadose zone for chromium(VI) immobilization: a laboratory evaluation. Vadose Zone J 8(4):976–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Health, College of Applied Medical SciencesUniversity of DammamDammamKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Physical & Environmental Sciences, The Coastal Health and Water Quality (C-HaWQ) LaboratoryTexas A&M University Corpus ChristyCorpus ChristiUSA

Personalised recommendations