Pollution potential of the wastes of used oil treatment plants and their possible remediation techniques

Original Paper


In this research, wastes of used oil treatment plants have been studied for their pollution potential and geotechnical characteristics. A random sampling plan was used to collect 11 samples from the dump site. Moreover, statistical analysis indicated that six samples were required to prepare a representative sample for the wastes. Thus, a mixed sample was prepared to determine moisture content, pH, Atterberg limits and density of the waste. The analysis of organic compounds and heavy metals showed the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and Barium as the main pollutants. The results also showed waste as a fine-grained soil heavily contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons. The mean concentration of TPH was more than 216 g/kg, which is 832, 108 and 433 times greater than the acceptable cleanup levels for diesel range organics, oil range organics and TPH, respectively. Nevertheless, heavy metals concentrations are lower than proposed cleanup levels for industrial area. The moisture content, pH, liquid limit, plastic limit, plastic index and density of the mixed sample were 12.26%, 9.6, 25.91, 15.83, 10.08 and 1.22 g/cm3, respectively. After that, several remediation techniques were evaluated to propose the best one based on the physical and chemical properties of the waste, the applicability of the method and implementation costs. Finally, solidification/stabilization technique using organophilic clay as the stabilizer, incineration and bioremediation techniques was recommended for cleanup of the site.


Total petroleum hydrocarbons Heavy metals Cleanup levels Hydrocarbon-contaminated soil remediation 



The authors of this research highly acknowledge the Kaharazmi University for the laboratory analysis in the civil engineering department.


  1. Amiri A, Ghanbarzadeh M, Ghorban A (2011). Recycling of used oil in Iran and compare it with the new environmental techniques. In: 5th national conference and exhibition on environmental engineering. Tehran, Iran 20–21 November. University of Tehran, Environmental Faculty. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  2. Araruna JT, Portes VLO, Soares APL, Silva MG, Sthel MS, Schramm DU, Tibana S, Vargas H (2004) Oil spills debris clean up by thermal desorption. J Hazard Mater 110(1):161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arizona Secretary of State (2004) Title 18, Environmental quality. Department of environmental quality, remedial action, chapter 7Google Scholar
  4. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) (2016) Hazardous waste division, guidance screening levels for total petroleum hydrocarbons. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  5. Ball AS, Stewart RJ, Schliephake K (2012) A review of the current options for the treatment and safe disposal of drill cuttings. Waste Manag Res 30(5):457–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes DL, Laderach SR, Showers C (2002) Treatment of petroleum contaminated soil in cold, wet, remote regions. United States department of agriculture, Forest service, technology and development programGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyer WH (1987) CRC standard mathematical tables, 28th edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 536–571Google Scholar
  8. California Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Use of California human health screening levels (CHHSLs) in evaluation of contaminated propertiesGoogle Scholar
  9. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2008) Canada-Wide standard for petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) in soil. Table 5.2Google Scholar
  10. Cuypers C, Pancras T, Grotenhuis T, Rulkens W (2002) The estimation of PAH bioavailability in contaminated sediments using hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin and Triton X-100 extraction techniques. Chemosphere 46(8):1235–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Da Silva LJ, Alves FC, de França FP (2012) A review of the technological solutions for the treatment of oily sludges from petroleum refineries. Waste Manag Res 30(10):1016–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Division of Waste Management (DWM) program rules (2005) Groundwater and surface water cleanup target levels. Florida, Table 1Google Scholar
  13. Dong ZY, Huang WH, Xing DF, Zhang HF (2013) Remediation of soil co-contaminated with petroleum and heavy metals by the integration of electrokinetics and biostimulation. J Hazard Mater 260:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ershadi L, Ebadi T, Ershadi V, Rabbani AR (2011) Chemical oxidation of crude oil in oil contaminated soil by Fenton process using nano zero valent Iron. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on environmental science and technology, Singapore, pp 26–28Google Scholar
  15. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) (1994) Remediation technologies screening matrix and reference guide. v.4.0. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  16. Hamawand I, Yusaf T, Rafat S (2013) Recycling of waste engine oils using a new washing agent. Energies 6(2):1023–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iturbe R, López J (2015) Bioremediation for a soil contaminated with hydrocarbons. J Petrol Environ Biotechnol 6(2):1Google Scholar
  18. Kajdas C (2000) Major pathways for used oil disposal and recycling. Part 1. Lubr Sci 7(1):61–74Google Scholar
  19. Karimi D, Soroush M (2008) Acid sludge characteristics of used oil treatment plants and its methods of removal, disposal and recycling. In: 2nd national conference and exhibition on environmental engineering. Tehran, Iran 20–21 May, University of Tehran. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  20. Khalladi R, Benhabiles O, Bentahar F, Moulai-Mostefa N (2009) Surfactant remediation of diesel fuel polluted soil. J Hazard Mater 164(2):1179–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kriipsalu M, Nammari D (2010) Monitoring of biopile composting of oily sludge. Waste Manag Res 28(5):395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee JK, Park D, Kim BU, Dong JI, Lee S (1998) Remediation of petroleum-contaminated soils by fluidized thermal desorption. Waste Manag 18(6):503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) (2003) Screening option and screening standards for soil and groundwater. RECAP Table 2Google Scholar
  24. Lund HF (1992) The McGraw-hill recycling handbook. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Mao X, Jiang R, Xiao W, Yu J (2015) Use of surfactants for the remediation of contaminated soils: a review. J Hazard Mater 285:419–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohammadi Z, Ghorbani A (2011) Environmental damage caused by oil re-refining waste disposal unit and provide appropriate solutions. In: 5th national conference and exhibition on environmental engineering. Tehran, Iran 20–21 November, University of Tehran, Environmental Faculty. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  27. Mohebbi M, Gitipour S, Madadian E (2013) Solidification/stabilization of cresol-contaminated soil: mechanical and leaching behavior. Soil Sediment Contam Int J 22(7):783–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mortier RM, Orszulik ST (eds) (2010) Chemistry and technology of lubricants, vol 107115. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NDEC) and New York State Department of Health (NDH) (2006) Final human health-based soil cleanup objectives. Table 5.6-1Google Scholar
  30. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (2012) Risk-based levels for total petroleum hydrocarbonsGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliveira FJS, da Rocha Calixto RO, Felippe CEC, de Franca FP (2013) Waste management and contaminated site remediation practices after oil spill: a case study. Waste Manag Res 31(12):1190–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pal D, Fann S, Wight S (1998) Application guide for thermal desorption systems (No. NFESC-TR-2090-ENV). Naval facilities engineering service center port Hueneme CAGoogle Scholar
  33. Pichtel J (2005) Waste management practices: municipal, hazardous, and industrial. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollard SJ, Hrudey SE, Fedorak PM (1994) Bioremediation of petroleum-and creosote-contaminated soils: a review of constraints. Waste Manag Res 12(2):173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potter TL, Simmons KE (1998) Composition of petroleum mixtures. Total petroleum hydrocarbon criteria working group seriesGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandu C, Popescu M, Rosales E, Pazos M, Lazar G, Sanromán MA (2017) Electrokinetic oxidant soil flushing: a solution for in situ remediation of hydrocarbons polluted soils. J Electroanal Chem 799:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shri Kannan C, Mohan Kumar KS, Sakeer Hussain M, Deepa Priya N, Saravanan K (2014) Studies on reuse of re-refined used automotive lubricating oil. Res J Eng Sci 3(6):8–14Google Scholar
  38. Standard, A.S.T.M., D422-63 e2 (2007) Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils (Withdrawn 2016). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  39. Standard A.S.T.M., D7678-11 (2011) Standard Test Method for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in Water and Wastewater with Solvent Extraction using Mid-IR Laser Spectroscopy. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  40. Standard A.S.T.M., D854-14 (2014) Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  41. Standard A.S.T.M., D4318-17 (2017) Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  42. State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (2013) Remediation standard. Appendix A to sections 22a-133k-1 through 22a-133k-3Google Scholar
  43. State of Maryland Department of the Environmental (SMDE) (2008) Cleanup standard for soil and groundwaterGoogle Scholar
  44. United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) (2002) Technical guidelines on used oil re-refining or other re-uses of previously used oil. Secretariat of the Basel Convention International Environment House, No. 5Google Scholar
  45. USEPA (1979) Manual entitled “Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes”Google Scholar
  46. USEPA (1986) Method 8100, Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. United States Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  47. USEPA (1989) Stabilization/solidification of CERCLA and RCRA wastes, physical tests, chemical testing procedure, technology screening, and field activities. EPA/625/6-89/022. United States Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  48. USEPA (1994) Test methods for evaluating solid waste, Physical/chemical methods (SW-846). Revision 2, Chapter 9, sampling plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  49. USEPA (1996a) Method 3050B, Acid digestion of sediments, sludge, and soils. Revision 2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  50. USEPA (1996b) Method 3600C, cleanup. Revision 3. United States Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  51. USEPA (1996c) Method 3630C, Silica gel cleanup. Revision 3. United States Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  52. Washington State Department of Ecology (2001) Soil cleanup levels for unrestricted land use. Table 1: Quick summary-basis for method A, Table 740-1Google Scholar
  53. Yeung AT, Gu YY (2011) A review on techniques to enhance electrochemical remediation of contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 195:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zakharchenko AV, Korzhov YV, Lapshina ED, Kul’kov MG, Yarkov DM, Khoroshev DI (2011) Remediation of oil-contaminated soil using the CLEANSOIL technology. Eurasian Soil Sci 44(4):453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Technical and Engineering FacultyKharazmi UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Faculty of EnvironmentUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations