Analysis of space–time profiles of the concentrations of contaminants in soil during electrokinetic remediation
- 35 Downloads
A new semiempirical method for the mathematical description of the space–time concentration profiles of contaminants in soil during its electrokinetic remediation is proposed. The method is based on approximating the experimental data on the spatiotemporal behavior of the concentration, C = C(D a , t). The experimental and theoretical C = C(D a , t) dependences reported in the literature and obtained in our studies were approximated by seventh order polynomials. For example, the space–time concentration profiles of chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants in unsaturated soils, such as tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride, have been successfully described by a polynomial function with determination coefficients of R2 = 0.9941, 0.9988, and 0.9972, respectively. A pilot test setup for studying the electrokinetic remediation of soils contaminated with mercury compounds, with ten sampling sections and replaceable cartridges with ionites, was designed and built. This setup allowed measuring the space–time concentration profile of mercury in soil samples during electrokinetic remediation. This profile obtained was approximated by a seventh order polynomials with a determination coefficient of R2 = 0.9929. It is shown that the polynomial approximation of the space–time concentration profiles of contaminants in soil describes the experimental C = C(D a , t) dependences no worse (sometimes better) than the Poisson–Nernst–Planck model for ionic flow.
Keywordselectrokinetic remediation of soil contaminants space–time concentration profile polynomial approximation determination coefficients Poisson–Nernst–Planck equations
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.D. Huang, Q. Xu, J. Cheng, X. Lu, and H. Zhang, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 7, 4528 (2012).Google Scholar
- 8.N. D. Mu’azu, M. H. Essa, and S. Lukman, in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (Global Network on Environ. Sci. Technol., Univ. Aegean, 2015), p. 01331.Google Scholar
- 10.T. V. Grinevich, K. N. Dvoeglazov, A. A. Solov’yanov, et al., Ros. Khim. Zh. (Zh. Ros. Khim. Ob-va im. D. I. Mendeleeva) 49, 76 (2005).Google Scholar
- 18.A. N. Alshawabkeh and Y. B. Acar, J. Environ. Sci. Health, Pt. A 27, 1835 (1992).Google Scholar
- 19.Y. B. Acar and R. J. Galr, US Patent No. 5137608 (1992). http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5137608.pdf.Google Scholar
- 22.R. F. Probstein, P. C. Renaud, and A. P. Shapiro, US Patent No. 5074986 (1991). http://www.freepatentsonline. com/5074986.pdf.Google Scholar
- 28.Y. B. Acar, A. N. Alshawabkeh, and R. A. U. S. Parker, Report No. EPA/600/R-97/054 (US Environ. Protect. Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1997).Google Scholar
- 29.E. Huckel, Phys. Z. 25, 204 (1924).Google Scholar
- 34.M. Z. von Smoluchowski, Phys. Chem. 92, 129 (1917).Google Scholar
- 35.D. C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th ed. (Wiley, Danvers, 2013).Google Scholar
- 38.Yu. A. Leikin, I. V. Kumpanenko, A. V. Roshchin, et al., Ros. Khim. Zh. (Zh. Ros. Khim. Ob-va im. D. I. Mendeleeva) 57 (1), 52 (2013).Google Scholar