Zandra Arwidsson

Laboratory and pilot scale soil washing of PAH and arsenic from a wood preservation site: Changes in concentration and toxicity

Soil washing of a soil with a mixture of both polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and As was evaluated in laboratory and pilot scale, utilizing both single and mixtures of different additives. The highest level of decontamination was achieved with a combination of 0.213 M of the chelating agent MGDA and 3.2 x CMC* of a non-ionic, alkyl glucoside surfactant at pH 12 (Ca(OH)(2)). This combination managed to reach Swedish threshold values within 1 0 min of treatment when performed at elevated temperature (50 degrees C), with initial contaminant concentrations of As=105+/-4 mg/kg and US-EPA PAH(16)=46.0+/-2.3mg/kg. The main mechanisms behind the removal were the pH effect for As and a combination of SOM ionization as a result of high pH and micellar solubilization for PAHs. Implementation of the laboratory results utilizing a pilot scale equipment did not improve the performance, which may be due to the shorter contact time between the washing solution and the particles, or changes in physical characteristics of the leaching solution due to the elevated pressure utilized. The ecotoxicological evaluation, Microtox, demonstrated that all soil washing treatments increased the toxicity of soil leachates, possibly due to increased availability of contaminants and toxicity of soil washing solutions to the test organism.

Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil washing residues with amino polycarboxylic acids

Removal of Cu, Pb, and Zn by the action of the two biodegradable chelating agents [S,S]-ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDS) and methylglycinediacetic acid (MGDA), as well as citric acid, was tested. Three soil samples, which had previously been treated by conventional soil washing (water), were utilized in the leaching tests. Experiments were performed in batches (0.3 kg-scale) and with a WTC-mixer system (Water Treatment Construction, 10 kg-scale). EDDS and MGDA were most often equally efficient in removing Cu, Pb, and Zn after 10-60 min. Nonetheless, after 10d, there were occasionally significant differences in extraction efficiencies. Extraction with citric acid was generally less efficient, however equal for Zn (mainly) after 10d. Metal removal was similar in batch and WTC-mixer systems, which indicates that a dynamic mixer system could be used in full-scale. Use of biodegradable amino polycarboxylic acids for metal removal, as a second step after soil washing, would release most remaining metals (Cu, Pb and Zn) from the present soils, however only after long leaching time. Thus, a full-scale procedure, based on enhanced metal leaching by amino polycarboxylic acids from soil of the present kind, would require a pre-leaching step lasting several days in order to be efficient.

Re-cycling of remediated soil – Evaluation of leaching tests as tools for characterization

In Sweden, leaching tests with deionized water (D.W.) are utilized in risk assessment of materials entering landfills, but implementation of these results to evaluate the risk of spreading of pollutants in the environment is difficult. One problem is that most leaching procedures only consider heavy metals release, whereas organic pollutants are left out. The aim of the present study was to assess the possible pollutant mitigation in four remediated soils, three with heavy metals and one with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) contamination. The mitigation was evaluated by standardized batch and column leaching tests utilizing three different leaching solutions: D.W., a weak ionic solution (0.001 M CaCl(2)) and an artificially made soil water (ASW). In general, batch leaching tests implied larger contaminant removal than column leaching test, possibly due to the more rough treatment of the soil particles, and guidelines would at times be exceeded by the batch leaching test but not by column leaching tests. Utilization of CaCl(2) was found to release less heavy metal than D.W., whereas the metals mobilized by ASW were removed from solution by the filtration of soil leachates. Low molecular weight PAH was most efficiently mobilized by CaCl(2), while D.W. worked better for high molecular weight PAH. Despite very low initial PAH-concentrations, tap- and groundwater criteria were exceeded by all leaching solutions.