Effects of reducing agent and approaching anodes on chromium removal in electrokinetic soil remediation

Abstract

A soil remediation method combining in situ reduction of Cr(VI) with approaching anodes electrokinetic (AAs-EK) remediation is proposed. EK experiments were conducted to compare the effect of approaching anodes (AAs) and fixed electrodes (FEs) with and without sodium bisulfite (NaHSO₃) as a reducing agent. When NaHSO₃ was added to the soil before EK treatment, 90.3% of the Cr(VI) was reduced to Cr(III). EK experiments showed that the adverse effect of contrasting migration of Cr(III) and Cr(VI) species, which limits the practical application of this technique, was eliminated in the presence of the reducing agent. Furthermore, Tessier fractionation analysis indicated that the reducing agent changed the distribution of the chemical forms of Cr. The AAs-EK method was shown to acidize the soil as the anode moved toward the cathode and this acid front pushed the “focusing” region toward the cathode. After remediation, the pH of the soil was between 1.8 and 5.0 in AAs-EK experiments. The total Cr removal efficiency was 64.4% (except in the “focusing” region) when the reduction reaction was combined with AAs-EK method. We conclude that AAs-EK remediation in the presence of NaHSO₃ is an appropriate method for Cr-contaminated soil.

Keywords

chromium / reduction reaction / contrasting migration / approaching anode / electrokinetic

References

[1] Probstein R F, Hicks R E. Removal of contaminants from soils by electric fields. Science, 1993, 260(5107): 498–503

[2] Acar Y B, Alshawabkeh A N. Principles of electrokinetic remediation. Environmental Science & Technology, 1993, 27(13): 2638–2647

[3] Virkutyte J, Sillanpää M, Latostenmaa P. Electrokinetic soil remediation—critical overview. The Science of the Total Environment, 2002, 289(1−3): 97–121

[4] Villen-Guzman M, Paz-Garcia J M, Rodriguez-Maroto J M, Gomez-Lahoz C, Garcia-Herruzo F. Acid enhanced electrokinetic remediation of a contaminated soil using constant current density: strong vs. weak acid. Separation Science and Technology, 2014, 49(10): 1461–1468

[5] Li D, Niu Y Y, Fan M, Xu D L, Xu P. Focusing phenomenon caused by soil conductance heterogeneity in the electrokinetic remediation of chromium (VI)-contaminated soil. Separation and Purification Technology, 2013, 120: 52–58

[6] Li D, Xiong Z, Nie Y, Niu Y Y, Wang L, Liu Y Y. Near-anode focusing phenomenon caused by the high anolyte concentration in the electrokinetic remediation of chromium(VI)-contaminated soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2012, 229−230: 282–291

[7] Li G, Guo S H, Li S C, Zhang L Y, Wang S S. Comparison of approaching and fixed anodes for avoiding the “focusing” effect during electrokinetic remediation of chromium-contaminated soil. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2012, 203(9): 231–238

[8] Niu Y Y. Generation and impact of focusing band on the electrokinetic remediation of chromium-contaminated soil. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Chongqing: Chongqing University, 2013 (in Chinese)

[9] Kim B K, Baek K, Ko S H, Yang J W. Research and field experiences on electrokinetic remediation in South Korea. Separation and Purification Technology, 2011, 79(2): 116–123

[10] Ryu B G, Park G Y, Yang J W, Baek K. Electrolyte conditioning for electrokinetic remediation of As, Cu, and Pb-contaminated soil. Separation and Purification Technology, 2011, 79(2): 170–176

[11] Saeedi M, Li L Y, Gharehtapeh A M. Effect of alternative electrolytes on enhanced electrokinetic remediation of hexavalent chromium in clayey soil. International Journal of Environmental of Research, 2013, 7(1): 39–50

[12] Li S C, Li T T, Li G, Li F M, Guo S H. Enhanced electrokinetic remediation of chromium-contaminated soil using approaching anodes. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2012, 6(6): 869–874

[13] Duffus J H. Chemical speciation terminology: chromium chemistry and cancer. Mineralogical Magazine, 2005, 69(5): 557–562

[14] Zhang W, Zhuang L, Tong L, Lo I M C, Qiu R. Electro-migration of heavy metals in an aged electroplating contaminated soil affected by the coexisting hexavalent chromium. Chemosphere, 2012, 86(8): 809–816

[15] Reddy K R, Chinthamreddy S. Effects of initial form of chromium on electrokinetic remediation in clays. Advances in Environmental Research, 2003, 7(2): 353–365

[16] Su C, Ludwig R D. Treatment of hexavalent chromium in chromite ore processing solid waste using a mixed reductant solution of ferrous sulfate and sodium dithionite. Environmental Science & Technology, 2005, 39(16): 6208–6216

[17] Sahinkaya E, Kilic A, Altun M, Komnitsas K, Lens P N. Hexavalent chromium reduction in a sulfur reducing packed-bed bioreactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2012, 219−220: 253–259

[18] Zhang J, Xu Y, Li W, Zhou J, Zhao J, Qian G, Xu Z P. Enhanced remediation of Cr(VI)-contaminated soil by incorporating a calcined-hydrotalcite-based permeable reactive barrier with electrokinetics. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2012, 239−240: 128–134

[19] Weng C H, Lin Y T, Lin T Y, Kao C M. Enhancement of electrokinetic remediation of hyper-Cr(VI) contaminated clay by zero-valent iron. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2007, 149(2): 292–302

[20] Franco D V, Da Silva L M, Jardim W F. Chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium and its immobilisation under batch conditions using a slurry reactor. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2009, 203(1−4): 305–315

[21] Reddy K R, Chinthamreddy S. Electrokinetic remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils under reducing environments. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 1999, 19(4): 269–282

[22] Beukes J, Pienaar J, Lachmann G, Giesekke E. The reduction of hexavalent chromium by sulphite in wastewater. Water SA., 1999, 25(3): 363–370

[23] Pettine M, Tonnina D, Millero F J. Chromium(VI) reduction by sulphur(IV) in aqueous solutions. Marine Chemistry, 2006, 99(1−4): 31–41

[24] Dhal B, Thatoi H N, Das N N, Pandey B D. Chemical and microbial remediation of hexavalent chromium from contaminated soil and mining/metallurgical solid waste: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2013, 250−251: 272–291

[25] Sun T R, Pamukcu S, Ottosen L M, Wang F. Electrochemically enhanced reduction of hexavalent chromium in contaminated clay: kinetics, energy consumption, and application of pulse current. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2015, 262(2): 1099–1107

[26] Lu R K. Mehtods of Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis. Beijing: Science Press, Agricultural Science and Technology Publishing House, 2000 (in Chinese)

[27] USEPA. Method 3060A Alkaline Digestion for Hexavalent Chromium. Revision 1.Washington DC: US Government Printing, 1996

[28] Tessier A, Campbell P G C, Bisson M. Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace-metals. Analytical Chemistry, 1979, 51(7): 844–851

[29] Reddy K R, Parupudi U S, Devulapalli S N, Xu C Y. Effects of soil composition on the removal of chromium by electrokinetics. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 1997, 55(1−3): 135–158

[30] Shen Z, Chen X, Jia J, Qu L, Wang W. Comparison of electrokinetic soil remediation methods using one fixed anode and approaching anodes. Environmental Pollution, 2007, 150(2): 193–199

[31] Cang L, Zhou D M, Alshawabkeh A N, Chen H F. Effects of sodium hypochlorite and high pH buffer solution in electrokinetic soil treatment on soil chromium removal and the functional diversity of soil microbial community. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2007, 142(1−2): 111–117

[32] Kumar V, Chithra K. Removal of Cr (VI) from spiked soils by electrokinetics. Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment, 2013, 17(8): 52–59

[33] Alshawabkeh A N. Electrokinetic soil remediation: challenges and opportunities. Separation Science and Technology, 2009, 44(10): 2171–2187

[34] Buchireddy P R, Bricka R M, Gent D B. Electrokinetic remediation of wood preservative contaminated soil containing copper, chromium, and arsenic. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 162(1): 490–497

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg