A microcosm study of permeable reactive barriers filled with granite powder and compost for the treatment of water contaminated with Cr (VI)

  1. Cancelo-González, Javier
  2. Prieto, Diego Martiñá
  3. Paradelo, Remigio
  4. Barral, María Teresa
Journal:
Spanish Journal of Soil Science: SJSS

ISSN: 2253-6574

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 5

Issue: 2

Pages: 180-190

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3232/SJSS.2015.V5.N2.07 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Spanish Journal of Soil Science: SJSS

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

The permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is a technology developed for the removal of contaminants in groundwater. It consists of a screen perpendicular to the flow of contaminated groundwater filled with a material capable of adsorbing, precipitating or degrading pollutants. Several materials have been tested for their use as reactive substrates for the construction of PRBs. Waste materials are of particular interest for this purpose due to the possibility of their reuse and their generally lower cost. With this aim, the Cr (VI) retention capacity of filler material consisting either of pine bark compost (PB) or a 50% mixture of compost and granite powder (PB50) was evaluated using an experimental device specifically designed for this study, which reproduces a permeable reactive barrier at the laboratory scale. Percolation experiments were carried out with a solution of 100 mg L-1 Cr (VI) in 0.01M KNO3, followed by a leaching step with the saline background. The results show that compost is a highly efficient filler for permeable reactive barriers with almost 100% retention of Cr, whereas the retention efficiency of the mixture of PB50 oscillated between 18 and 46% during the experiment. The Cr retained by the filling material is strongly fixed, since no desorption was detected by leaching with the saline background, and concentrations in the standard Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extracts were lower than 1 mg L-1. This behaviour minimizes the risk of release of the Cr retained by the material of the barrier in the event of it being traversed by water not contaminated with Cr. Modelling with Visual Minteq indicates that in the experiments with PB, the reduction of Cr (VI) to Cr (III) occurs and that Cr (III) is associated with dissolved organic matter, which is a form of lower toxicity than the initial Cr (VI) species. In turn, in the experiments with PB50, Cr (III) and Cr (VI) coexist and the oxidised form is not associated with dissolved organic matter, which suggests greater toxicity. The results indicate that pine bark compost is a potential candidate for use as filler material permeable reactive barriers.

Bibliographic References

  • AFCEE (Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment). 2008. Technical protocol for enhanced anaerobic bioremediation using permeable mulch biowalls and bioreactors. Technical Directorate, Environmental Science Division, Technology Transfer Outreach Office.
  • Bartlett RJ, Kimble JM, 1976. Behavior of chromium in soils: II. Hexavalent forms. Jour Environ Quality 5:383–386.
  • Barral MT, Paradelo R, Liste A, Cancelo-González J, Balufo A, Prieto DM. 2014. Reutilization of granite powder as a component of permeable reactive barriers for the treatment of Cr(VI)-contaminated waters. SJSS 4(2):179-191.
  • Barral MT, Silva B, García-Rodeja E, Vázquez N. 2005. Reutilization of granite powder as an amendment and fertilizer for acid soils. Chemosphere 61:993-1002.
  • Battacharaya AK, Naiya TK, Mandal SN, Das SK. 2008. Adsorption, kinetics and equilibrium studies on removal of Cr(VI) fron aqueous solutions using different low-cost adsorbents. Chem Eng J 137:529-541.
  • Benefield LD, Judkins JF, Weand BL. 1982. Process Chemistry for Water and Wastewater Treatment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
  • Blowes DW, Ptacek CJ, Benner SG, McRae CWT, Bennett TA, Puls RW. 2000. Treatment of inorganic contaminants using permeable reactive barriers. J Contam Hydrol 45:123-137.
  • Boddu VM, Abburi K, Talbott JL, Smith ED. 2003. Removal of hexavalent chromium from wastewater using a new composite chitosan biosorbent. 2003. Enviro Sci and Technol 37:4449-4456.
  • Bolan NS, Adriano DC, Natesan R, Koo B-J. 2003. Effects of organic amendments on the reduction and phytoavailability of chromate in mineral soil. J Environ Qual 32:120–128.
  • Boni MR, Sbaffoni S. 2009. The potential of compost-based biobarriers for Cr (VI) removal from contaminated groundwater: Column test. J Hazard Mater 166:1087–1095.
  • Cary EE, Alloway WH, Olson OE. 1977. Control of chromium concentration in food plants. 2. Chemistry of chromium in soils and its availability to plants. J Agr Food Chem 25:305–309.
  • Costa M. 2003. Potential hazards of hevalent chromate in our drinking water. Toxicol ApplPharm 188:1-5.
  • Farrell M, Jones DL. 2009. Critical evaluation of municipal solid waste composting and potential compost markets. Bioresource Technol 100(19):4301-4310.
  • Gustafsson, J.P., 2010. Visual MINTEQ ver. 3.0. Available at http://www2.lwr.kth.se.
  • IGME. 1981. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España. Mapa Geológico 1:50.000, Hoja Vigo.
  • Jain M, Garg VK, Kadirvelu K. 2009. Equilibrium and kinetic studies for sequestration of Cr(VI) from simulated wastewater using sunflower waste biomass. J Hazard Mater 171:328-334.
  • Kinniburgh DG, Milne CJ, Benedetti MF, Pinheiro JP, Filius J, Koopal LK, van Riemsdij WH. 1996. Metal ion binding by humic acid: application of the NICA-Donnan model. Environ Sci Technol 30(5):1687-1698.
  • Koby M. 2009. Adsorption, kinetic and equilibrium studies of Cr(VI) by hazelnut shell activated carbon. Adsorpt Sci Technol 22:51-64.
  • López-García M, Lodeiro P, Herreo P, Barriada JL, Rey-Castro C, David C, Sastre de Vicente ME. 2013. Experimental evidence s for a new model in the description of the adsorption-coupled reduction of Cr(VI) by protonated banana skin. Bioresource Technol 139: 181-189.
  • Losi ME, Amrhein C, Frankenberger WT. 1994. Factors affecting chemical and biological reduction of Cr (VI) in soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:1727–1735.
  • Milne CJ, Kinninburgh DG, Tipping E. 2001. Generic NICA-Donnan Model Parameters for Proton Binding by Humic Substances. Environ Sci Technol. 35:2049-2059.
  • Miretzky P, Cirelli AF. 2010. Cr(VI) and Cr(III) removal from aqueous solution by raw and modified lignocellulosic materials: a review. J Hazard Mater. 180(1-3):1-19.
  • Módenes AN, Espinoza-Quiñones FR, Palácio SM, Kroumov AD, Stutz G, Tirao G, Camera AS. 2010. Cr(VI) reduction by activated carbon and non-living macrophytes roots as assessed by Kb spectroscopy. Chem Eng J. 162(1):266-272.
  • Palmer CD, Wittbrodt PR. 1991. Processes affecting the remediation of chromium-contaminated sites. Environ Health Persp. 92:25-40.
  • Paradelo R, Barral MT. 2012. Evaluation of the potential capacity as metal biosorbents of two MSW composts with different Cu, Pb and Zn content. Bioresource Technol. 104:810-813.
  • Park JH, Lamb D, Paneerselvam P, Choppala G, Bolan N, Chung J. 2011. Role of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal(loid) contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 185(2-3): 549-574.
  • Park D, Lim SR, Yun YS, Park JM. 2007. Reliable evidences that the removal mechanism of hexavalent chromium by natural biomaterials is adsorption-coupled reduction. Chemosphere 70:298-305.
  • Park D, Lim S-R, Yun Y-S, Park JM. 2008. Development of a new Cr(VI)-biosorbent from agricultural biowaste. Bioresource Technol 99:8810-8818.
  • Pereira MG, Korn M, Santos BB, Ramos MG. 2009. Vermicompost for tinted organic cationic dyes retention. Water Air Soil Pollut. 200:227-235.
  • Tsui LS, Roy WR, Cole MA. 2003. Removal of dissolved textile dyes from wastewater by a compost sorbent. Color Technol. 119:14-18.
  • Shen, YS, Wang S.L, Huang ST, Tzou YM, Huang JH. 2010. Biosorption of Cr(VI) by coconut coir: spectroscopic investigation on the reaction mechanism of Cr(VI) with lignocellulosic material. J Hazard Mater 179(1-3):160-165.
  • Silva B, Paradelo R, Vázquez N, García-Rodeja E, Barral MT. 2013. Effect of the addition of granitic powder to an acid soil from Galicia (NW Spain) in comparison with lime. Environ Earth Sci. 68:429-437.
  • Smith SR. 2009. A critical review of the bioavailability and impacts of heavy metals in municipal solid waste composts compared to sewage sludge. Environ Int. 35:142-156.
  • Sjöstedt CS, Gustafsson JP, Köhler SJ. 2010. Chemical equilibrium modeling of organic acids, pH, aluminum and iron in Swedish surface waters. Environ Sci Technol. 44:8587-8593.
  • Tipping E. 2002. Cation binding by humic substances. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. USEPA, Method 1311: Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). 1992. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
  • USEPA, U.S. Environ. Protection Agency. 1997. Permeable Reactive Subsurface Barriers for the Interception and Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon and Chromium (VI) Plumes in Ground Water.U.S.EPA Remedial Technology Fact Sheet.EPA/600/F-97/008.
  • Wei Y.-L, Lee Y-C, Hsieh H-F. 2005. XANES study of Cr sorbed by a kitchen waste compost from water. Chemosphere 61: 1051-1060.
  • Zheng YM, Liu T, Jiang J, Yang L, Fan Y, Wee ATS, Chen JP. 2011. Characterization of hexavalent chromium interaction with Sargassum by X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and quantum chemistry calculation. J Colloid Interface Sci. 35 (2):741–748.
Data source: Dialnet