Influence of particle size distribution, organic carbon, pH and chlorides on washing of mercury contaminated soil

Chemosphere

Volumn 109, Issue , 2014, Pages 99-105

  Xu, Jingying ^a   Kleja, Dan B ^b   Biester, Harald ^c   Lagerkvist, Anders ^a   Kumpiene, Jurate ^a  

^a LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^c TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF BRAUNSCHWEIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Mobilization; Organic matter; PH dependent dissolution; Soil remediation

Indexed keywords

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY; BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS; CHLORINE COMPOUNDS; DISSOLUTION; ORGANIC CARBON; PARTICLE SIZE; PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS; REMEDIATION; SOIL CONSERVATION; SOIL POLLUTION; SOILS; TITRATION; WASHING;

DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON; DISSOLVED ORGANIC MATTERS; MOBILIZATION; PH-DEPENDENT; PH-STATIC TITRATIONS; PHYSICAL SEPARATION; SOIL PARTICLE-SIZE FRACTIONS; SOIL REMEDIATION;

MERCURY (METAL);

CHLORIDE; DISSOLVED ORGANIC MATTER; MERCURY; ORGANIC CARBON; SODIUM HYDROXIDE;

DISSOLUTION; DISSOLVED ORGANIC MATTER; LEACHATE; MERCURY (ELEMENT); MOBILIZATION; ORGANIC CARBON; PARTICLE SIZE; PH; POLLUTANT REMOVAL; SIZE DISTRIBUTION; SOIL POLLUTION; SOIL REMEDIATION;

ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DISSOLUTION; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; LEACHING; PARTICLE SIZE; PH; SOIL MANAGEMENT; SOIL POLLUTION; SOIL WASHING;

MOBILIZATION; ORGANIC MATTER; PH-DEPENDENT DISSOLUTION; SOIL REMEDIATION;

CHLORIDES; ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION; HYDROCHLORIC ACID; HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION; MERCURY; ORGANIC CHEMICALS; PARTICLE SIZE; SOIL POLLUTANTS; SOLUBILITY; TEMPERATURE; WATER;

EID: 84901420843     PISSN: 00456535     EISSN: 18791298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.02.058     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abumaizar R.J., Smith E.H. Heavy metal contaminants removal by soil washing. J. Hazard. Mater. 1999, 70:71-86.
2. Åkerblom S., Meili M., Bringmark L., Johansson K., Berggren Kleja D., Bergkvist B. Partitioning of Hg between solid and dissolved organic matter in the humus layer of boreal forests. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2008, 189:239-252.
3. Amir S., Hafidi M., Merlina G., Revel J.C. Sequential extraction of heavy metals during composting of sewage sludge. Chemosphere 2005, 59:801-810.
4. Barrow N.J., Cox V.C. The effects of pH and chloride concentration on mercury adsorption. I. by goethite. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1992, 43:295-304.
5. Biester H., Scholz C. Determination of mercury binding forms in contaminated soils: mercury pyrolysis versus sequential extractions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1996, 31:233-239.
6. Bollen A., Biester H. Mercury extraction from contaminated soils by l-cysteine: Species dependency and transformation processes. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2011, 219:175-189.
7. Boszke L., Kowalski A., Astel A., Barański A., Gworek B., Siepak J. Mercury mobility and bioavailability in soil from contaminated area. Environ. Geol. 2008, 55:1075-1087.
8. Canuel, R., Lucotte, M., Boucher de Grosbois, S., 2009. Mercury cycling and human health concerns in remote ecosystems in the Americas. S.A.P.I.E.N.S. 2.1, 1-13.
9. Clarkson T.W., Magos L., Myers G.J. Human exposure to mercury: the three modern dilemmas. J. Trace Elem. Exp. Med. 2003, 16:321-343.
10. Dermont G., Bergeron M., Mercier G., Richer-Laflèche M. Soil washing for metal removal: a review of physical/chemical technologies and field applications. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 152:1-31.
11. Farrah H., Pickering W.F. The sorption of mercury species by clay minerals. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1978, 9:23-31.
12. Frohne T., Rinklebe J., Langer U., Du Laing G., Mothes S., Wennrich R. Biogeochemical factors affecting mercury methylation rate in two contaminated floodplain soils. Biogeosciences 2012, 9:493-507.
13. FRTR, 2001. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Chemical Extraction: Federal Remediation Technologies Reference Guide and Screening Manual. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-15.html.
14. Gabriel M.C., Williamson D.G. Principal biogeochemical factors affecting the speciation and transport of mercury through the terrestrial environment. Environ. Geochem. Health 2004, 26:421-434.
15. Gu B., Bian Y., Miller C.L., Dong W., Jiang X., Liang L. Mercury reduction and complexation by natural organic matter in anoxic environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 2011, 108:1479-1483.
16. Gustafsson, J.P., 2012. Visual MINTEQ ver. 3.0. http://www2.lwr.kth.se/English/OurSoftware/vminteq/.
17. Hem, J.D., 1970. Chemical behavior of mercury in aqueous media. In: Hickel, W.J., Pecora, W.T. (Eds.), Mercury in the Environment. Geological Survey Professional Paper 713. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. pp. 19-24.
18. Jing Y.D., He Z.L., Yang X.E. Effects of pH, organic acids, and competitive cations on mercury desorption in soils. Chemosphere 2007, 69:1662-1669.
19. Jury W.A., Horton R. Soil Physics 2004, John Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey. sixth ed.
20. Kabata Pendias A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants 2011, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. fourth ed.
21. Kwaansa-Ansah E.E., Voegborio R.B., Adimado A.A., Ephraim J.H., Nriagu J.O. Effect of pH, sulphate concentration and total organic carbon on mercury accumulation in sediments in the Volta lake at Yeji. Ghana. B. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2012, 88:418-421.
22. Liao L., Selim H.M., DeLaune R.D. Mercury adsorption-desorption and transport in soils. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38:1608-1616.
23. Lin J., Chen S. The relationship between adsorption of heavy metal and organic matter in river sediments. Environ. Int. 1998, 24:345-352.
24. Lockwood R.A., Chen K.Y. Adsorption of Hg (II) by hydrous manganese oxides. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1973, 7:1028-1034.
25. Manceau A., Nagy K.L. Quantitative analysis of sulfur functional groups in natural organic matter by XANES spectroscopy. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2012, 99:206-223.
26. Mann M.J. Full-scale and pilot-scale soil washing. J. Hazard. Mater. 1999, 66:119-136.
27. Miller, C., Brooks, S., Kocman, D., Yin, X., Bogle, M., 2011. Influence of redox processes and organic carbon on mercury and methylmercury cycling in east fork poplar creek, Tennessee, USA. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, San Francisco, CA. 1, 0614.
28. Payne R. The adsorption of hydroxyl ions at the mercury-solution interface and the anodic double-layer capacity in fluoride solutions. J. Electroanal. Chem. 1964, 7:343-358.
29. Ravichandran M. Interactions between mercury and dissolved organic matter - a review. Chemosphere 2004, 55:319-331.
30. Reimers R.S., Krenkel P.A. Kinetics of mercury adsorption and desorption in sediments. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1974, 46:352-365.
31. Schuster E. The behavior of mercury in the soil with special emphasis on complexation and adsorption processes - a review of the literature. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1991, 56:667-680.
32. Semu E., Singh B., Selmer-Olsen A. Adsorption of mercury compounds by tropical soils II. Effect of soil: solution ratio, ionic strength, pH, and organic matter. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1987, 32:1-10.
33. Sierra C., Gallego J.R., Afif E., Menéndez-Aguado J.M., González-Coto F. Analysis of soil washing effectiveness to remediate a brownfield polluted with pyrite ashes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 180:602-608.
34. Skyllberg U., Bloom P.R., Qian J., Lin C.-M., Bleam W.F. Complexation of mercury (II) in soil organic matter: EXAFS evidence for linear two-coordination with reduced sulfur groups. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40:4174-4180.
35. Stumm W., Morgan J.J. Aquatic Chemistry: Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural Waters 2012, Wiley, (e-book).
36. Sweco Viak, 2007. Tidermans Padding Area, Main Investigation. Part 1 Implemented Investigation and Contamination Situation. Report (in Swedish). Gothenburg.
37. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Guideline Values for Contaminated Soil. Report 5976 (in Swedish).
38. Turer D.G., Maynard B.J. Heavy metal contamination in highway soils. Comparison of Corpus Christi, Texas and Cincinnati, Ohio shows organic matter is key to mobility. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2003, 4:235-245.
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Treatment Technologies for Mercury in Soil, Waste, and Water. No. EPA-68-W-02-034. Washington, DC.
40. Vik, E.A., Bardos, P., 2003. Remediation of Contaminated Land Technology Implementation in Europe. A report from the Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies (CLARINET) by the Remediation Technologies Working Group Vienna (AT): Federal Environment Agency.
41. Wallschläger D., Desai M.V.M., Wilken R.D. The role of humic substances in the aqueous mobilisation of mercury from contaminated floodplain soils. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1996, 90:507-520.
42. Wallschläger D., Desai M.V.M., Spengler M., Wilken R.D. Mercury speciation in floodplain soils and sediments along a contaminated river transect. J. Environ. Qual. 1998, 27:1034-1044.
43. Wang J., Feng X., Anderson C.W., Xing Y., Shang L. Remediation of mercury contaminated sites - a review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 30:221-222.
44. Xia K., Skyllberg U., Bleam W., Bloom P., Nater E., Helmke P. X-ray absorption spectroscopic evidence for the complexation of Hg(II) by reduced sulfur in soil humic substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33:257-261.
45. Yin Y., Allen H.E., Li Y., Huang C.P., Sanders P.F. Adsorption of mercury (II) by soil: effects of pH, chloride, and organic matter. J. Environ. Qual. 1996, 25:837-844.