4.7 Article

Enhanced electrokinetic (E/K) remediation on copper contaminated soil by CFW (carbonized foods waste)

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 177, Issue 1-3, Pages 530-538

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.065

Keywords

E/K; Polarity reversal; Heavy metal; Permeable reactive barrier (PRB); Carbonized foods waste (CFW)

Funding

  1. Chung-Ang University Research Grants

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The E/K remediation method is presented to purify low permeable contaminated soils due to Cu2+, and carbonized foods waste (CFW) was used as a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) material. For adsorption and precipitation of the Cu2+ in the PRB during its motion, PRB was installed in a zone of rapidly changing pH values. The adsorption efficiency of CFW used as PRB material was found to be 4-8 times more efficient than that of Zeolite. Throughout the experiment, a voltage slope of 1 V/cm was implemented and acetic acid was injected on the anode to increase the remediation efficiency. The electrode exchange was executed to more completely remove precipitated heavy metals in the vicinity of the cathode. The majority of Cu2+ was adsorbed or sedimented by CFW prior to the exchange of the electrode, and the remaining quantity of precipitated Cu2+ on the cathode had decreased with an increase in the operating time. Experiments of seven cases with different E/K operating times were performed, and the average removal ratios were 53.4-84.6%. The removal efficiencies for the majority of cases increased proportionally with an increase in the operating time. After the experiments were completed, the adsorbed Cu2+ on CFW was 75-150 mg. This means that the role of CFW as the material in PRB for remediating heavy metals was confirmed. The cost of energies needed to remove Cu2+, CFW, and acetic acid are estimated at US$ 13.3-40/m(3). (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available