4.7 Article

Comparing performances, costs and energy balance of ex situ remediation processes for PAH-contaminated marine sediments

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 16, Pages 19363-19374

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-08379-y

Keywords

Phenanthrene; Digestate; Sewage sludge; Anaerobic bioremediation; Soil washing; Thermal desorption; Cost assessment; Energy balance

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR)
  2. Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Program ETeCoS3 (Environmental Technologies for Contaminated Solids, Soils, and Sediments) [2010-0009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes a comparison of different ex situ technologies aimed at the removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from marine sediments in terms of performances, costs and energy balance. In accordance with the principles of water-energy nexus, anaerobic bioremediation, soil washing and thermal desorption were investigated under low liquid phase and temperature conditions using phenanthrene (PHE) as model compound. After 42 days of anaerobic bioremediation, the highest PHE biodegradation of 68 and 64% was observed under denitrifying and methanogenic conditions, respectively, accompanied by N-2 and CH4 production and volatile fatty acid accumulation. During soil washing, more than 97% of PHE was removed after 60 min using a solid-to-liquid ratio of 1:3. Along the same treatment time, low-temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) allowed a PHE removal of 88% at 200 degrees C. The economic analysis indicated that LTTD resulted in a higher cost (i.e. 1782 euro m(-3)) than bioremediation and soil washing (228 and 371 euro m(-3), respectively). The energy balance also suggested that bioremediation and soil washing are more sustainable technologies as a lower required energy (i.e. 16 and 14 kWh m(-3), respectively) than LTTD (i.e. 417 kWh m(-3)) is needed.

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