3.8 Proceedings Paper

Assessment and Comparison of Electrokinetic and Electrokinetic-bioremediation Techniques for Mercury Contaminated Soil

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/160/1/012077

Keywords

Landfill soils; Electro-bioremediation; Lysinibacillus fusiformis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Landfills are major sources of contamination due to the presence of harmful bacteria and heavy metals. Electrokinetic-Bioremediation (Ek-Bio) is one of the techniques that can be conducted to remediate contaminated soil. Therefore, the most prominent bacteria from landfill soil will be isolated to determine their optimal conditions for culture and growth. The degradation rate and the effectiveness of selected local bacteria were used to reduce soil contamination. Hence, this enhances microbiological activities to degrade contaminants in soil and reduce the content of heavy metals. The aim of this study is to investigate the ability of isolated bacteria (Lysinibacillus fusiformis) to remove mercury in landfill soil. 5 kg of landfill soil was mixed with deionized water to make it into slurry condition for the purpose of electrokinetic and bioremediation. This remediation technique was conducted for 7 days by using 50 V/m of electrical gradient and Lysinibacillus fusiformis bacteria was applied at the anode reservoir. The slurry landfill soil was located at the middle of the reservoir while distilled water was placed at the cathode of reservoir. After undergoing treatment for 7 days, the mercury analyzer showed that there was a significant reduction of approximately up to 78 % of mercury concentration for the landfill soil. From the results, it is proven that electrokinetic bioremediation technique is able to remove mercury within in a short period of time. Thus, a combination of Lysinibacillus fusiformis and electrokinetic technique has the potential to remove mercury from contaminated soil in Malaysia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available