4.7 Article

Remediation of heavy metal contaminated groundwater originated from abandoned mine using lime and calcium carbonate

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 144, Issue 1-2, Pages 208-214

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.10.007

Keywords

calcium carbonate; coagulation; contaminated groundwater; floc; lime

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [과06B1404] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Column and pilot scale experiments for a chemical treatment involving the use of coagulants to remediate heavy metal contaminated groundwater were performed. Granulated lime (Ca(OH)(2)) and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) were used as coagulants and contaminated groundwater obtained at an abandoned Fe-mine in Korea was used for the experiments. The main removal mechanism of heavy metals in the experiments was sweep precipitation by coagulation. Using granulated lime as a coagulant in the column experiment, more than 98% of As and Ni were removed from artificially contaminated water. When granulated calcium carbonate was used in the artificially contaminated water, the removal efficiencies of Ni and Zn were more than 97%, but As removal efficiency was lower than 50%. For the continuous column experiment with mixed lime and calcium carbonate at a 1:1 (v/v) ratio, almost all As was removed and more than 98 % of Ni was removed. For pilot scale experiments (acryl tank: 34 cm in length and 24 cm in diameter), the removal efficiencies of As and Cd were above 96% for 1501 groundwater treatment and their accumulated removal capacities linearly maintained. This suggests that coagulants could treat more than 22 times greater groundwater volume compared with the volume of coagulants used. (c) 2006 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