4.2 Article

Iodide-enhanced electrokinetic remediation of mercury-contaminated soils

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Volume 129, Issue 12, Pages 1137-1148

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2003)129:12(1137)

Keywords

electrokinetics; remedial action; soil pollution; mercury; metals; soil treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates using an iodide-enhanced solution at the cathode during electrokinetic treatment to optimize the removal of mercury from soils. The experimental program consisted of testing two types of clayey soils, kaolin, and glacial till, that were initially spiked with 500 mg/kg of Hg(II). Experiments were conducted on each soil type at two voltage gradients (1.0 or 1.5 VDC/cm) to evaluate the effect of the voltage gradient when employing a 0.1 M KI solution. Additional experiments were performed on each soil type to assess the effect of using a higher iodide concentration (0.5 M KI) when using a 1.5 VDC/cm voltage gradient. The tests conducted on the kaolin soil showed that when the 0.1 M KI concentration was employed with the 1.0 VDC/cm voltage gradient, approximately 97% of the mercury was removed, leaving a residual concentration of 16 mg/kg in the soil after treatment. The tests conducted on glacial till indicated that it was beneficial to use the higher (0.5 M KI) iodide concentration and the higher (1.5 VDC/cm) voltage gradient to enhance mercury removal, because, under these conditions, a maximum of 77% of the mercury was removed from the glacial till, leaving a residual concentration of 116 mg/kg in soil after electrokinetic treatment. Compared to kaolin, the lower mercury removal from the glacial till soil is attributed to the more complicated soil composition, such as the presence of carbonates and organic matter, which caused Hg(II) to adsorb to the soil and/or exist as an immobile chemical species.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available