4.7 Article

Comparison of the effectiveness of soil heating prior or during in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) of aged PAH-contaminated soils

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 11265-11278

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-8731-0

关键词

Activated persulfate; Permanganate; Temperature; PAH availability; Oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (O-PACs); Remediation

资金

  1. French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thermal treatments prior or during chemical oxidation of aged polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-contaminated soils have already shown their ability to increase oxidation effectiveness. However, they were never compared on the same soil. Furthermore, oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (O-PACs), by-products of PAH oxidation which may be more toxic and mobile than the parent PAHs, were very little monitored. In this study, two aged PAH-contaminated soils were heated prior (60 or 90 A degrees C under Ar for 1 week) or during oxidation (60 A degrees C for 1 week) with permanganate and persulfate, and 11 O-PACs were monitored in addition to the 16 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) PAHs. Oxidant doses were based on the stoichiometric oxidant demand of the extractable organic fraction of soils by using organic solvents, which is more representative of the actual contamination than only the 16 US EPA PAHs. Higher temperatures actually resulted in more pollutant degradation. Two treatments were about three times more effective than the others: soil heating to 60 A degrees C during persulfate oxidation and soil preheating to 90 A degrees C followed by permanganate oxidation. The results of this study showed that persulfate effectiveness was largely due to its thermal activation, whereas permanganate was more sensitive to PAH availability than persulfate. The technical feasibility of these two treatments will soon be field-tested in the unsaturated zone of one of the studied aged PAH-contaminated soils.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据