4.7 Article

Reversible electrokinetic adsorption barriers for the removal of atrazine and oxyfluorfen from spiked soils

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 322, 期 -, 页码 413-420

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.10.032

关键词

Electrokinetic; REKAB; Soil remediation; Permeable reactive barrier; Atrazine; Oxyfluorfen

资金

  1. EU
  2. Spanish Government through the MINECO Project [CTM2013-45612-R]
  3. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - Brazil (CNPq) [446846/2014-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the application of reversible electrokinetic adsorption barrier (REKAB) technology to soils spiked with low-solubility pollutants. A permeable reactive barrier (PRB) of granular activated carbon (GAC) was placed between the anode and cathode of an electrokinetic (EK) soil remediation bench-scale setup with the aim of enhancing the removal of two low-solubility herbicides (atrazine and oxyfluorfen) using a surfactant solution (sodium dodecyl sulfate) as the flushing fluid. This innovative study focused on evaluating the interaction between the EK system and the GAC-PRB, attempting to obtain insights into the primary mechanisms involved. The obtained results highlighted the successful treatment of atrazine and oxyfluorfen in contaminated soils. The results obtained from the tests after 15 days of treatment were compared with those obtained using the more conventional electrokinetic soil flushing (EKSF) technology, and very important differences were observed. Although both technologies are efficient for removing the herbicides from soils, REKAB outperforms EKSF. After the 15-day treatment tests, only approximately 10% of atrazine and oxyfluorfen remained in the soil, and adsorption onto the GAC bed was an important removal mechanism (15-17% of herbicide retained). The evaporation loses in REKAB were lower than those obtained in EKSF (45-50% compared to 60-65%). (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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