4.7 Article

Combined abiotic and biotic in-situ reduction of hexavalent chromium in groundwater using nZVI and whey: A remedial pilot test

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 300, 期 -, 页码 670-679

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.07.056

关键词

Hexavalent chromium; nZVI; Geofixation; Microbial community; PLFA

资金

  1. Technology Agency of the Czech Republic [TA01021792]
  2. Competence Center of the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic [TE01020218]
  3. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports [LO201]
  4. OPR&DI project Centre for Nanomaterials, Advanced Technologies and Innovation [CZ.1.05/2.1.00/01.0005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper describes a pilot remediation test combining two Cr(VI) geofixation methods - chemical reduction by nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) and subsequent biotic reduction supported by whey. Combination of the methods exploited the advantages of both - a rapid decrease in Cr(VI) concentrations by nZVI, which prevented further spreading of the contamination and facilitated subsequent use of the cheaper biological method. Successive application of whey as an organic substrate to promote biotic reduction of Cr(VI) after application of nZVI resulted in a further and long-term decrease in the Cr(VI) contents in the groundwater. The effect of biotic reduction was observed even in a monitoring well located at a distance of 22 m from the substrate injection wells after 10 months. The results indicated a reciprocal effect of both the phases - nZVI oxidized to Fe(III) during the abiotic phase was microbially reduced back to Fe(II) and acted as a reducing agent for Cr(VI) even when the microbial density was already low due to the consumed substrate. Community analysis with pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA genes further confirmed partial recycling of nZVI in the form of Fe(II), where the results showed that the Cr(VI) reducing process was mediated mainly by iron-reducing and sulfate-reducing bacteria. (C) 2015 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