4.7 Article

Role of soil organic carbon and colloids in sorption and transport of TNT, RDX and HMX in training range soils

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 92, 期 8, 页码 993-1000

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.03.028

关键词

Explosives; Colloids; Organic carbon; Operational training range; Column experiments

资金

  1. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) [ER-1690]
  2. University of Tennessee-Battelle, LLC [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  3. U.S. DOE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contamination of soils and groundwater by munitions compounds (MCs) is of significant concern at many U.S. Department of Defense sites. Soils were collected from operational training ranges in Maryland (APG), Massachusetts (MMR-B and MMR-E) and Washington (JBLM) and sorption and transport studies were conducted to investigate the effects of soil organic carbon (OC) and textural clay content on fate of dissolved MCs (TNT, RDX, HMX). Sorption experiments showed higher distribution coefficients [TNT:42-68 L kg(-1), RDX:6.9-8.7 L kg(-1) and HMX:2.6-3.1 L kg(-1)] in OC rich soils (JBLM, MMR-E) compared to clay rich soils (MMR-B and APG) [TNT:19-21 L kg(-1), RDX:2.5-3.4 L kg(-1), HMX:0.9-1.2 L kg(-1)]. In column experiments, breakthrough of MCs was faster in MMR-B and APG compared to MMR-E and JBLM soils. Among TNT, RDX and HMX, breakthrough was fastest for RDX followed by HMX and TNT for all columns. Defining the colloidal fraction as the difference between unfiltered samples and samples filtered with a 3 kDa filter, similar to 36%, similar to 15% and similar to 9% of TNT, RDX and HMX were found in the colloidal fraction in the solutions from sorption experiments, and around 20% of TNT in the effluent from the transport experiments. Results demonstrate that OC rich soils may enhance sorption and delay transport of TNT, RDX and HMX compared to clay-rich soils. Further, transport of TNT may be associated with soil colloid mobilization. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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