4.8 Article

Compatibility of Polymers and Chemical Oxidants for Enhanced Groundwater Remediation

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 42, 期 24, 页码 9296-9301

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es800757g

关键词

-

资金

  1. Strategic Environmental Research and Development (SERDP) [ER-1486]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polymer floods provide a promising method to more effectively deliver conventional groundwater treatment agents to organic contaminants distributed within heterogeneous aquifer systems. Combinations of nontoxic polymers (xanthan and hydrolyzed polyacrylamide) and common chemical oxidants (potassium permanganate and sodium persulfate) were investigated to determine the suitability of these mixtures for polymer-enhanced in situ chemical oxidation applications. Oxidant demand and solution viscosity were utilized as initial measures of chemical compatibility. After 72 h of reaction with both test oxidants, solution viscosities in mixtures containing hydrolyzed polyacrylamide were decreased by more than 90% (final viscosities similar to 2 cP), similar to the 95% viscosity loss (final viscosities similar to 1 cP, near that of water) observed in xanthan/persulfate experiments. In contrast, xanthan solutions exposed to potassium permanganate preserved 60-95% of initial viscosity after 72 h. Permanganate depletion in xanthan-containing experiments ranged from 2% to 24% over the same test period. Although oxidant consumption in xanthan/permanganate solutions appeared to be correlated with increasing xanthan concentrations, solutions of up to 2000 mg/L xanthan did not inhibit permanganate from oxidizing a dissolved-phase test contaminant (tetrachloroethene, PCE) in xanthan solution. These advantageous characteristics (high viscosity retention, moderate oxidant demand, and lack of competitive effects on PCE oxidation rate) render xanthan/permanganate the most compatible polymer/oxidant combination of those tested for remediation by polymer-enhanced chemical oxidation.

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

4.8
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