Feasibility study of surfactant use for remediation of organic and metal contaminated soils

Huang, Chun-Yueh; Benschoten, John E. Van; Healy, Tara C.; Ryan, Michael E.

doi:10.1080/15320389709383585

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactants have no effects on metal removal (Huang et al, 1997). However, in this study, not only anionic surfactants (i.e., SDS) but also nonionic surfactants (i.e., Triton X 100) enhanced the effectiveness of LED3A to remove cadmium and copper.…”

Section: Effects Of Soil Solution Ph On Metal Extractionmentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Remediation of Metal-Contaminated Soil by an Integrated Soil Washing-Electrolysis Process

Chang

Wang

Kuo

et al. 2005

Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chelating agents such as EDTA and DTPA are often used to remove metals from soil. However, their toxicity, bio-recalcitrance, and problems with recovery of heavy metal and chelating agents severely limit their applications. A biodegradable chelating agent, LED3A, and two surfactants, SDS and Triton X 100, were evaluated as potential alternatives for remediation of metal-contaminated soil.LED3A alone only removed 40% of cadmium the addition of surfactant significantly enhanced its cadmium removal capacity up to 80% for a wide range of pH (5 to 11). The enhancement increased with both surfactant concentrations and LED3A concentrations. Because LED3A had a much higher removal capacity for copper, the synergistic effect of surfactant-LED3A mixture was less obvious. Sequential extraction analysis indicated that the LED3A not only removed copper from carbonate and Fe-Mn oxide fraction, but also from organic fractions. A three-dimension electrolysis reactor could effectively recover both metals and LED3A-SDS within thirty minutes. The combined soil washing by LED3A-surfactants and electrolysis provides a potential approach for remediation of copper-and cadmium-contaminated soils.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Soil Solution Ph On Metal Extractionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Based on their hydrophilic head groups, surfactants can be divided into three categories: anionic, cationic, and nonionic (Huang et al, 1997). Surfactants at low concentrations exist as monomers and adsorb onto surfaces and interfaces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remediation of Metal-Contaminated Soil by an Integrated Soil Washing-Electrolysis Process

Chang

Wang

Kuo

et al. 2005

Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surfactants increase mobility of hydrophobic organic compounds at lower concentrations. At high concentrations, they enhance the solubilization of many hydrophobic organic compounds by increasing the solubility of contaminants through micellar solubilization (Edward et al 1994;Harwell 1992;Wilson and Clarke 1994;Huang et al 1997;Duffield et al 2003). Based on batch tests, Zhang and Lo (2007) have found the optimum conditions such as pH and surfactant concentration for the removal of marine diesel fuel from soils, using surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and EDTA, in the presence and absence of lead in the soil.…”

Section: Soil Pollutant Removal By Surfactants and Complexing Agentsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Surfactant-Enhanced Removal of Cu (II) and Zn (II) from a Contaminated Sandy Soil

Ramamurthy

et al. 2007

Water Air Soil Pollut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Batch tests were conducted to know the effectiveness of using surfactants only and surfactants with a complexing agent to remove Cu (II) and Zn (II) from an artificially contaminated sandy soil. SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate), AOT (alpha-olefin sulfonate) and Tx-100 (Triton X-100) were the surfactants selected as the washing liquids. Complexing agent EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) was also selected for washing the soil. To avoid external factors from interfering with the cleaning process, artificial soil formed by a mixture of clean sand and bentonite was used to form contaminated soil samples. The amount of organic matter present was insignificant. Compared to extraction by distilled water, tests indicated that a six-fold increase in copper extraction occurred due to the presence of surfactants and/or the complexing agent EDTA. Compared to extraction by distilled water, zinc extraction by surfactants and or the complexing agent EDTA was nearly 1.2 to 1.3 times more. Effects of competition as well as interference associated with the adsorption and desorption of these metals are also very briefly reported.

show abstract

“…Since micelles are composed of an inner hydrophobic core and a hydrophilic exterior surface, the surfactant micelles can solubilize both ionic and non-ionic compounds, such as heavy metals and PCBs. Many studies directed to the extraction of hydrophobic contaminants from soils using surfactant micelles (Huang et al, 1997;Noordman et al, 1998;Zhang et al, 1997) have demonstrated that solubilization can be attributed to the incorporation of hydrophobic contaminants within the hydrophobic core of the surfactant micelles in solution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexation of a Ligand with a Surfactant Micelle for Soil Heavy Metal Desorption

Shin

Barrington

Marshall

et al. 2005

Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ligands iodide (I − ) and thiocyanate (SCN − ), alone or in admixture, in combination with a non-ionic surfactant, Triton X-100, were evaluated as washing agents for heavy metal desorption from a contaminated soil. After seven successive washings, selective sequential extraction (SSE) was performed to determine the heavy metal content that remained associated with each geo-chemical fraction of the soil. The surfactant with 0.336 mol L −1 of ligand I − removed 75% Cd and 23% Cu, whereas the mobilization of Zn and Pb were not significant after 7 washings. At a concentration of 0.286 mol L −1 , the ligand SCN − in the presence of surfactant removed 36% Cd, 44% Cu and 77% Zn. Among the washing agents, the combination of I − and SCN − produced the highest desorption efficiencies 95% Cd, 48% Cu, and 3.1% Pb, but not for Zn. The SCN − ligand extracted the most Zn (77%). The SSE procedure indicated that the I − removed metals from the exchangeable, carbonate and oxide fractions whereas SCN − removed metals only from the exchangeable fraction. Both ligands, in the presence of surfactant, removed Cu from all fractions except the exchangeable sites, whereas only SCN − plus surfactant removed Zn from all fractions. The ligand mixture plus surfactant mobilized only limited quantities of Pb from the oxide and residual fractions.

show abstract

Feasibility study of surfactant use for remediation of organic and metal contaminated soils

Cited by 15 publications

References 28 publications

Remediation of Metal-Contaminated Soil by an Integrated Soil Washing-Electrolysis Process

Remediation of Metal-Contaminated Soil by an Integrated Soil Washing-Electrolysis Process

Surfactant-Enhanced Removal of Cu (II) and Zn (II) from a Contaminated Sandy Soil

Complexation of a Ligand with a Surfactant Micelle for Soil Heavy Metal Desorption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About