Soil Clean-Up by Surfactant Washing. I. Laboratory Results and Mathematical Modeling

Clarke, Ann N.; Plumb, Patrick; Subramanyan, T. K.; Wilson, David J.

doi:10.1080/01496399108050475

Cited by 42 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this method, hydrophobic organics are solubilized in the hydrocarbon phase via surfactant micelles (Clarke et al, 1991). Wash-off liquids containing DDT and its metabolites are then dechlorinated in the next step using different methods, such as degradation using zero-valent iron under anaerobic conditions (Ghazali et al, in press;Sayles et al, 1997) …”

Section: Remediation Of Ddt-contaminated Soil Using Optimized Mixturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The optimum contact time is determined by several factors, including the structure of the soil and the size of a container (column) used for the washing. The results obtained from modeling the batch soil-washing process by Clarke et al (1991) indicated that a contact time of one hour efficiently removes the contaminants when the column radius is 2 cm. However, the removal efficiency is decreased enormously when the radius is increased to 5 cm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…At higher temperatures (i.e., at 270˚C), 90 percent of DDT and DDE are dechlorinated in approximately four minutes (Rodante et al, 1992). Although thermal desorption and incineration (destruction of DDT) processes are feasible, these approaches are very expensive (Clarke et al, 1991). Also, limitations of these technologies include the hindering of the process where there is high clay and silt in the soil, high water content, and requirements for air emission controls.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Once the DDT has been mobilized from the soil into the surfactant, the liquid must be extracted using extraction wells, followed by treatment, before disposal. This technology is best suited for permeable soils (Clarke et al, 1991). However, this method has a serious limitation, where the geology of the site may cause incomplete recovery of the surfactant and the desorbed contaminant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Remediation of DDT‐contaminated soil using optimized mixtures of surfactants and a mixing system

Ghazali

McBean

Shen

et al. 2010

Remediation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil contaminated with persistent pesticides, such as DDT, poses a serious risk to humans and to wildlife. A surfactant-aided soil-washing technique was studied as an alternative method for remediation of DDT-contaminated soil. An ex situ soil washing method was investigated using nonionic and anionic surfactants due to the clayey structure of the contaminated soil. A mixture of 1 percent nonionic surfactant (Brij 35) and 1 percent anionic surfactant (SDBS) removed more than 50 percent of DDT from soil in a flow-through system, whereas individual surfactants or other combinations of the surfactants had a lower removal efficiency. The soil-washing technique was improved using a mixing system. The mixture of surfactants was optimized in the mixing system, and the combination of 2 percent Brij 35 and 0.1 percent SDBS was found to be optimum, removing 70 to 80 percent of DDT. Prewashing of the soil with tap water decreased the adsorption of surfactants INTRODUCTIONIn many locations in Canada and elsewhere around the world, soil contamination represents a serious risk to both humans and the environment (Harris et al., 2000). Contamination with organochlorines is considered to be of particular importance since organochlorines are persistent substances that may represent a continuing source of contamination for decades. Among the organochlorines, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) is one of the most notorious synthetic pesticides since it continues in use to this day, although use of DDT has been widely restricted in application since 1972 (Hitch & Day, 1992;Martijn et al., 1993;Turusov et al., 2002). Concerns with worldwide spraying of DDT eventually led to use of DDT being banned in most countries in 1972. Also, DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day in some parts of the world (Vieira et al., 2001).DDT and its metabolites-breakdown or by-products of DDT, including 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDD) and 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethylene (DDE)-are extremely persistent in the environment and may accumulate in the food chain (Veith et al., 1979) 119 Remediation of DDT-Contaminated Soil Using Optimized Mixtures of Surfactants and a Mixing Systemhealth, and they are known carcinogens (Kashyap et al., 1977). As a consequence, lands contaminated with DDT are limited in their development potential (e.g., change of land use from agricultural to residential may be disallowed). It is highly likely, for example, that significant expanses of agricultural land continue to have levels of DDT and its metabolites that are elevated in concentration, although only limited testing has been carried out to date. Environmental agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), have established standards and guidelines, exceedance of which precludes specific land use. Hence, due to the long half-life of DDT and its metabolites in natural environmental conditions, co...

show abstract

Section: Remediation Of Ddt-contaminated Soil Using Optimized Mixturementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Remediation of DDT‐contaminated soil using optimized mixtures of surfactants and a mixing system

Ghazali

McBean

Shen

et al. 2010

Remediation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, specific studies have been carried out for washing soils/sediments contaminated with organics 2,4,15 and inorganics 1,8,9,13,16 and also modeling the sorption and desorption phenomenon. 17 Many isolated research efforts on development and application of quantitative structure activity relationships (QSARs) for predicting the sorption and desorption equilibrium at the activated carbon/water interface or activated carbon/air interface [18][19][20][21][22] have been reported in the literature. However, no studies on modeling the soil-washing techniques and incorporating the QSARs for prediction of the thermodynamic limits of sorption and desorption into the soil-washing model have been reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Washing of Marine Coastal Sand in a Batch Reactor: Sorption and Desorption of BTEX

Rao

Swaminathan

Asolekar

2001

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses the issues related to decontamination of marine beach sand accidentally contaminated by petroleum products. Sorption and desorption of BTEX (i.e., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) onto the sand from Uran Beach, located near the city of Mumbai, India, were studied, and isotherms were determined using the bottle point method to estimate sorption coefficients. Alternatively, QSARs (i.e., quantitative structure activity relationships) were developed and used to estimate the sorption coefficients. Experiments for kinetics of volatilization as well as for kinetics of sorption and desorption in the presence of volatilization were conducted in a fabricated laboratory batch reactor. A mathematical model describing the fate of volatile hydrophobic organic pollutants like BTEX (via sorption and desorption in presence of volatilization) in a batch sediment-washing reactor was proposed. The experimental kinetic data were compared with the values predicted using the proposed models for sorption and desorption, and the optimum values of overall mass transfer coefficients for sorption (K s a s ) and desorption (K d a d ) were estimated. This was achieved by minimization of errors while using the sorption coefficients (K p ) obtained from either laboratory isotherm studies or the QSARs developed in the present study. Independent experimental data were also collected and used for calibration of the model for volatilization, and the values of the overall mass transfer coefficient for volatilization (K g a g ) were estimated for BTEX. In these exercises of minimization of errors, comparable cumulative errors were obtained from the use of K p values derived from experimental isotherms and QSARs.

show abstract

On the use of biosurfactants for the removal of heavy metals from oil‐contaminated soil

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil Clean-Up by Surfactant Washing. I. Laboratory Results and Mathematical Modeling

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

Remediation of DDT‐contaminated soil using optimized mixtures of surfactants and a mixing system

Remediation of DDT‐contaminated soil using optimized mixtures of surfactants and a mixing system

Washing of Marine Coastal Sand in a Batch Reactor: Sorption and Desorption of BTEX

On the use of biosurfactants for the removal of heavy metals from oil‐contaminated soil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About