| Literature DB >> 27026865 |
Kristine B Pedersen1, Tore Lejon1, Pernille E Jensen2, Lisbeth M Ottosen2.
Abstract
A highly oil-polluted soil from Krasnoe in North-West Russia was used to investigate the degradation of organic pollutants during electrodialytic remediation. Removal efficiencies were up to 70 % for total hydrocarbons (THC) and up to 65 % for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Relatively more of the lighter PAH compounds and THC fractions were degraded. A principal component analysis (PCA) revealed a difference in the distribution of PAH compounds after the remediation. The observed clustering of experiments in the PCA scores plot was assessed to be related to the stirring rate. Multivariate analysis of the experimental settings and final concentrations in the 12 experiments revealed that the stirring rate of the soil suspension was by far the most important parameter for the remediation for both THC and PAH. Light was the second most important variable for PAH and seems to influence degradation. The experimental variables current density and remediation time did not significantly influence the degradation of the organic pollutants. Despite current density not influencing the remediation, there is potential for degrading organic pollutants during electrodialytic removal of heavy metals, as long as a stirred set-up is applied. Depending on remediation objectives, further optimisation may be needed in order to develop efficient remediation strategies.Entities:
Keywords: Electrokinetic remediation; Oil pollution; PAH; PCA; PLS
Year: 2016 PMID: 27026865 PMCID: PMC4766144 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-1882-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1The 3-compartment EDR cell
Experimental design
| Exp | Current density (mA/cm2) | Time (h) | Stirring rate (rpm) | L/S (mL/g) | Light |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 48 | 1300 | 4 | Light |
| 2 | 0.1 | 48 | 100 | 4 | No light |
| 3 | 0 | 432 | 100 | 4 | Light |
| 4 | 0.1 | 432 | 1300 | 4 | No light |
| 5 | 0 | 48 | 1300 | 2 | No light |
| 6 | 0.1 | 48 | 100 | 2 | Light |
| 7 | 0 | 432 | 100 | 2 | No light |
| 8 | 0.1 | 432 | 1300 | 2 | Light |
| 9 | 0.05 | 240 | 700 | 3 | Light |
| 10 | 0.05 | 240 | 700 | 3 | No light |
| 11 | 0.05 | 240 | 700 | 3 | Light |
| 12 | 0.05 | 240 | 700 | 3 | No light |
Sediment characteristics
| Characteristic | Units | Value | Russian QC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbonate | % | 0.3 ± 13 % | |
| Organic matter | % | 2.8 ± 8 % | |
| Total carbon | % | 2.5 ± 2 % | |
| Total sulphur | % | 0.06 ± 5 % | |
| Nitrogen | % | 0.03 ± 2 % | |
| pH | 3.9 ± 1.5 % | ||
| Conductivity | mS/cm | 0.08 ± 6 % | |
| Chloride | mg/kg | 8.6 ± 30 % | |
|
| |||
| Clay | % | 0.6 | |
| Silt | % | 1.1 | |
| Sand | % | 97.9 | |
| Rubble | % | 0.4 | |
| Al | mg/kg | 830 ± 9 % | |
| Ba | 33 ± 39 % | ||
| Ca | 190 ± 22 % | ||
| Fe | 1650 ± 7 % | ||
| K | 150 ± 20 % | ||
| Mg | 140 ± 20 % | ||
| Mn | 16 ± 6 % | ||
| Na | 42 ± 12 % | ||
| V | 4.9 ± 27 % | ||
| As | 2.0 ± 34 % | 2 | |
| Cd | 0.1 ± 34 % | 0.5 | |
| Cr | 3.2 ± 26 % | 6 | |
| Cu | 5.7 ± 16 % | 3 | |
| Ni | 3.6 ± 19 % | 4 | |
| Pb | 6.0 ± 24 % | 32 | |
| Zn | 20 ± 17 % | 23 | |
| Acenaphtene | 0.74 ± 40 % | ||
| Acenaphtylene | 0.02 ± 40 % | ||
| Anthracene | 0.33 ± 40 % | ||
| Benzo(a)anthracene | 0.28 ± 40 % | ||
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 0.12 ± 40 % | 0.02 | |
| Benzo(b)fluranthene | 0.21 ± 40 % | ||
| Benzo(ghi)perylene | 0.05 ± 40 % | ||
| Benzo(k)fluoranthene | 0.06 ± 40 % | ||
| Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene | <0.020 | ||
| Phenanthrene | 2.6 ± 40 % | ||
| Fluoranthene | 0.28 ± 40 % | ||
| Fluorene | 1.1 ± 40 % | ||
| Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 0.02 ± 40 % | ||
| Chrysene | 0.95 ± 40 % | ||
| Naphtalene | 1.3 ± 40 % | ||
| Pyrene | 2.1 ± 40 % | ||
| PAH16 | 10 | ||
| PCB | n.d. | ||
| C5-C8 | <5.0 | ||
| C8-C10 | 130 ± 30 % | ||
| C10-C12 | 890 ± 30 % | ||
| C12-C16 | 77,00 ± 30 % | ||
| C16-C35 | 13,000 ± 30 % | ||
| THC, total | 22,000 | 1000 | |
Russian soil quality criteria (QC) for inorganic and organic priority substances are included
Fig. 2a Removal efficiencies of the THC fractions as well as the sum of THC removal and b distribution of the THC fractions before (start) and after each of the 12 experiments
Fig. 3Removal efficiencies of PAH components; a containing 2–3 aromatic rings, b containing 4 aromatic rings, c containing 5 aromatic rings and d Sum of PAH16. B(a)A benzo(a)anthracene, B(b)F benzo(b)fluoranthene, B(k)F benzo(k)fluoranthene, B(a)P benzo(a)pyrene; and B(ghi)P benzo(ghi)perylene
Fig. 4PCA scores plot of PAH component concentrations before (original sediment) and after experiments 1–12
Fig. 5Summary of VIP plots for PAH and THC. High VIP values have the highest influence on the remediation