| Literature DB >> 35424328 |
Tian Xie1,2, Zhi Dang1, Jian Zhang3, Qian Zhang2, Rong-Hai Zhang2,4, Chang-Jun Liao2, Gui-Ning Lu1.
Abstract
Groundwater remediation is difficult because of the complexity of the treatment area and the presence of various pollutants, and it is difficult to achieve using a single process. A combined pump-and-treat (P&T) and in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) system was used to remove dense nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs) from groundwater at the field scale in this study. The underground water pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and SO4 2- concentration were used as indirect evidence of in situ chemical reactions. Groundwater remediation using the P&T-ISCO process using 1.5% sodium persulfate and 0.03% sodium hydroxide had a remarkable effect on DNAPLs, and the DNAPL diffusion distance was much higher under pumping conditions than under natural conditions. During groundwater remediation, the pollutant concentration positively correlated with the pH, electrical conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration and negatively correlated with the SO4 2- concentration. In summary, P&T-ISCO can effectively accelerate DNAPL degradation to give efficient groundwater remediation. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35424328 PMCID: PMC8694382 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra10010b
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Schematic diagram of the pollution plane.
Fig. 2Schematic diagram of the pollution profile.
Pump-and-treat and in situ chemical oxidation treatment phases
| Phase | Implementation content |
|---|---|
| I | DNAPL pollutants were restored by P&T Technology, and the concentration of which was continuously monitored. Only when the level of contaminants tended to be stable could the extraction treatment be stopped |
| II | DNAPL pollutants were restored by P&T-ISCO Technology, the extraction treatment and |
| III | The concentration of pollutants and SO42− were monitored continuously until the level of pollutants remained stable for 90 days |
Fig. 3Pump-and-treat and in situ chemical oxidation treatment process.
Pump-and-treat and in situ chemical oxidation treatment parametersa
| Name | Parameter |
|---|---|
| Extraction well | The diameter was 250 mm and the flow was set as 60 m3 d−1 |
| tank | Two tanks of 70 m3 were set |
| Air stripping tower | Two stripping tower with a diameter of 1.8 m and a height of 5 m were set, equipped with roots fans with a charge of 3 kW and an air volume of 4.23 m3 min−1. The gas water ratio was 100, hydraulic retention time was 120 min, and temperature was 25 °C |
| Activated carbon adsorbers | Two activated carbon adsorbers for wastewater with a diameter of 1 m and a height of 1.3 m were set, and the diameter and height of the activated carbon adsorber for waste gas were 1 m and 1.25 m, respectively. The coal-based activated carbon should be controlled by the following factors: the specific surface area was greater than 900 m2 g−1, the adsorption rate of CCl4 was greater than 50%, the iodine value was more significant than 900 mg g−1, and the loading density distribution was in the range of 550–500 g L−1 |
| Injection well | The diameter was 250 mm and the reinjection flow was consistent with the extraction flow, which was set as 60 m3 d−1 |
| Chemical injection well | The diameter was 200 mm and the injection flow rate was regulated to meet the needs of simultaneous injection and no overflow |
| Chemical solution tank | Two chemical solution tanks of 10 m3 were set. 222.70 m3 of 1.5% sodium persulfate solution and 0.05% sodium hydroxide would be injected into the injection well |
| Monitoring well | The diameter was 250 mm |
The chemical demand was calculated using the Freundlich linear isothermal adsorption formula.[23]
Fig. 4Locations of the wells used in the pump-and-treat and in situ chemical oxidation treatment tests.
Fig. 5Canvas water storage tank.
Fig. 6Chemical solution tank.
Sampling and analysis requirements and parametersa
| Detection index | Purpose | Sampling time: buried depth (frequency) |
|---|---|---|
| Concentration of VC, 1,1-DCA, 1,2-DCA, 1,1,2-TCA, TCE | Analyse the changing trend of pollutants | Phase I: 27 m (every 15 days) |
| Phase II: 27 m (every two days) | ||
| Phase III: 27 m (every 15 days) | ||
| pH, DO, EC | Analyse the change of water quality parameters with injection | Phase II: 19, 22, 25, 27 m (every 2 days) |
| Concentration of Na2S2O8 | Reflect the diffusion of Na2S2O8 after injection | After Na2S2O8 injection: 27 m (every 2 hours) |
| Concentration of SO42- | Analyse whether there was secondary pollution | Phase II: 19, 22, 25, 27 m (every 2 days) |
| Phase III: 19, 22, 25, 27 m (every 15 days) |
Analysis of water from the original well indicated that the vertical pollutant distribution was uneven and the highest pollutant concentrations were at 27 m deep.
Dense nonaqueous-phase liquid concentrations in the test well
| Name | Target value (μg L−1) | Time (d) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 60 | 105 | 120 | 180 | 204 | 208 | 224 | 228 | 318 | ||
| VC | 90 | 3350 | 60 | 65 | 66 | 73 | 58 | 57 | 60 | 56 | 61 |
| 1,1-DCA | 565 | 59 122 | 12 701 | 915 | 864 | 1187 | 712 | 396 | 390 | 362 | 379 |
| 1,2-DCA | 147 | 964 | 141 | 116 | 104 | 107 | 101 | 97 | 93 | 100 | 94 |
| 1,1,2-TCA | 71 | 917 | 660 | 248 | 234 | 405 | 182 | 276 | 47 | 45 | 48 |
| TCE | 300 | 321 | 213 | 237 | 222 | 225 | 210 | 189 | 204 | 201 | 186 |
Fig. 7Dense nonaqueous-phase liquid concentrations exceeding the relevant standards during the 318 d operating period.
Pearson correlation coefficients for the pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and dissolved oxygen concentration (DO)a
| Parameter | 1,1-DCA | 1,1,2-TCA |
|---|---|---|
| pH | 0.36 | 0.467* |
| EC | 0.447* | 0.556** |
| DO | 0.23 | 0.496* |
** means that the correlation coefficient was significant at the 1% level, * means that the correlation coefficient was significant at the 5% level.
Fig. 11S2O82− concentrations between days 0 and 68.
S2O82− diffusion distances under different conditions
| Time (h) | The diffusion distance (m) | |
|---|---|---|
| Pumping condition ( | Natural condition ( | |
| 6 | 1.17 | 0.20 |
| 12 | 1.85 | 0.40 |
| 24 | 2.92 | 0.70 |
| 36 | 3.83 | 0.93 |
| 48 | 4.67 | 1.14 |
| 60 | 5.45 | 1.33 |
Fig. 12S2O82 concentration plotted against diffusion distance.
Fig. 13SO42− concentrations at different depths between days 180 and 318.
Fig. 14Relative SO42−concentrations between days 204 and 318.
Curve fitting equation parameters for the relative SO42− concentrations
| Groundwater depth | Fitting equation: | Correlation coefficient | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 19 m | −3.49 × 106 | 2.54 × 106 | −6.16 × 106 | 4.97 × 106 | 0.910 |
| 22 m | −3.89 × 106 | 2.83 × 106 | −6.85 × 106 | 5.53 × 106 | 0.973 |
| 25 m | −3.87 × 106 | 2.82 × 106 | −6.91 × 106 | 5.62 × 106 | 0.936 |
| 27 m | −4.28 × 106 | 3.13 × 106 | −7.63 × 106 | 6.21 × 106 | 0.967 |