Literature DB >> 36126259

LCA of Disposal Practices for Arsenic-Bearing Iron Oxides Reveals the Need for Advanced Arsenic Recovery.

C M van Genuchten1,2, T R Etmannski3, S Jessen4, H M Breunig2.   

Abstract

Iron (Fe)-based groundwater treatment removes carcinogenic arsenic (As) effectively but generates toxic As-rich Fe oxide water treatment residuals (As WTRs) that must be managed appropriately to prevent environmental contamination. In this study, we apply life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the toxicity impacts of four common As WTR disposal strategies that have different infrastructure requirements and waste control: (i) landfilling, (ii) brick stabilization, (iii) mixture with organic waste, and (iv) open disposal. The As disposal toxicity impacts (functional unit = 1.0 kg As) are compared and benchmarked against impacts of current methods to produce marketable As compounds via As mining and concentrate processing. Landfilling had the lowest non-carcinogen toxicity (2.0 × 10-3 CTUh), carcinogen toxicity (3.8 × 10-5 CTUh), and ecotoxicity (4.6 × 103 CTUe) impacts of the four disposal strategies, with the largest toxicity source being As emission via sewer discharge of treated landfill leachate. Although landfilling had the lowest toxicity impacts, the stored toxicity of this strategy was substantial (ratio of stored toxicity/emitted As = 13), suggesting that landfill disposal simply converts direct As emissions to an impending As toxicity problem for future generations. The remaining disposal strategies, which are frequently practiced in low-income rural As-affected areas, performed poorly. These strategies yielded ∼3-10 times greater human toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts than landfilling. The significant drawbacks of each disposal strategy indicated by the LCA highlight the urgent need for new methods to recover As from WTRs and convert it into valuable As compounds. Such advanced As recovery technologies, which have not been documented previously, would decrease the stored As toxicity and As emissions from both WTR disposal and from mining As ore.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arsenic contamination; circular economy; landfill disposal; life cycle assessment; waste management; water treatment residuals

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36126259      PMCID: PMC9536309          DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c05417

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   11.357


  32 in total

1.  Nanometre-scale electronics with III-V compound semiconductors.

Authors:  Jesús A del Alamo
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Evaluating the cement stabilization of arsenic-bearing iron wastes from drinking water treatment.

Authors:  Tara M Clancy; Kathryn V Snyder; Raghav Reddy; Antonio Lanzirotti; Susan E Amrose; Lutgarde Raskin; Kim F Hayes
Journal:  J Hazard Mater       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 10.588

3.  Anthropogenic Cycles of Arsenic in Mainland China: 1990-2010.

Authors:  Ya-Lan Shi; Wei-Qiang Chen; Shi-Liang Wu; Yong-Guan Zhu
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Long-term electrode behavior during treatment of arsenic contaminated groundwater by a pilot-scale iron electrocoagulation system.

Authors:  Siva R S Bandaru; Abhisek Roy; Ashok J Gadgil; Case M van Genuchten
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2020-02-29       Impact factor: 11.236

5.  Will flooding or erosion of historic landfills result in a significant release of soluble contaminants to the coastal zone?

Authors:  James H Brand; Kate L Spencer
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 7.963

6.  Landfill Leachate Treatment by Electrocoagulation and Fiber Filtration.

Authors:  Runwei Li; Boya Wang; Owete Owete; Joe Dertien; Chen Lin; Hafiz Ahmad; Gang Chen
Journal:  Water Environ Res       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 1.946

7.  Global threat of arsenic in groundwater.

Authors:  Joel Podgorski; Michael Berg
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 8.  Arsenic reduction to <1 µg/L in Dutch drinking water.

Authors:  Arslan Ahmad; Patrick van der Wens; Kirsten Baken; Luuk de Waal; Prosun Bhattacharya; Pieter Stuyfzand
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 9.621

9.  Making the business case for resource recovery.

Authors:  Anne P M Velenturf; Juliet S Jopson
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-08-18       Impact factor: 7.963

10.  Poverty, inequality and COVID-19: the forgotten vulnerable.

Authors:  J A Patel; F B H Nielsen; A A Badiani; S Assi; V A Unadkat; B Patel; R Ravindrane; H Wardle
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 2.427

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.