Groundwater treatment by combining the electrokinetic process with permeable reactive barriers containing granular activated carbon

Document Type : Article

Authors

1 MSc Student of Environmental Eng., Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Prof., Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

10.24200/j30.2024.63708.3283

Abstract

Today, groundwater plays an undeniable role in supplying water for the communities. In recent years, the extensive use of chemical fertilizers and improper wastewater treatment from industrial sites has led to several environmental problems, such as an increase in the concentration of nitrate and sulfate in underground and surface water. Nitrate and sulfate in water sources cannot be easily separated due to their high solubility, so their separation methods are costly. Although permeable reactive barriers are one of the new methods used for on-site treatment of water sources, the early saturation of the substrate used is one of its disadvantages. One of the methods used to solve this problem is the electrokinetic process. The purpose of this research, which was conducted on a laboratory scale, was to combine the electrokinetic process and permeable reactive barriers containing modified activated carbon to simultaneously remove nitrate and sulfate from contaminated water. This research used a glass reactor with dimensions of 15*30*100 , and the space inside was divided into several sections using a nylon filter. Also, a layer of sand was placed on the reactive substrate, and two graphite electrodes were placed on top of the soil layer and under the reactive substrate to create an electric current and ensure migration conditions. The effect of , nitrate, and sulfate initial concentration, activated carbon to sand ratio, and the electrical gradient on the performance of the process was investigated, and the optimal conditions for improving the system efficiency were determined using the classical method. Based on the results of experiments, using an electrical gradient of 1.5 in optimal conditions (initial nitrate concentration 200 , initial sulfate concentration 450 , inlet flow rate 3.3 , and the ratio of active carbon to sand 1:2) the adsorption capacity increased by 83% for nitrate and 86% for sulfate. In addition, under these conditions and by controlling the concentration of nitrate and sulfate within standard permissible limits, the period of operation of the system for nitrate increased from 40 hours to 100 hours and for sulfate from 45 hours to 110 hours. According to the results, the integrated process is a reliable method for the simultaneous removal of sulfate and nitrate from groundwater.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. UNEP, 2003. Groundwater and its susceptibility to degradation: a global assessment of the problem and options for management, early warning and assessment report series. UNEP/DEWA/RS, 03-3, joint publication from United Nations Environment Program, Department for International Development and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). 2. Bhatnagar, A. and Sillanpää, M., 2011. A review of emerging adsorbents for nitrate removal from water. Chemical Engineering Journal, 168, pp. 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.01.103 3. Burow, K. R., Nolan, B. T., Rupert, M. G. and Dubrovsky, N. M., 2010. Nitrate in groundwater of the United States. 1991-2003, Environmental Science & Technology, 44, pp. 4988-4997. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100546y 4. Yang, G. C. C., Hung, C. H, and Tu, H. C., 2008. Electrokinetically enhanced removal and degradation of nitrate in the subsurface using nanosized Pd/Fe slurry. J. of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 43 (8), pp. 945–51. https://doi: 10.1080/10934520801974517 5. Moghadasi, M. S., Alavi Moghadam S.M. R., Maknoun R., and Moghadasi A. R., 2007. A survey on people awareness regarding nitrate pollution of drinking water in Arak city. Environmental Sciences, 4(2), pp. 13–20. [In Persian]. 6. Tirado, R., 2007. Nitrates in drinking water in the Philippines and Thailand. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note, pp. 1–20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253389305 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Permeable reactive barrier technology for contaminant remediation, Washington, DC. 8. Baciocchi, R., Boni, M.R. and D'Aprile, L. 2003. Characterization and performance of granular iron as reactive media for TCE degradation by permeable reactive barriers. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 149, pp.211–226. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025675805073 9. Singh, R., Chakma, S., and Birke, V., 2023. Performance of field-scale permeable reactive barriers: An overview on potentials and possible implications for in-situ groundwater remediation applications. Science of the Total Environment, 858, Part 1, 158838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158838 10. Bone, B.D., 2012. Review of UK guidance on permeable Reactive barriers. Taipei, Taiwan. 11. Hashim, M.A., Mukhopadhyay, S., Sahu, J.N. and Sengupta, B., 2011. Remediation technologies for heavy metal contaminated groundwater. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), pp.2355–2388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.009 12. Ale Ebrahim, M. and Ebadi, T., 2018. Zinc and nickel removal from aqueous solution by activated carbon in batch and permeable reactive barrier (PRB) systems. Desalination and water treatment, 118, pp.181-194. https://doi: 10.5004/dwt.2018.22393 13. Bilardi, S., Calabrò, P.S., Moraci, N., Madaffari, M.G. and Ranjbar, E., 2020. A comparison between Fe0/pumice and Fe0/lapillus mixtures in permeable reactive barriers. Environmental Geotechnics, 7(8), pp. 524-539. https://doi.org/10.1680/jenge.17.00095 14. Di, J., Zhu, Z., Dai, N. and Jiang, F., 2016. PRB system of iron coupling with biological medical stone for repairing groundwater containing chromium and nitrate. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering 10 (1), pp. 145–49. http://www.cjee.ac.cn/teepc_en/ch/index.aspx 15. Zhang, Y., Wang, F., Cao, B., Yin, H. and Al-Tabbaa, A., 2022. Simultaneous removal of Pb and MTBE by mixed zeolites in fixed-bed column tests. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 122, pp.41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.10.009 16. Dayanthi, W. K. C. N., Nagasinghe, I. U., Shanthapriya, H. R. D. G. and Danushka, W. G. G. 2022. Low-cost sequential permeable reactive barrier (PRB) to treat groundwater contaminated by landfill-leachate. The Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka, 55(2), pp. 31-40. https://doi.org/10.4038/engineer.v55i2.7506 17. Lee, Y.J., Choi, J.H., Lee, H.G., Ha, T.H. and Bae, J.H., 2011. Pilot-scale study on in situ electrokinetic removal of nitrate from greenhouse soil. Separation and Purification Technology, 79(2), pp. 254-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2011.02.011 18. Xu, H., Zhang, C., Zhang, H., Qiao, H., Zhang, L. and Zhao, Y., 2022. Enhanced electrokinetic remediation of heterogeneous aquifer co-contaminated with Cr(VI) and nitrate by rhamnolipids. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 10(5), 108531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.108531 19. Wang, Y., Li, A. and Cui, C., 2021. Remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils by electrokinetic technology: mechanisms and applicability. Chemosphere, 265, 129071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129071 20. Fdez-Sanromán, A., Pazos, M., Rosales, E. and Sanromán, M.Á., 2021. Prospects on integrated electrokinetic systems for decontamination of soil polluted with organic contaminants, Current Opinion in Electrochemistry, 27, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2021.100692 21. Rahman, Z., Mohan, A. and Priya, S., 2021. Electrokinetic remediation: an innovation for heavy metal contamination in the soil environment, Materials Today: Proceedings, 37(2), pp.2730-2734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.541 22. Xie, N., Chen, Z., Wang, H. and You, C., 2021. Activated carbon coupled with citric acid in enhancing the remediation of Pb-Contaminated soil by electrokinetic method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 308, 127433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127433 23. Ghaeminia, M. and Mokhtarani, N., 2018. Remediation of nitrate-contaminated groundwater by PRB-electrokinetic integrated process. Journal of environmental management, 222, pp. 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.078 24. Wang, J., Hou, L.a., Yao, Z., Jiang, Y., Xi, B., Ni, S. and Zhang, L., 2021. Aminated electrospun nanofiber membrane as permeable reactive barrier material for effective in-situ Cr(VI) contaminated soil remediation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 406, 126882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126822 25. Daoud, W., Ebadi, T. and Fahimifar, A., 2015. Regeneration of acid-modified activated carbon used for removal of toxic metal hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution by electro kinetic process. Desalination and Water Treatment, 57(15), pp.7009-7020. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1022801 26. Behzadian, A. and Olyaei, M., 2016. The effect of overhead pressure on the resistance to pulling out the finite element method. Civil Engineering. Architecture and Urban Development, [In Persian]. 27. Kannan, N. and Sundaram, M.M., 2001. Kinetics and mechanism of removal of methylene blue by adsorption on various carbons—a comparative study. Dyes and pigments, 51(1), pp.25-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-7208(01)00056-0 28. Mondal, M.K. and Garg, R., 2017. A comprehensive review on removal of arsenic using activated carbon prepared from easily available waste materials. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, pp.13295–13306. https://doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-8842-7 29. Givens, B.E., Xu, Z., Fiegel, J. and Grassian, V.H., 2017. Bovine serum albumin adsorption on SiO2 and TiO2 nanoparticle surfaces at circumneutral and acidic pH: A tale of two nano-bio surface interactions. Journal of colloid and interface science, 493, pp. 334-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2017.01.011 30. Cho, D.W., Chon, C.M., Kim, Y., Jeon, B.H., Schwartz, F.W., Lee, E.S. and Song, H., 2011. Adsorption of nitrate and Cr (VI) by cationic polymer-modified granular activated carbon. Chemical Engineering Journal, 175, pp. 298-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.09.108 31. Sharma, H. D. and Reddy, K. R. 2004. Geoenvironmental engineering: site remediation, waste containment, and emerging waste management technologies. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J. 32. Eid, N., Elshorbagy, W., Larson, D. and Slack. D., 2000. Electro-migration of nitrate in sandy soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials 79 (1–2), pp. 133–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00238-7

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics