Enhancement of Electrokinetic Decontamination with EDTA

Department of Civil & Construction Engineering, Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU), Marietta, Georgia, USA.
Environmental Technology (Impact Factor: 1.2). 04/2012; 33(20):2291-2298. DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2012.665493

ABSTRACT The effect of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) during electrokinetic decontamination (EKD) was investigated in this research. EDTA is a ligand that can form soluble complexes with precipitated heavy metals inside soil pores. Millpond sludge, primarily contaminated with lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn), was subjected to EKD with and without the presence of EDTA. Dilute EDTA solutions with strengths of 0.05M and 0.125M were injected into the millpond sludge by electroosmosis. Several beneficial effects of using EDTA were observed in this research: EDTA substantially increased the electroosmotic (EO) flow in the millpond sludge indicating that it could significantly reduce the duration of EKD. Another advantage was that a significantly higher percentage of Pb and Zn removal was achieved from the solid phase due to the complexation of EDTA with these heavy metals. Also, EDTA was able to prevent the precipitation of metals at the cathode electrode typically observed in EKD process.

Download full-text


Available from: M A Karim, Feb 25, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    • "These studies mainly focus on in situ soil treatment [12] [13] [14]. In addition, complexing ligands, such as EDTA, are also known to increase the electrochemical remediation of soil [15] [16] [17]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A two-step method for the remediation of three different types of lead (Pb)-contaminated soil was evaluated. The first step included soil washing with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) to remove Pb from soils. The washing experiments were performed with 0.05 M Na2EDTA at 1:10 soil to liquid ratio. Following the washing, Pb removal efficiency from soils ranged within 50-70%. After the soil washing process, Pb2+ ions in the washing solution were reduced electrochemically in a fixed-bed reactor. Lead removal efficiency with the electrochemical reduction at -2.0 V potential ranged within 57-76%. The overall results indicate that this two-step method is an environmentally-friendly and effective technology to remediate Pb-contaminated soils, as well as Pb-contaminated wastewater treatment due to the transformation of toxic Pb2+ ions into a non-hazardous metallic form (Pb(0)).
    Environmental Technology 01/2012; 34(5-8):799-805. DOI:10.1080/09593330.2012.717107 · 1.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We demonstrate here, in a pilot-scale experiment, the feasibility of ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA)based washing technology for soils contaminated with potentially toxic metals. Acid precipitation coupled to initial alkaline toxic metal removal and an electrochemical advanced oxidation process were used for average recovery of 76 +/- 2% of EDTA per batch and total recycle of water in a closed process loop. No waste water was generated; solid wastes were efficiently bitumen-stabilized before disposal. The technology embodiment, using conventional process equipment, such as a mixer for soil extraction, screen for soil/gravel separation, filter chamber presses for soil/liquid and recycled EDTA separation and soil rinsing, continuous centrifuge separator for removal of precipitated metals and electrolytic cells for process water cleansing, removed up to 72%, 25% and 66% of Pb, Zn and Cd from garden soil contaminated with up to 6960, 3797 and 32.6 mg kg(-1) of Pb, Zn and Cd, respectively, in nine 60kg soil batches. Concentrations of Pb and Zn remaining in the remediated soil and bioaccessible from the simulated human intestinal phase soil were reduced by 97% and 96% and were brought under the level of determination for Cd. In the most cost-effective operation mode, the material and energy costs of remediation amounted to 50.5 Euros ton(-1) soil and the total cost to 299 Euros ton(-1).
    Environmental Technology 01/2014; 35(9-12):1389-400. DOI:10.1080/09593330.2013.869265 · 1.20 Impact Factor

Similar Publications