SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 10
Remediation of TPH/PAHs Contaminated Soil
                   Using Soil Washing
              Rosario Iturbe, Luis G. Torres, Carlos R. Flores, Claudia Chávez ,
                                     Guadalupe Bautista

      Instituto de Ingeniería. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Coordinación
      de ingeniería ambiental. Grupo Tratamiento de Suelos y Acuíferos. México, D.F.,
                                            México.



                                    ABSTRACT
      This work deals with the treatment of a site contaminated mainly by gasoline and
      diesel, showing the presence of PAHs, MTBE, and BTEX. Soil washing was
      applied in three washing ditches of approximately 100 m3. Every ditch had one
      recycling and one sedimentation tank.

      A non-ionic surfactant, previously characterized, was employed in this work.
      Approximately 104 tons of soil were poured into each ditch and 18 m3 of a 0.5%
      surfactant solution was introduced to each basin. Then, soil and surfactant solution
      were mechanically agitated. After that, the surfactant solution with dissolved
      hydrocarbons was pumped out to the sedimentation tank. When solids sedimented,
      the solution was transferred to the recycling tank and then, to the washing tank.
      The process was repeated three times. As a polishing stage, 18 m3 of water were
      added to the soil.

        At the beginning and after every stage, samples of soil were taken and analyzed
      in accordance to EPA analytic techniques. Average soil washing TPH removal was
      83%. The soil treated reached the legislation limits (TPH values under 2,000
      mg/kg) and had a significant reduction in PAHs concentrations. At the end of the
      process the washed soil was poured at the original site.



                                INTRODUCTION
      A contaminated industrial site, which operated in Mexico from 1966 to 2000, was
contaminated with hydrocarbons. The site was characterized by our research group in
2000 (Iturbe et al. 2003a). The main conclusions were that the soil was contaminated
mainly by gasoline and diesel, showing the presence of methyl-tert-butyl-ether (MTBE),
benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes (BTEX). Nine of the 16 polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons were found, as well as Fe, Pb, V, and Zn. The health risk assessment
(HRA) suggested the necessity of reducing three of the PAHs (benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(b)fluoranthene), and vanadium. The estimated amount of soil
contaminated was 1,640 m3.
There are many available soil remediation methodologies, such as vapor extraction
systems, soil stabilization and solidification, thermal treatments, electrokinetic systems,
flushing and washing of soils, and biological methods, i.e, land farming, biopiles,
bioaugmentation, and phytoremediation (Iturbe et al. 1998). We have learned from our
experience in soil washing treatments that this methodology is cost-effective and easy to
apply in conditions similar to those found on the site under study. We have explored the
use of different anionic, and nonionic surfactants for washing highly contaminated sandy
soils (Torres et al. 2003), and the successful use of in situ flushing techniques (Iturbe et
al. 2003b) for remediation of oil-contaminated soils.

       The aim of this work is to show that soil washing is an excellent remediation
methodology to treat soils contaminated with petroleum derivates and metals. Applying
them, it is possible to reach the goal value of 2,000 mg TPH/kg, requested by Mexican
legislation, in a few months.



                 MATERIALS AND METHODS
Soil excavation and characterization
    Three zones were mainly contaminated by TPH, PAH, and gasoline fractions. The
first zone is where mobile-tanks were filled. The second zone corresponds to the railway,
and the third zone is around the wastewater treatment plant (map not shown). After
abandonment, pavement was retired, railway sleepers were removed and soil from these
zones was excavated with the appropriate equipment (backhoe/loader and skid steer-
loaders). Many times, rock was reached at about 0.5 m. Where necessary, extracted
stones, walls and floors were washed with surfactant solution. On table 1, some physical-
chemical properties of the contaminated soil are shown.

Analytical methods
      Soil samples were evaluated in accordance to EPA analytic techniques: EPA 418.1
for TPH; and EPA 8100 method for PAHs.

Soil washing
   For the soil washing processes, three washing ditches were built. Figure 1 shows the
dimensions of ditches (8.7 m x 7.4 m x 1.25 m). Every ditch has one recycling and one
sedimentation tank of about 4.3 m x 3.5 m x 1.25 m.

    A non-ionic surfactant, previously characterized (Torres et al., 2003) was employed in
this work (Canarcel TW80). Soil washing process was as follows. Approximately 104
tons of soil were poured into each ditch and 18 m3 of a 0.5% surfactant solution was
introduced to each basin. Then, soil and surfactant solution were mechanically mixed.
After that, the surfactant dissolved hydrocarbons solution was pumped out to the
sedimentation tank. When solids sedimented, the solution was transferred to the recycling
tank, and then to the washing tank. The process was repeated three times. As a polishing
stage, 18 m3 of clean water were added to the soil. At the beginning, and after every
stage, samples of soil were taken in order to evaluate TPH concentrations. Composed
samples were analyzed for PAH removal determination. Wastewater was pumped out,
and mixed with the washing solution for its appropriate treatment.



                   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
   Table 2 shows TPH concentrations for soil washing experimental batches (i.e., 1, 2, 3,
and 4), for every ditch. Initial concentrations Co, are compared with the TPH values
found at the end of stages 1, 2, and 3. As observed, only 3 of the washing experiments
required 3 stages (1A, 1B, and 1C). Most of the batches required 2 stages, and only two
of them needed only one washing stage (4A, and 4B). The TPH initial concentrations
were quite different (form 3,037 to 17,238 mg/kg soil). An average of 9,172 mg/kg. At
the end of the washing process, the TPH concentrations were quite variable, from 942 to
2,317 mg/kg (average = 1,520 mg/kg). For this reason, removal values fluctuated form
50.3 to 92.8 % (average = 83.42%). As observed, the higher the initial soil TPH
concentration, the higher the removal value. On figure 2, the relationship between initial
concentration and removal efficiencies is shown. This behavior is well represented by the
equation:

   Removal %= 0.0026 TPH initial concentration + 53.629 R2 = 0.7308 …              (1)

Figures 3a and 3b show the TPH concentrations for the first and final washing batches
respectively in the three ditches. The washing process was carried out until reaching a
TPH concentration equal or below 2,000 mg/kg, as suggested by PROFEPA (2000). Note
that batch 1 required 3 washing stages, batches 2, and 3 needed two stages, and batch 4
required only one stage, except for ditch 4C, which required of 2 stages. On the same
figures, it is noticeable that TPH concentration decaying curves have the form of an
exponential curve (figure 3a, as an example). Values were fitted to the form:

    TPH=a exp (b*number of washing stages), R2 =0.8565                            (2)

Correlation factors are good enough, except for experiment 1C (0.5602). This kind of
expression could help as a rule of thumb for anticipating how many washing stages are
necessary in order to get a desired final TPH concentration during the washing process.

        It is possible to estimate the amount of TPH removed from soil for every washing
process using the initial and final TPH concentrations, and the amount of soil. During
washing process, 104 tons of soils were processed on ditches A, and B, while
approximately 143 tons of soils were processed at ditch C (average soil density of 1.7
g/cm3). On the other hand, it can be assumed that the amount of surfactant employed in
every washing process is 0.18 m3 water x 5 kg/m3 surfactant = 90 kg of surfactant, for
ditches A and B. As every surfactant solution is employed thrice, it can be assumed that
every batch consumes 30 kg of surfactant. For ditch C, the amount of employed water is
24.8 tons, giving a total of 123 kg and 123/4 kg per batch process. Defining a new
removal efficiency as the amount (in grams) of TPH removed per g of employed
surfactant, values between 7.88 and 55.45 mg TPH/mg surfactant can be achieved, as
observed in table 2. Note that, in general, the higher the initial TPH soil concentration,
the higher the removal efficiency as g TPH/g surfactant.
Figure 4 shows the relationship between that removal efficiency (g TPH/g
surfactant), and the percent removal. It is remarkable that the higher the percent removal,
the higher the amount in g of TPH removed by g of surfactant, but the function is no
linear. Data were adjusted to an exponential curve, giving the following equation:

 Removal efficiency = 0.4305 exp (0.05*removal), R2=0.8565                            (3)

        This means that with the washing of soils with low TPH concentrations by means
of a 0.5% surfactant solution, low percent removals are obtained, besides with very low
removal efficiencies, therefore wasting a lot of surfactant.

        It is noteworthy that the soil initial TPHs concentration affects the whole washing
process. Three blocks were considered. The first one shows the experiences within a high
concentration range (12,000-18,00 mg/kg). Runs 1A, 4C, 3B, and 1B were included.
They had an average initial concentration of 14,379, an average percent removal of
89.35%, and a removal efficiency of 44 g TPH/g surfactant. The second block considers
the moderate concentration range (8,000-11,000 mg/kg), runs 3C, 2B, 2A and 3A. As
noted, they had an initial soil TPH concentration of 9,346, an average percent removal of
83.6%, and an average removal efficiency of 28.62 g TPH/g surfactant. At the end, the
block of low range concentrations (3,000-5,000 mg/kg) include the runs 2C, 1C, 4B, and
4A. They had an average initial concentration of 3,804 mg/kg, an average percent
removal of 60%, and average removal efficiency of 11.63 g TPH/g surfactant. This means
that using a 0.5% surfactant solution for washing low TPH concentration soils, losses in
removal efficiency of 16 and 32 mg TPH/g surfactant are obtained, if compared with the
moderate TPH concentration and high TPH concentration soils, respectively. These
figures suggest the future use of surfactant solutions with lower concentrations,
appropriated for the TPG amount to remove.

   Table 3 shows the PAHs concentrations in a composed sample of soil, before and after
the soil washing process. Carcinogenic PAHs are highlighted in italics. In addition, the
percent removals, and required cleaning levels suggested by the health risk assessment
(PROFEPA 2000), are included for comparison purposes. As noted, from the 16 PAH
considered by USEPA, 14 were found in the soil under treatment. Only acenaphthylene,
and benzo(k)fluoranthene were not detected. The PAH which appeared in higher
concentrations were pyrene (9.88 mg/kg), naphthalene, and benzo(a)anthracene, both
with 6.69 mg/kg. PAHs removals due to the soil washing process were in the range of
47.8 to 100%. The case of fluoranthene is quite unusual, since an increase of 33% was
observed due to the washing process. This fact could be related with soil heterogeneities.
The PAH less removed from soils was chrysene (47.8%), but no required cleaning level
is suggested for this aromatic hydrocarbon. On the other hand, naphthalene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, fluorene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indene(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and
acenaphthene were removed in a 100%.

   A very rough calculation of washing soil process costs, including labor, building
materials, pumping and tubing, ditches construction, storage tanks, and surfactant costs,
among others, gives a total cost of $140/m3 or $67/kg TPH removed. Lowe et al. (1999)
report cost estimations for flushing technologies in the following ranges: the minimum
and maximum are between 84 and 774 $/m3. Finally, if volume of NAPL removed is the
target parameter, costs between 6 and 63 $/L are the typical. As noted, the costs involved
in the washing process are on the range of the typical costs for in situ flushing
methodologies.
CONCLUSIONS
•   Soil washing process (approximately 1,540 m3) started with TPH average
    concentrations of 10 138 mg/kg. Percent removals in the range of 55.3 to 92.8%
    were observed (83.4% in average). Removal resulted in a direct function of the
    initial TPH concentration. The ratio g TPH/g surfactant showed values between 6.8
    and 55.4 for the different washing batches, and resulted a quadratic function of the
    percent removal values.

•   The contaminated soil was treated successfully, reaching the legislation limits i.e.,
    TPH values under 2,000 mg/kg, and a significant reduction in PAHs concentrations.

•   A very rough calculation of washing soil process costs, including labor, building
    materials, pumping and tubing, ditches construction, storage tanks, and surfactant
    costs, among others, gives a total cost of $140/m3, or $67/kg TPH removed.



                                 REFERENCES

Iturbe R, Castro A, and Madrigal I., “Soil and aquifer remediation techniques”, (In
Spanish). Series del Instituto de Ingeniería. Mexico. ISSN 0185-2345. 612 (1998).

Iturbe R, Flores RM, and Torres LG., “Subsoil contaminated by hydrocarbons in an out
of service oil distribution and storage station in Zacatecas, Mexico,” Env. Geol.. ,608-620
(2003a).

Iturbe R, Flores C, Chávez C, Ramírez A, and Torres LG., “In situ flushing of
contaminated soils from a refinery organic compounds and metal removals”,
Remediation, submitted. (2003 b).

Lowe DF, Oubre CL and Ward C.H, Surfactants and Cosolvents for NAPL
Remediation,USA,. Lewis Publishers (1999).

Mulligan CN, Yong RN, and Gibbs BF., “Surfactant-enhanced remediation of
contaminated soil: a review”, Eng. Geol., 60, 371-380, (2001)

Simpkin T, Sale T, Kueper B, Pitts M., and Wyatt K., Surfactants and cosolvents for
NAPL remediation, A technology manual, USA, Lewis Publishers, USA,(1999).

Torres LG, Orantes JL and Iturbe R “Three surfactants CMC and diesel removal
efficiencies from sandy soils highly contaminated”, Env. Geosc., In press. (2003).
Table 1. Physical-chemical properties of the contaminated soil
       Initial characterization (Iturbe et al., 2003a)
Bulk density                         1.7 g/cm3
Porosity                             0.38
Organic carbon fraction              0.0074
Hydraulic conductivity               8.6x10-4 cm/s
pH                                   7.8




Table 2. Analysis of the washing of soils as a function of the soil TPH-
concentration range.


Concentration
Range (mg/kg)         Batch/Ditch Initial    Removal Removal efficiency
                                 concentration       (gTPH/g surfactant)
                                   (mg/kg)
High
(12,000-18,000)       1A             17,238        92.8          55.45
                      4C             15,064        90.4          47.11
                      3B             12,989        87.2          39.27
                      1B             12,224        87.0          36.90
                      Average        14,379        89.3          44.68
Moderate
(8,000-12,000)
                      3C             10,291        85.2          30.34
                      2B             9,483         81.6          26.84
                      2A             9,438         90.0          29.61
                      3A             8,171         77.6          22.00
                      Average        9,346         83.6          27.20
Low
(3,000-8,000)
                     2C           4,666            50.3          8.13
                     1C           4,252            55.3          8.13
                     4B           3,261            69.7          7.88
                     4A           3,037            64.6          6.80
                    Average       3,804            60.0          7.73
Table 3. PAH concentrations in a composed sample of soil before and after soil washing
process

       Compound            Initial concentration      Final            Removal
                                  (mg/kg)          concentration              (%)
                                                     (mg/kg)


Pyrene                           9.88                   1.08              89
Naphthalene                      6.69                   ND                100
Benzo(a)anthracene               6.69                   0.57              91.5
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene             6.42                   ND                100
Anthracene                       4.43                   0.39              91.2
Fluorene                         4.25                   ND                100
Phenanthrene                     3.14                   1.08              65.6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene             2.35                   0.76              67.6
Chrysene                         2.03                   1.06              47.8
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene            1.94                   ND                100
Benzo(a)pyrene                   1.42                   0.56              60.6
Fluoranthene                     0.767                  1.02              -
Indene(1,2,3-cd)pyrene           0.414                  ND                100
Acenaphthene                     0.102                  ND                100
Acenaphthylene                   ND                     ND                -
Benzo(k)fluoranthene             ND                     ND                -
Total PAHs                       50.52                  6.52              87.1
               ND, not detected, NR not reported, carcinogenic PAHs in bold
Figure 1. Soil washing ditch diagram



              120.00


              100.00


               80.00
Removal (%)




               60.00
                                            y = 0.0026x + 53.666
                                                     2
               40.00                                R = 0.73


               20.00


                0.00
                       0      5,000        10,000         15,000   20,000
                              TPH initial concentration (mg/kg)


                Figure 2. TPH Removal as a function of TPH initial concentrations
20,000




                             TPH concentration (mg/kg)
                                                         16,000                                                Dicht A
                                                                                      y = 31400e
                                                                                                   -0.8919x    Dicht B
                                                         12,000                          2
                                                                                        R = 0.9073             Dicht C

                                                          8,000

                                                          4,000

                                                             0
                                                                       Co        C1                 C2           C3
                                                                                  Washing stage



                               Figure 3 a. TPH concentrations. Batch 1, ditch A, B, and C



                            20,000
                            18,000
TPH concnetration (mg/kg)




                            16,000                                                                            Dicht A

                            14,000                                                                            Dicht B

                            12,000                                                                            Dicht C
                            10,000
                             8,000
                             6,000
                             4,000
                             2,000
                                                         0
                                                                  Co        C1                C2               C3
                                                                             Washing stage


                                  Figure 3b. TPH concentrations. Batch 4, ditch A, B, and C
80.00




 Removal efficiency (gTPH/g surfactant)
                                          70.00      y = 0.4305e
                                                                   0.05x

                                                        2
                                          60.00       R = 0.8565

                                          50.00

                                          40.00

                                          30.00

                                          20.00

                                          10.00

                                           0.00
                                              0.00   20.00    40.00           60.00   80.00   100.00   120.00
                                                                           Removal (%)



Figure 4. Removal efficiency as a function of TPH removal

More Related Content

What's hot

Item 6: Uog soil labs functions aspac brisbane_oct 2019
Item 6: Uog soil labs functions aspac brisbane_oct 2019Item 6: Uog soil labs functions aspac brisbane_oct 2019
Item 6: Uog soil labs functions aspac brisbane_oct 2019Soils FAO-GSP
 
Adsorption of Methylene Blue From Aqueous Solution with Vermicompost Produced...
Adsorption of Methylene Blue From Aqueous Solution with Vermicompost Produced...Adsorption of Methylene Blue From Aqueous Solution with Vermicompost Produced...
Adsorption of Methylene Blue From Aqueous Solution with Vermicompost Produced...IJMERJOURNAL
 
Tannic acid power point presentation
Tannic acid power point presentationTannic acid power point presentation
Tannic acid power point presentationISHAQ SULAIMAN MUKTAR
 
Residuos de flores como adsorventes de bajo costo
Residuos de flores como adsorventes de bajo costoResiduos de flores como adsorventes de bajo costo
Residuos de flores como adsorventes de bajo costoEmiy Nicole
 
Suzuki, Anzai, Matsumoto - Groundwater and soil pollution.
Suzuki, Anzai, Matsumoto - Groundwater and soil pollution.Suzuki, Anzai, Matsumoto - Groundwater and soil pollution.
Suzuki, Anzai, Matsumoto - Groundwater and soil pollution.Sustainable Summits Initiative
 
Adsorptive Removal of Methylene Blue Using Groundnut Shell Activated Carbon C...
Adsorptive Removal of Methylene Blue Using Groundnut Shell Activated Carbon C...Adsorptive Removal of Methylene Blue Using Groundnut Shell Activated Carbon C...
Adsorptive Removal of Methylene Blue Using Groundnut Shell Activated Carbon C...IOSRJAC
 
Dye removal from waste water by using low cost adsorbent: A review
Dye removal from waste water by using low cost adsorbent: A review Dye removal from waste water by using low cost adsorbent: A review
Dye removal from waste water by using low cost adsorbent: A review Satish Movaliya
 
Arsenic removal from water using activated carbon
Arsenic removal from water using activated carbonArsenic removal from water using activated carbon
Arsenic removal from water using activated carboneSAT Publishing House
 
Optimal Process Parameters for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Thermally ...
Optimal Process Parameters for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Thermally ...Optimal Process Parameters for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Thermally ...
Optimal Process Parameters for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Thermally ...inventionjournals
 
exp 2 adsorbtion from solution
exp 2 adsorbtion from solutionexp 2 adsorbtion from solution
exp 2 adsorbtion from solutionRashid Alsuwaidi
 
Retention Behavior of Lead Ion in Soil Bentonite Liner
Retention Behavior of Lead Ion in Soil Bentonite LinerRetention Behavior of Lead Ion in Soil Bentonite Liner
Retention Behavior of Lead Ion in Soil Bentonite LinerIJERA Editor
 

What's hot (18)

Item 6: Uog soil labs functions aspac brisbane_oct 2019
Item 6: Uog soil labs functions aspac brisbane_oct 2019Item 6: Uog soil labs functions aspac brisbane_oct 2019
Item 6: Uog soil labs functions aspac brisbane_oct 2019
 
Adsorption of Methylene Blue From Aqueous Solution with Vermicompost Produced...
Adsorption of Methylene Blue From Aqueous Solution with Vermicompost Produced...Adsorption of Methylene Blue From Aqueous Solution with Vermicompost Produced...
Adsorption of Methylene Blue From Aqueous Solution with Vermicompost Produced...
 
Tannic acid power point presentation
Tannic acid power point presentationTannic acid power point presentation
Tannic acid power point presentation
 
JSEHR 1(1)-7
JSEHR 1(1)-7JSEHR 1(1)-7
JSEHR 1(1)-7
 
Residuos de flores como adsorventes de bajo costo
Residuos de flores como adsorventes de bajo costoResiduos de flores como adsorventes de bajo costo
Residuos de flores como adsorventes de bajo costo
 
Jeas 0915 2655 (2)
Jeas 0915 2655 (2)Jeas 0915 2655 (2)
Jeas 0915 2655 (2)
 
Suzuki, Anzai, Matsumoto - Groundwater and soil pollution.
Suzuki, Anzai, Matsumoto - Groundwater and soil pollution.Suzuki, Anzai, Matsumoto - Groundwater and soil pollution.
Suzuki, Anzai, Matsumoto - Groundwater and soil pollution.
 
Adsorptive Removal of Methylene Blue Using Groundnut Shell Activated Carbon C...
Adsorptive Removal of Methylene Blue Using Groundnut Shell Activated Carbon C...Adsorptive Removal of Methylene Blue Using Groundnut Shell Activated Carbon C...
Adsorptive Removal of Methylene Blue Using Groundnut Shell Activated Carbon C...
 
Dye removal from waste water by using low cost adsorbent: A review
Dye removal from waste water by using low cost adsorbent: A review Dye removal from waste water by using low cost adsorbent: A review
Dye removal from waste water by using low cost adsorbent: A review
 
Adsorption
AdsorptionAdsorption
Adsorption
 
Arsenic removal from water using activated carbon
Arsenic removal from water using activated carbonArsenic removal from water using activated carbon
Arsenic removal from water using activated carbon
 
Biogas from-cane-stalk
Biogas from-cane-stalkBiogas from-cane-stalk
Biogas from-cane-stalk
 
Optimal Process Parameters for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Thermally ...
Optimal Process Parameters for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Thermally ...Optimal Process Parameters for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Thermally ...
Optimal Process Parameters for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Thermally ...
 
20320140503017 2
20320140503017 220320140503017 2
20320140503017 2
 
exp 2 adsorbtion from solution
exp 2 adsorbtion from solutionexp 2 adsorbtion from solution
exp 2 adsorbtion from solution
 
Retention Behavior of Lead Ion in Soil Bentonite Liner
Retention Behavior of Lead Ion in Soil Bentonite LinerRetention Behavior of Lead Ion in Soil Bentonite Liner
Retention Behavior of Lead Ion in Soil Bentonite Liner
 
Adsorption presentation
Adsorption  presentationAdsorption  presentation
Adsorption presentation
 
Adsorption
AdsorptionAdsorption
Adsorption
 

Similar to Iturbe torres flores_chavez_bautista_47

Carbonate removal by acid fumigation for measuring 13 c
Carbonate removal by acid fumigation for measuring 13 cCarbonate removal by acid fumigation for measuring 13 c
Carbonate removal by acid fumigation for measuring 13 cMahbubul Hassan
 
Soil & Sediment Contamination 10(6) 2001
Soil & Sediment Contamination 10(6) 2001Soil & Sediment Contamination 10(6) 2001
Soil & Sediment Contamination 10(6) 2001Turlough Guerin
 
Mineralization of Carbon from Sewage sludge in three soils of the Argentine p...
Mineralization of Carbon from Sewage sludge in three soils of the Argentine p...Mineralization of Carbon from Sewage sludge in three soils of the Argentine p...
Mineralization of Carbon from Sewage sludge in three soils of the Argentine p...Silvana Torri
 
Desorption of TCE from MGP DNAPL 2011
Desorption of TCE from MGP DNAPL 2011Desorption of TCE from MGP DNAPL 2011
Desorption of TCE from MGP DNAPL 2011James Peale
 
The Effect Of Rice Cultivars On Methane Emission From Irrigated Rice Field
The Effect Of Rice Cultivars On Methane Emission From Irrigated Rice FieldThe Effect Of Rice Cultivars On Methane Emission From Irrigated Rice Field
The Effect Of Rice Cultivars On Methane Emission From Irrigated Rice FieldChristina Parmionova
 
P&T RegenOx ORC Adv in Herts UK
P&T RegenOx ORC Adv in Herts UKP&T RegenOx ORC Adv in Herts UK
P&T RegenOx ORC Adv in Herts UKgleonard35
 
Soil Organic Carbon stabilization in compost amended soils
Soil Organic Carbon stabilization in compost amended soilsSoil Organic Carbon stabilization in compost amended soils
Soil Organic Carbon stabilization in compost amended soilsExternalEvents
 
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)IJERD Editor
 
Comparatives Study of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) under Forest, Cultivated and ...
Comparatives Study of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) under Forest, Cultivated and ...Comparatives Study of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) under Forest, Cultivated and ...
Comparatives Study of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) under Forest, Cultivated and ...Surendra Bam
 
Microbial ethylene production and inhibition of methanotrophic activity in a ...
Microbial ethylene production and inhibition of methanotrophic activity in a ...Microbial ethylene production and inhibition of methanotrophic activity in a ...
Microbial ethylene production and inhibition of methanotrophic activity in a ...Gyeongsang National University, Korea
 
Composting characteristics of cow manure with bulking Agent in a batch composter
Composting characteristics of cow manure with bulking Agent in a batch composterComposting characteristics of cow manure with bulking Agent in a batch composter
Composting characteristics of cow manure with bulking Agent in a batch composterirjes
 
Occurrence and Attenuation 2014
Occurrence and Attenuation 2014Occurrence and Attenuation 2014
Occurrence and Attenuation 2014James Peale
 
Use of incinerated rice husk for adsorption of reactive dye from aqueous solu...
Use of incinerated rice husk for adsorption of reactive dye from aqueous solu...Use of incinerated rice husk for adsorption of reactive dye from aqueous solu...
Use of incinerated rice husk for adsorption of reactive dye from aqueous solu...Alexander Decker
 
International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)
International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)
International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)inventionjournals
 
41.Effect of organic amendments on the Biochemical transformations under diff...
41.Effect of organic amendments on the Biochemical transformations under diff...41.Effect of organic amendments on the Biochemical transformations under diff...
41.Effect of organic amendments on the Biochemical transformations under diff...Annadurai B
 
Landfill Liner I-175 FP
Landfill Liner I-175 FPLandfill Liner I-175 FP
Landfill Liner I-175 FPMani Bhargava
 

Similar to Iturbe torres flores_chavez_bautista_47 (20)

Cleaning up contaminated soil
Cleaning up contaminated soilCleaning up contaminated soil
Cleaning up contaminated soil
 
Carbonate removal by acid fumigation for measuring 13 c
Carbonate removal by acid fumigation for measuring 13 cCarbonate removal by acid fumigation for measuring 13 c
Carbonate removal by acid fumigation for measuring 13 c
 
Soil & Sediment Contamination 10(6) 2001
Soil & Sediment Contamination 10(6) 2001Soil & Sediment Contamination 10(6) 2001
Soil & Sediment Contamination 10(6) 2001
 
Mineralization of Carbon from Sewage sludge in three soils of the Argentine p...
Mineralization of Carbon from Sewage sludge in three soils of the Argentine p...Mineralization of Carbon from Sewage sludge in three soils of the Argentine p...
Mineralization of Carbon from Sewage sludge in three soils of the Argentine p...
 
Desorption of TCE from MGP DNAPL 2011
Desorption of TCE from MGP DNAPL 2011Desorption of TCE from MGP DNAPL 2011
Desorption of TCE from MGP DNAPL 2011
 
Leachate Treatment
Leachate TreatmentLeachate Treatment
Leachate Treatment
 
The Effect Of Rice Cultivars On Methane Emission From Irrigated Rice Field
The Effect Of Rice Cultivars On Methane Emission From Irrigated Rice FieldThe Effect Of Rice Cultivars On Methane Emission From Irrigated Rice Field
The Effect Of Rice Cultivars On Methane Emission From Irrigated Rice Field
 
P&T RegenOx ORC Adv in Herts UK
P&T RegenOx ORC Adv in Herts UKP&T RegenOx ORC Adv in Herts UK
P&T RegenOx ORC Adv in Herts UK
 
Soil Organic Carbon stabilization in compost amended soils
Soil Organic Carbon stabilization in compost amended soilsSoil Organic Carbon stabilization in compost amended soils
Soil Organic Carbon stabilization in compost amended soils
 
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)
 
Comparatives Study of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) under Forest, Cultivated and ...
Comparatives Study of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) under Forest, Cultivated and ...Comparatives Study of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) under Forest, Cultivated and ...
Comparatives Study of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) under Forest, Cultivated and ...
 
Microbial ethylene production and inhibition of methanotrophic activity in a ...
Microbial ethylene production and inhibition of methanotrophic activity in a ...Microbial ethylene production and inhibition of methanotrophic activity in a ...
Microbial ethylene production and inhibition of methanotrophic activity in a ...
 
Composting characteristics of cow manure with bulking Agent in a batch composter
Composting characteristics of cow manure with bulking Agent in a batch composterComposting characteristics of cow manure with bulking Agent in a batch composter
Composting characteristics of cow manure with bulking Agent in a batch composter
 
Occurrence and Attenuation 2014
Occurrence and Attenuation 2014Occurrence and Attenuation 2014
Occurrence and Attenuation 2014
 
Use of incinerated rice husk for adsorption of reactive dye from aqueous solu...
Use of incinerated rice husk for adsorption of reactive dye from aqueous solu...Use of incinerated rice husk for adsorption of reactive dye from aqueous solu...
Use of incinerated rice husk for adsorption of reactive dye from aqueous solu...
 
5.pdf
5.pdf5.pdf
5.pdf
 
International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)
International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)
International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)
 
3.pdf
3.pdf3.pdf
3.pdf
 
41.Effect of organic amendments on the Biochemical transformations under diff...
41.Effect of organic amendments on the Biochemical transformations under diff...41.Effect of organic amendments on the Biochemical transformations under diff...
41.Effect of organic amendments on the Biochemical transformations under diff...
 
Landfill Liner I-175 FP
Landfill Liner I-175 FPLandfill Liner I-175 FP
Landfill Liner I-175 FP
 

Recently uploaded

Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationUsing IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationIES VE
 
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1DianaGray10
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8DianaGray10
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding TeamAdam Moalla
 
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystemBird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystemAsko Soukka
 
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.YounusS2
 
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just MinutesAI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just MinutesMd Hossain Ali
 
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPathCommunity
 
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Commit University
 
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online CollaborationCOMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaborationbruanjhuli
 
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024SkyPlanner
 
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureOpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureEric D. Schabell
 
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019IES VE
 
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdfUiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdfDianaGray10
 
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarAI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarPrecisely
 
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024D Cloud Solutions
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfinfogdgmi
 
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdfNanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdfPedro Manuel
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationUsing IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
 
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 8
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
 
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystemBird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
 
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
Basic Building Blocks of Internet of Things.
 
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just MinutesAI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
 
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
 
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
 
20230104 - machine vision
20230104 - machine vision20230104 - machine vision
20230104 - machine vision
 
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online CollaborationCOMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
 
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
 
201610817 - edge part1
201610817 - edge part1201610817 - edge part1
201610817 - edge part1
 
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureOpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
 
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
IESVE Software for Florida Code Compliance Using ASHRAE 90.1-2019
 
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdfUiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
 
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarAI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
 
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
Artificial Intelligence & SEO Trends for 2024
 
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdfVideogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
Videogame localization & technology_ how to enhance the power of translation.pdf
 
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdfNanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
 

Iturbe torres flores_chavez_bautista_47

  • 1. Remediation of TPH/PAHs Contaminated Soil Using Soil Washing Rosario Iturbe, Luis G. Torres, Carlos R. Flores, Claudia Chávez , Guadalupe Bautista Instituto de Ingeniería. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Coordinación de ingeniería ambiental. Grupo Tratamiento de Suelos y Acuíferos. México, D.F., México. ABSTRACT This work deals with the treatment of a site contaminated mainly by gasoline and diesel, showing the presence of PAHs, MTBE, and BTEX. Soil washing was applied in three washing ditches of approximately 100 m3. Every ditch had one recycling and one sedimentation tank. A non-ionic surfactant, previously characterized, was employed in this work. Approximately 104 tons of soil were poured into each ditch and 18 m3 of a 0.5% surfactant solution was introduced to each basin. Then, soil and surfactant solution were mechanically agitated. After that, the surfactant solution with dissolved hydrocarbons was pumped out to the sedimentation tank. When solids sedimented, the solution was transferred to the recycling tank and then, to the washing tank. The process was repeated three times. As a polishing stage, 18 m3 of water were added to the soil. At the beginning and after every stage, samples of soil were taken and analyzed in accordance to EPA analytic techniques. Average soil washing TPH removal was 83%. The soil treated reached the legislation limits (TPH values under 2,000 mg/kg) and had a significant reduction in PAHs concentrations. At the end of the process the washed soil was poured at the original site. INTRODUCTION A contaminated industrial site, which operated in Mexico from 1966 to 2000, was contaminated with hydrocarbons. The site was characterized by our research group in 2000 (Iturbe et al. 2003a). The main conclusions were that the soil was contaminated mainly by gasoline and diesel, showing the presence of methyl-tert-butyl-ether (MTBE), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes (BTEX). Nine of the 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found, as well as Fe, Pb, V, and Zn. The health risk assessment (HRA) suggested the necessity of reducing three of the PAHs (benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(b)fluoranthene), and vanadium. The estimated amount of soil contaminated was 1,640 m3.
  • 2. There are many available soil remediation methodologies, such as vapor extraction systems, soil stabilization and solidification, thermal treatments, electrokinetic systems, flushing and washing of soils, and biological methods, i.e, land farming, biopiles, bioaugmentation, and phytoremediation (Iturbe et al. 1998). We have learned from our experience in soil washing treatments that this methodology is cost-effective and easy to apply in conditions similar to those found on the site under study. We have explored the use of different anionic, and nonionic surfactants for washing highly contaminated sandy soils (Torres et al. 2003), and the successful use of in situ flushing techniques (Iturbe et al. 2003b) for remediation of oil-contaminated soils. The aim of this work is to show that soil washing is an excellent remediation methodology to treat soils contaminated with petroleum derivates and metals. Applying them, it is possible to reach the goal value of 2,000 mg TPH/kg, requested by Mexican legislation, in a few months. MATERIALS AND METHODS Soil excavation and characterization Three zones were mainly contaminated by TPH, PAH, and gasoline fractions. The first zone is where mobile-tanks were filled. The second zone corresponds to the railway, and the third zone is around the wastewater treatment plant (map not shown). After abandonment, pavement was retired, railway sleepers were removed and soil from these zones was excavated with the appropriate equipment (backhoe/loader and skid steer- loaders). Many times, rock was reached at about 0.5 m. Where necessary, extracted stones, walls and floors were washed with surfactant solution. On table 1, some physical- chemical properties of the contaminated soil are shown. Analytical methods Soil samples were evaluated in accordance to EPA analytic techniques: EPA 418.1 for TPH; and EPA 8100 method for PAHs. Soil washing For the soil washing processes, three washing ditches were built. Figure 1 shows the dimensions of ditches (8.7 m x 7.4 m x 1.25 m). Every ditch has one recycling and one sedimentation tank of about 4.3 m x 3.5 m x 1.25 m. A non-ionic surfactant, previously characterized (Torres et al., 2003) was employed in this work (Canarcel TW80). Soil washing process was as follows. Approximately 104 tons of soil were poured into each ditch and 18 m3 of a 0.5% surfactant solution was introduced to each basin. Then, soil and surfactant solution were mechanically mixed. After that, the surfactant dissolved hydrocarbons solution was pumped out to the sedimentation tank. When solids sedimented, the solution was transferred to the recycling tank, and then to the washing tank. The process was repeated three times. As a polishing stage, 18 m3 of clean water were added to the soil. At the beginning, and after every stage, samples of soil were taken in order to evaluate TPH concentrations. Composed
  • 3. samples were analyzed for PAH removal determination. Wastewater was pumped out, and mixed with the washing solution for its appropriate treatment. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2 shows TPH concentrations for soil washing experimental batches (i.e., 1, 2, 3, and 4), for every ditch. Initial concentrations Co, are compared with the TPH values found at the end of stages 1, 2, and 3. As observed, only 3 of the washing experiments required 3 stages (1A, 1B, and 1C). Most of the batches required 2 stages, and only two of them needed only one washing stage (4A, and 4B). The TPH initial concentrations were quite different (form 3,037 to 17,238 mg/kg soil). An average of 9,172 mg/kg. At the end of the washing process, the TPH concentrations were quite variable, from 942 to 2,317 mg/kg (average = 1,520 mg/kg). For this reason, removal values fluctuated form 50.3 to 92.8 % (average = 83.42%). As observed, the higher the initial soil TPH concentration, the higher the removal value. On figure 2, the relationship between initial concentration and removal efficiencies is shown. This behavior is well represented by the equation: Removal %= 0.0026 TPH initial concentration + 53.629 R2 = 0.7308 … (1) Figures 3a and 3b show the TPH concentrations for the first and final washing batches respectively in the three ditches. The washing process was carried out until reaching a TPH concentration equal or below 2,000 mg/kg, as suggested by PROFEPA (2000). Note that batch 1 required 3 washing stages, batches 2, and 3 needed two stages, and batch 4 required only one stage, except for ditch 4C, which required of 2 stages. On the same figures, it is noticeable that TPH concentration decaying curves have the form of an exponential curve (figure 3a, as an example). Values were fitted to the form: TPH=a exp (b*number of washing stages), R2 =0.8565 (2) Correlation factors are good enough, except for experiment 1C (0.5602). This kind of expression could help as a rule of thumb for anticipating how many washing stages are necessary in order to get a desired final TPH concentration during the washing process. It is possible to estimate the amount of TPH removed from soil for every washing process using the initial and final TPH concentrations, and the amount of soil. During washing process, 104 tons of soils were processed on ditches A, and B, while approximately 143 tons of soils were processed at ditch C (average soil density of 1.7 g/cm3). On the other hand, it can be assumed that the amount of surfactant employed in every washing process is 0.18 m3 water x 5 kg/m3 surfactant = 90 kg of surfactant, for ditches A and B. As every surfactant solution is employed thrice, it can be assumed that every batch consumes 30 kg of surfactant. For ditch C, the amount of employed water is 24.8 tons, giving a total of 123 kg and 123/4 kg per batch process. Defining a new removal efficiency as the amount (in grams) of TPH removed per g of employed surfactant, values between 7.88 and 55.45 mg TPH/mg surfactant can be achieved, as observed in table 2. Note that, in general, the higher the initial TPH soil concentration, the higher the removal efficiency as g TPH/g surfactant.
  • 4. Figure 4 shows the relationship between that removal efficiency (g TPH/g surfactant), and the percent removal. It is remarkable that the higher the percent removal, the higher the amount in g of TPH removed by g of surfactant, but the function is no linear. Data were adjusted to an exponential curve, giving the following equation: Removal efficiency = 0.4305 exp (0.05*removal), R2=0.8565 (3) This means that with the washing of soils with low TPH concentrations by means of a 0.5% surfactant solution, low percent removals are obtained, besides with very low removal efficiencies, therefore wasting a lot of surfactant. It is noteworthy that the soil initial TPHs concentration affects the whole washing process. Three blocks were considered. The first one shows the experiences within a high concentration range (12,000-18,00 mg/kg). Runs 1A, 4C, 3B, and 1B were included. They had an average initial concentration of 14,379, an average percent removal of 89.35%, and a removal efficiency of 44 g TPH/g surfactant. The second block considers the moderate concentration range (8,000-11,000 mg/kg), runs 3C, 2B, 2A and 3A. As noted, they had an initial soil TPH concentration of 9,346, an average percent removal of 83.6%, and an average removal efficiency of 28.62 g TPH/g surfactant. At the end, the block of low range concentrations (3,000-5,000 mg/kg) include the runs 2C, 1C, 4B, and 4A. They had an average initial concentration of 3,804 mg/kg, an average percent removal of 60%, and average removal efficiency of 11.63 g TPH/g surfactant. This means that using a 0.5% surfactant solution for washing low TPH concentration soils, losses in removal efficiency of 16 and 32 mg TPH/g surfactant are obtained, if compared with the moderate TPH concentration and high TPH concentration soils, respectively. These figures suggest the future use of surfactant solutions with lower concentrations, appropriated for the TPG amount to remove. Table 3 shows the PAHs concentrations in a composed sample of soil, before and after the soil washing process. Carcinogenic PAHs are highlighted in italics. In addition, the percent removals, and required cleaning levels suggested by the health risk assessment (PROFEPA 2000), are included for comparison purposes. As noted, from the 16 PAH considered by USEPA, 14 were found in the soil under treatment. Only acenaphthylene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene were not detected. The PAH which appeared in higher concentrations were pyrene (9.88 mg/kg), naphthalene, and benzo(a)anthracene, both with 6.69 mg/kg. PAHs removals due to the soil washing process were in the range of 47.8 to 100%. The case of fluoranthene is quite unusual, since an increase of 33% was observed due to the washing process. This fact could be related with soil heterogeneities. The PAH less removed from soils was chrysene (47.8%), but no required cleaning level is suggested for this aromatic hydrocarbon. On the other hand, naphthalene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, fluorene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indene(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and acenaphthene were removed in a 100%. A very rough calculation of washing soil process costs, including labor, building materials, pumping and tubing, ditches construction, storage tanks, and surfactant costs, among others, gives a total cost of $140/m3 or $67/kg TPH removed. Lowe et al. (1999) report cost estimations for flushing technologies in the following ranges: the minimum and maximum are between 84 and 774 $/m3. Finally, if volume of NAPL removed is the target parameter, costs between 6 and 63 $/L are the typical. As noted, the costs involved in the washing process are on the range of the typical costs for in situ flushing methodologies.
  • 5. CONCLUSIONS • Soil washing process (approximately 1,540 m3) started with TPH average concentrations of 10 138 mg/kg. Percent removals in the range of 55.3 to 92.8% were observed (83.4% in average). Removal resulted in a direct function of the initial TPH concentration. The ratio g TPH/g surfactant showed values between 6.8 and 55.4 for the different washing batches, and resulted a quadratic function of the percent removal values. • The contaminated soil was treated successfully, reaching the legislation limits i.e., TPH values under 2,000 mg/kg, and a significant reduction in PAHs concentrations. • A very rough calculation of washing soil process costs, including labor, building materials, pumping and tubing, ditches construction, storage tanks, and surfactant costs, among others, gives a total cost of $140/m3, or $67/kg TPH removed. REFERENCES Iturbe R, Castro A, and Madrigal I., “Soil and aquifer remediation techniques”, (In Spanish). Series del Instituto de Ingeniería. Mexico. ISSN 0185-2345. 612 (1998). Iturbe R, Flores RM, and Torres LG., “Subsoil contaminated by hydrocarbons in an out of service oil distribution and storage station in Zacatecas, Mexico,” Env. Geol.. ,608-620 (2003a). Iturbe R, Flores C, Chávez C, Ramírez A, and Torres LG., “In situ flushing of contaminated soils from a refinery organic compounds and metal removals”, Remediation, submitted. (2003 b). Lowe DF, Oubre CL and Ward C.H, Surfactants and Cosolvents for NAPL Remediation,USA,. Lewis Publishers (1999). Mulligan CN, Yong RN, and Gibbs BF., “Surfactant-enhanced remediation of contaminated soil: a review”, Eng. Geol., 60, 371-380, (2001) Simpkin T, Sale T, Kueper B, Pitts M., and Wyatt K., Surfactants and cosolvents for NAPL remediation, A technology manual, USA, Lewis Publishers, USA,(1999). Torres LG, Orantes JL and Iturbe R “Three surfactants CMC and diesel removal efficiencies from sandy soils highly contaminated”, Env. Geosc., In press. (2003).
  • 6. Table 1. Physical-chemical properties of the contaminated soil Initial characterization (Iturbe et al., 2003a) Bulk density 1.7 g/cm3 Porosity 0.38 Organic carbon fraction 0.0074 Hydraulic conductivity 8.6x10-4 cm/s pH 7.8 Table 2. Analysis of the washing of soils as a function of the soil TPH- concentration range. Concentration Range (mg/kg) Batch/Ditch Initial Removal Removal efficiency concentration (gTPH/g surfactant) (mg/kg) High (12,000-18,000) 1A 17,238 92.8 55.45 4C 15,064 90.4 47.11 3B 12,989 87.2 39.27 1B 12,224 87.0 36.90 Average 14,379 89.3 44.68 Moderate (8,000-12,000) 3C 10,291 85.2 30.34 2B 9,483 81.6 26.84 2A 9,438 90.0 29.61 3A 8,171 77.6 22.00 Average 9,346 83.6 27.20 Low (3,000-8,000) 2C 4,666 50.3 8.13 1C 4,252 55.3 8.13 4B 3,261 69.7 7.88 4A 3,037 64.6 6.80 Average 3,804 60.0 7.73
  • 7. Table 3. PAH concentrations in a composed sample of soil before and after soil washing process Compound Initial concentration Final Removal (mg/kg) concentration (%) (mg/kg) Pyrene 9.88 1.08 89 Naphthalene 6.69 ND 100 Benzo(a)anthracene 6.69 0.57 91.5 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.42 ND 100 Anthracene 4.43 0.39 91.2 Fluorene 4.25 ND 100 Phenanthrene 3.14 1.08 65.6 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.35 0.76 67.6 Chrysene 2.03 1.06 47.8 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 1.94 ND 100 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.42 0.56 60.6 Fluoranthene 0.767 1.02 - Indene(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.414 ND 100 Acenaphthene 0.102 ND 100 Acenaphthylene ND ND - Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND ND - Total PAHs 50.52 6.52 87.1 ND, not detected, NR not reported, carcinogenic PAHs in bold
  • 8. Figure 1. Soil washing ditch diagram 120.00 100.00 80.00 Removal (%) 60.00 y = 0.0026x + 53.666 2 40.00 R = 0.73 20.00 0.00 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 TPH initial concentration (mg/kg) Figure 2. TPH Removal as a function of TPH initial concentrations
  • 9. 20,000 TPH concentration (mg/kg) 16,000 Dicht A y = 31400e -0.8919x Dicht B 12,000 2 R = 0.9073 Dicht C 8,000 4,000 0 Co C1 C2 C3 Washing stage Figure 3 a. TPH concentrations. Batch 1, ditch A, B, and C 20,000 18,000 TPH concnetration (mg/kg) 16,000 Dicht A 14,000 Dicht B 12,000 Dicht C 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Co C1 C2 C3 Washing stage Figure 3b. TPH concentrations. Batch 4, ditch A, B, and C
  • 10. 80.00 Removal efficiency (gTPH/g surfactant) 70.00 y = 0.4305e 0.05x 2 60.00 R = 0.8565 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 Removal (%) Figure 4. Removal efficiency as a function of TPH removal