Soil flushing of cresols contaminated soil: application of nonionic and ionic surfactants under different pH and concentrations

Journal of Environmental Health Science Engineering

Hossein Asghari¹  Emad Sanati Farvash¹  Khadijeh Narenjkar¹  Saeid Gitipour¹ 

[1] Graduate Faculty of Environmant, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

关键词: Triton X-100;    Surfactants;    Soil flushing;    SDS;    Cresols;    Contaminated soil;   

Others  :  1164564
DOI  :  10.1186/s40201-014-0129-z

 received in 2013-07-29, accepted in 2014-10-14,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

In this study, the viability of soil flushing on the removal of cresols (meta-, ortho-, and para-cresols) from contaminated soil has been investigated. High production and distribution of cresols in the environment indicate their potential for a widespread exposure to humans. The presence of these compounds in soil could cause a significant threat to environment, as they are toxic and refractory in nature. Cresols are persistent chemicals which are classified by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) as Group C, possible human carcinogens. Soil flushing is one of the soil remediation technologies which could by applied for treatment of hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Flushing of the contaminated soil samples was carried out by using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and Triton X-100 surfactant solutions at the concentrations of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, and 0.4% (W/W). Three acidic, neutral, and alkaline environments were utilized by adjusting pH of the washing solutions at 3, 7 and 12 to evaluate the effect of washing environment in removing cresols. The results of this research denote that the highest removal efficiencies of 79.6% and 83.51% were achieved for m-cresol and total o- and p-cresols, respectively, under the alkaline environment of pH12 at 0.4% (W/W) SDS concentration. Regarding performance of Triton X-100, the removal efficiencies of 80.26% and 80.14% for the above cresols were attained under similar conditions. Hence, illustrating the effectiveness of surfactants in soil flushing remediation of cresols contaminated soil.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gitipour et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Torabian A, Kazemian H, Seifi L, Nabi Bidhendi G, Azimi AK, Ghadiri SK: Removal of petroleum aromatic hydrocarbons by surfactant-modified natural Zeolite: the effect of surfactant. Clean ¿ Soil Air Water 2010, 38(1):77-83.
• [2]Mohsenzadeh F, Chehregani Rad A, Akbari M: Evaluation of oil removal efficiency and enzymatic activity in some fungal strains for bioremediation of petroleum-polluted soils. Journal of Environmental Health Sciences & Engineering 2012, 9:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Wang H, Chen J: Enhanced flushing of polychlorinated biphenyls contaminated sands using surfactant foam: Effect of partition coefficient and sweep efficiency. J Environ Sci 2012, 24(7):1270-1277.
• [4]Rosas JM, Vicente F, Santos A, Romero A: Soil remediation using soil washing followed by Fenton oxidation. Chem Eng J 2013, 220:125-132.
• [5]Badanthadka M, Mehendale HM: Cresols encyclopedia of toxicology. Second ed. Elsevier, USA; 2005.
• [6]Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 2-methylphenol. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC; 1999.
• [7]Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 3-methylphenol. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC; 1999.
• [8]Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 4-methylphenol. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC; 1999.
• [9]Baneshi MM, Rezaei Kalantary R, Jonidi Jafari A, Nasseri S, Jaafarzadeh N, Esrafili A: Effect of bioaugmentation to enhance phytoremediation for removal of phenanthrene and pyrene from soil with Sorghum and Onobrychis sativa. Journal of Environmental Health Sciences & Engineering 2014, 12:24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Long A, Zhang H, Lei Y: Surfactant flushing remediation of toluene contaminated soil: Optimization with response surface methodology and surfactant recovery by selective oxidation with sulfate radicals. Sep Purif Technol 2013, 118:612-619.
• [11][10.5703/1288284314230] webcite Lee LS, Zhai X, Lee J: INDOT Guidance Document for In-Situ Soil Flushing. In West Lafayette, Indiana: Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2006/28-2. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University; 2007. doi:.
• [12]Zhou Q, Suna F, Liua R: Joint chemical flushing of soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Environ Int 2005, 31:835-839.
• [13]Navarro A, Martínez F: The use of soil-flushing to remediate metal contamination in a smelting slag dumping area: Column and pilot-scale experiments. Eng Geol 2010, 115:16-27.
• [14]Mata-Sandoval JC, Karns J, Torrents A: Influence of Rhamnolipids and Triton X-100 on the desorption of pesticides from soils. Environ Sci Technol 2002, 36:4669-4675.
• [15]Yang K, Zhu L, Xing B: Enhanced soil washing of phenanthrene by mixed solutions of TX100 and SDBS. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40:4274-4280.
• [16]Zeng QR, Tang HX, Liao BH, Zhong T, Tang C: Solubilization and desorption of methyl-parathion from porous media: a comparison of HPCD and two nonionic surfactants. Water Res 2006, 40:1351-1358.
• [17]Atteia O, Del Campo EE, Bertin H: Soil flushing: a review of the origin of efficiency variability. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2013, 12:379-389.
• [18]Wu F, Sun D, Wang N, Gong Y, Li L: Comparison of surfactant-assisted shotgun methods using acid-labile surfactants and sodium dodecyl sulfate for membrane proteome analysis. Anal Chim Acta 2011, 698:36-43.
• [19]Jafvert CT, Van Hoof PL, Heath J: Solubilization of non-polar compounds by non-ionic surfactant micelles. Water Res 1994, 28:1009-1017.
• [20]Pennell KD, Adinolfi AM, Abriola LM, Diallo MS: Solubilization of dodecane, tetrachloroethylzene in micellar solutions of ethoxylated nonionic surfactants. Environ Sci Technol 1997, 31:1382-1389.
• [21]Mahanthesha KR, Kumara Swamy BE, Chandra U, Sharath Shankar S, Pai KV: Electrocatalytic oxidation of dopamine at murexide and TX-100 modified carbon paste electrode: a cyclic voltammetric study. J Mol Liq 2010, 172:119-124.
• [22]Afkhami A, Nematollahi D, Madrakian T, Hajihadi M: Spectrophotometric determination of cationic surfactants based on their effect on the complexes of chrome Azurol S with Be2+ and Al3+ Cations. Clean ¿ Soil, Air, Water 2010, 39(2):171-176.
• [23]Anitha N, Balamurugan R, Palaniandavar M: Spectral and electrochemical studies of bis(diimine)copper(II) complexes in anionic, cationic and nonionic micelles. J Colloid Interface Sci 2011, 362:243-252.
• [24]Sanders JM, Buchera JR, Peckhama JC, Kissling GE, Hejtmancikb MR, Chhabraa RS: Carcinogenesis studies of cresols in rats and mice. Toxicology 2009, 257:33-39.
• [25]Cresols : health and safety guide. World Health Organization, Geneva; 1996.
• [26]Chijioke UE, Fauziah SH, Agamuthu P: Characterization and toxicological evaluation of leachate from closed sanitary landfill. Waste Manage Res 2012, 30(9):888-897.
• [27]Toxicological Profile for Cresols. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA; 1990.
• [28][http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/title_18/18-07.htm] webcite Arizona Secretary of State: Title 18. Environmental Quality, Chapter 7. Department of Environmental Quality Remedial Action; 2004. Available from: .
• [29][http://deq.state.wy.us/volremedi/factsheets.asp] webcite Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality: Combined Cleanup Level Tables. United States of America: 2009. Available from: .
• [30][http://www.dep.state.fl.us/WASTE/quick_topics/rules/default.htm] webcite Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Contaminated cleanup target levels, Chapter 62¿777. Division of Waste Management; 2005. Available from: .
• [31]Soil Clean up Criteria. 40 CFR Part 192. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; 1998.
• [32]Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; 1986.
• [33]Laha S, Tansel B, Ussawarujikulchai A: Surfactant¿soil interactions during surfactant-amended remediation of contaminated soils by hydrophobic organic compounds: a review. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:95-100.
• [34]Muherei MA, Junin R: Investigating synergism in critical micelle concentration of anionic-nonionic surfactant mixtures before and after equilibration with shale. J Appl Sci Res 2009, 5(2):181-189.
• [35]Evangelista RA, Allen HL, Mandel RM: Treatment of phenol and cresol contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 1990, 25:343-360.
• [36]Salehian E, Khodadadi A, Hosseini B: Remediation of diesel contaminated soil using surfactants: coulumn study. American J Environ Sci 2012, 8(4):352-359.