4.7 Article

The use of ultrasound-assisted anaerobic compost tea washing to remove poly-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzo-furans (PCDFs) from highly contaminated field soils

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 23, 页码 18936-18945

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-9517-0

关键词

Soil remediation; Anaerobic compost tea; Soil washing; PCDD/Fs; Mechanical agitation; Ultrasonification; Green and sustainable remediation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The remediation of dioxin-contaminated soil of a specific coastal area previously employed for the manufacture of pentachlorophenol (PCP) in southern Taiwan's Tainan City has attracted much attention of researchers there. This work addresses the possibility of providing an effective and environmentally friendly option for removing PCDD/Fs from soil in that field. Soil screening/sieving was first conducted to assess particle distribution. Fine sand was observed to be the major component of the soil, accounting for more than 60% of the total mass. A combination of ultrasonification and mechanical double-blade agitation was used to facilitate the washing of the soil using the biosurfactant anaerobic compost tea. More than 85 and 95% of total removal efficiencies were achieved for moderately and highly contaminated soils after 6 and 10 washing cycles, respectively, under ambient temperature, a soil/liquid ratio 1:2.5, 700 rpm, and over a relatively short duration. These results were achieved through the collision and penetration effects of this combined treatment as well as PCDD/F partitioning between the particles and anaerobic compost tea. This study represents the first to report the use of anaerobic compost tea solvent to wash soil highly contaminated by dioxin. It was concluded that anaerobic compost tea, rich in non-toxic bio-surfactants (e.g., alcohols, humic acids), can be used to improve bioavailability and bioactivity of the soil making bioattenuation and full remediation more efficient.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据