4.7 Article

Remediation of electronic waste polluted soil using a combination of persulfate oxidation and chemical washing

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 204, 期 -, 页码 170-178

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.050

关键词

Persulfate oxidation; Hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin; Citric acid; Activator

资金

  1. Major Project in the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017XKZD14]
  2. Environment Protection Agency of Jiangsu Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laboratory experiments were conducted to investigate the efficiency of a simultaneous chemical extraction and oxidation for removing persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and toxic metals from an actual soil polluted by the recycling activity of electronic waste. Various chemicals, including hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (HPCD), citric acid (CA) and sodium persulfate (SP) were applied synchronously with Fe2+ activated oxidation to enhance the co-removal of both types of pollutants. It is found that the addition of HPCD can enhance POPs removal through solubilization of POPs and iron chelation; while the CA-chelated Fe2+ activation process is effective for extracting metals and degrading residual POPs. Under the optimized reagent conditions, 69.4% Cu, 78.1% Pb, 74.6% Ni, 97.1% polychlorinated biphenyls, 93.8% polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and 96.4% polybrominated diphenylethers were removed after the sequential application of SP-HPCD-Fe2+ and SP-CA-Fe2+ processes with a duration of 180 and 240 min, respectively. A high dehalogenation efficiency (84.8% bromine and 86.2% chlorine) is observed, suggesting the low accumulation of halogen-containing organic intermediates. The remediated soil can satisfy the national soil quality standard of China. Collectively, co-contaminated soil can be remediated with reasonable time and capital costs through simultaneous application of persulfate oxidation and chemical extraction. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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