Chemical Oxidation Treatment for Semi Volatile Organic Compounds Contaminated Brownfield Site: A Case Study

Abstract:

Brownfield, as a result of old and polluting industries being relocated away from urban areas, is an emerging problem since these contaminated lands pose and obstacle to urban and economic development. Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) are common contaminants found in brownfield sites that used to be manufacturing industries or agrochemical plants. Chemical oxidation has the potential to provide rapid, cost-effective treatment for brownfield contaminated with SVOCs. In this study, a pilot study of chemical oxidation was demonstrated for brownfield remediation in a specific site that used to be an agrochemical plant in Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province. Preliminary site characterization suggested that the site was primarily contaminated by o-anisidine and its derivatives with trace amount of o-nitrochlorobenzene and other chemicals. The contaminants soil was pretreated and mixed with two selected oxidants at different soil-to-oxidant ratio. Soil samples were collected and analyzed before and after the treatments to compare the concentration changes of primary contaminants. The results showed that combinations of TA-1 oxidant and AOP-2 oxidant with several different ratios could provide 90% or more removal of targeted contaminants in two weeks, with an average cost of oxidants per ton of soil around 400 RMB. This is the first report for brownfield remediation case study in Zhejiang since “Clean Soil Action” was initiated by Zhejiang Provincial Government. The successful treatment for SVOCs contaminated brownfield in this study would promote chemical oxidation treatment to be employed in brownfield sites with similar situations in Zhejiang province in the future.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 414)
• Pages: 317-322
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.414.317
• Online since: December 2011
• Authors: Yan Fei Wei, Zhong Zhong, Zhen Yu Gu, Zhi Qiu, Chang Bo Zhang, Fu Cheng Sun
• Keywords: Agrochemical, Brown Field, Chemical Oxidation, o-Anisidine, SOVCs

References

[1] S. Alker, V. Joy, P. Roberts, N. Smith, The definition of brownfield, J. Environ. Planning Manage. 43 (2000) 49-69.

[2] X. Jian, F.S. Li, Overview of the current situation on brownfield remediation and redevelopment in China, The World Bank Report. 2010, pp.2-4.

[3] M. Hyman, R. R. Dupont, Groundwater and Soil Remediation: process design and cost estimating of proven technologies, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, (2001).

DOI: 10.1061/9780784404270

[4] R.C. Loehr, J.R. Smith, R.L. Corsi, VOC and SVOC emissions from slurry and solid phase bioremediation processes, Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 5(2001) 211-224.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)1090-025x(2001)5:4(211)

[5] J.D. Van Hamme, A. Singh, O.P. Ward, Recent advances in petroleum microbiology, Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 67(2003) 503–549.

DOI: 10.1128/mmbr.67.4.503-549.2003

[6] E. Guivarch, N. Oturan, M.A. Oturan, Removal of organophosphorus pesticides from water by electrogenerated Fenton's reagent, Environ. Chem. Lett. 1(2003) 165-168.

DOI: 10.1007/s10311-003-0029-4

[7] K. Takagi, R. Kataoka, K. Yamazaki, Recent technology on bioremediation of POPs and persistent pesticides, JARQ 45(2011) 129-136.

DOI: 10.6090/jarq.45.129

[8] USEPA, Field applications of in-situ remediation technologies: chemical oxidation, EPA (1998) 542-R-98-008.

[9] J. Dong, Y.S. Zhao, Y.H. Wang, Z.R. Chen, M. Hong, Contaminants natural attenuation of beitiantang landfills leachate polluted sites, J. Environ. Sci. 29(2008) 3265-3269.

[10] R. Zhou, Y.S. Zhao, Z.G. Zhu, Y. Sun, H.L. Zhou, F. Hua, Y. Zhao, G.Q. Hu, Redox zones and its functional bacteria in a contaminated landfill site, J. Environ. Sci. 29(2008) 3270-3274.

[11] L.P. Zheng, Y.H. Feng, X. Zhao, J. Xu, Y.S. Lin, Toxicity effects of chlordane and mirex contaminated soil on earthworm, J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 29(2010) 1924-(1929).

[12] H.J. Cho, R.J. Fiacco, M.H. Daly, Soil vapor extraction and chemical oxidation to remediate chlorinated solvents in fractured crystalline bedrock: pilot study Results and lessons learned, Remed. J. 12(2002) 35-50.

DOI: 10.1002/rem.10022

[13] B.E. Sleep, P.D. McClure, Removal of volatile and semivolatile organic contamination from soil by air and steam flushing, J. Contam. Hydrol. 50(2001) 21-40.

DOI: 10.1016/s0169-7722(01)00103-6

[14] S.C. Wilson, K.C. Jones, 1993, Bioremediation of soil contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): A review, Environ. Pollut. 81(1993) 229-249.

DOI: 10.1016/0269-7491(93)90206-4

[15] D.G. Poppendieck, R.C. Loehr, M.T. Webster, Predicting hydrocarbon removal from thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction systems, J. Hazard. Mater. 69(1999) 95-109.

DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3894(99)00063-1

[16] G. Malina, J.T.C. Grotenhuis, W.H. Rulkens, S.L.J. Mous, J.C.M. de Wit, Soil vapour extraction versus bioventing of toluene and decane in bench-scale soil columns, Environ. Tech. 19(1998) 977-991.

DOI: 10.1080/09593331908616756

[17] R.J. De La Torre-Rochea, W.Y. Lee, S.I. Campos-Díazc, Soil-borne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in El Paso, Texas: Analysis of a potential problem in the United States/Mexico border region, J. Hazard. Mater. 163(2009).

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.07.089

[9] 8 84 After.

[69] 3.

[4] 5.

[1] 2 Removal rate.

[68] 1.

[54] 1.

[98] 6 2 Before 195.

[5] 8 82 After.

[68] 1.

[4] 0.

[5] 7 Removal rate.

[65] 1.

[31] 0.

[93] 0 3 Before 329.

[28] 2 148 After.

[32] 0.

[2] 8.

[6] 4 Removal rate.

[90] 3.

[90] 1.

[95] 7 4 Before 217.

[9] 8 84 After.

[17] 9.

[12] 1.

[19] 0 Removal rate.

[91] 8 N/A.

[77] 4 5 Before 329.

[28] 2 148 After.

[20] 6.

[2] 2.

[3] 6 Removal rate.

[93] 7.

[92] 2.

[97] 6 6 Before 195.

[5] 8 82 After.

[75] 1.

[2] 8.

[12] 3 Removal rate.

[61] 5.

[51] 7 85 7 Before 212.

[6] 3 83 After 210.

[6] 4 82 Removal rate % N/A N/A N/A * Removal rate % = [conc. (before) – conc. (after)]/conc. (before) ×100% * N/A indicated removal rate could not be calculated. Figure 1. Onsite observation of soil samples before and after treatment Figure 2. Comparison of o-anisidine removal rate and treatment expense for each pile.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4380/fig-6