Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Gasoline Removal from Silt Sandy Soils via in Situ Technologies with an Emphasis on Factors Influencing Soil Vapor Extraction

Alfa-Sika Mande Seyf-Laye*, Tchakala Ibrahim, Balogoun Kolawole Clement, Akpataku Kossitse Venyo, Bawa Limam Moctar, Chen Honghan

Research Laboratory of Water and Environmental Engineering, University of Kara, BP 404, Togo

Abstract: Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is a common and typically effective physical treatment process for remediation of volatile contaminants in unsaturated soils. SVE process was evaluated in this study to determine its effectiveness for gasoline removal using column tests with real soils. This paper serves five main purposes: it evaluates the influence of air injection and air extraction, continuous and intermittent air extraction, initial concentration of gasoline, soil water content and air flow rate on SVE for gasoline removal from sandy soils. Comparison of injection methods indicated that extraction was more efficient when air introduced from the top of the column rather than the bottom. The initial concentration of gasoline in the soil had a significant effect on the rate of extraction and the overall removal of TPH, with reduced removal efficiency observed when the initial gasoline concentration increased. It was found that continuous air extraction has the highest efficiency for gasoline removal from sandy soils. Higher venting velocities led to more rapid removal of gasoline from sandy soil columns. In addition, increased soil moisture content led to faster gasoline extraction rates. It was found that SVP has the highest efficiency for gasoline removal from sandy soils and can remediate the vadose zone effectively to meet the soil guideline values for protection of groundwater.

Keywords: gasoline, column test, SVE, soil

Received July 28, 2022; Revised September 09, 2022; Accepted September 18, 2022

Citation: Alfa-Sika Mande Seyf-Laye, Tchakala Ibrahim, Balogoun Kolawole Clement, Akpataku Kossitse Venyo, Bawa Limam Moctar, Chen Honghan, Gasoline Removal from Silt Sandy Soils via in Situ Technologies with an Emphasis on Factors Influencing Soil Vapor Extraction. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 10 (2). 67-72. January 2022. doi:10.12691/env-10-2-3

1. Introduction

In situ remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in soil and groundwater is an important approach for restoration of environmental quality in affected soils. Organic compounds have many adverse effects on the environment and human health due to their neurotoxic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic properties [1]. Toluene is a well-known constituent of BTEX, which is rapidly absorbed through respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts; the exposure to which results in various symptoms including weakness, headache, vertigo, and ataxia [2]. Remediation of contaminated soil can be achieved using in situ and ex situ techniques. Ex situ methods are prohibitively expensive in many cases due to the high cost of excavation and the difficulty in reaching contaminants found in deep soils and under buildings. The existing and potential in situ technologies for remediation of soil contaminated by petroleum include soil washing, soil vapor extraction, landfarming, soil flushing, solidification/stabilization, asphalt batching, thermal desorption, biopiles, phytoremediation, bioslurry systems, bioventing, encapsulation, and aeration [3]. Soil venting, also known as soil vapor extraction, is recognized as a cost-effective technology for remediation of unsaturated soils contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) [3]. In addition to SVE, bioventing is also one of the standardand cost-competitive techniques [4] for cleaning petroleum-contaminated vadose zone soils [5,6].

SVE is one of the most common treatment procedures to remove the gasoline compounds from soil with medium to high porous media [7,8]. The advantages that SVE system holds over the other used technologies are its high decontamination in short term [6,9], cost-effectiveness [3,9], simplicity of equipment, system operation, and maintenance [7].

Fischer et al., [10] found out that the SVE can remove toluene with an efficiency of 97% after 25 h extraction in dry soil. Qin et al., [9], reported that the maximum removal efficiency of chlorobenzene via SVE with initial concentration of 1.1 mg/g soil at a gas flow rate of 0.3 m3/h was 95% during an 80-hour operation. The integration of bioventing (BV) and soil vapor extraction (SVE) appears to be an effective combination method for soil decontamination [11].

In this study, column tests using a natural soil were conducted to represent the current SVE technology applied to the remediation of contaminated soil. Parameters relevant to SVE operating conditions varied during these tests to elucidate the influence of air injection and air extraction, continuous and intermittent air extraction, extraction airflow rate and the initial gasoline concentration on the efficiency of soil venting.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sandy Soil Characteristics

The sandy soil used in this study was taken from a depth of 2.5 m the Water Science Institute Experimental Base in Yongle, Beijing. It was repeatedly washed with water to get clear water. Then it was air-dried, first at room temperature and after, it was autoclaved at 121°C, 15 psi, for 45 min. The size distribution of soil is shown in Table 1. As the 0.25-0.075 mm particles represented more than 50% of the total mass, it was classified as silt sandy soil according to soil standard 102-85 [12,13]. The organic carbon content was 0.3421‰.

2.2. Experimental Setup

Figure Figure 1 shows the main component of the experimental setup. The apparatus was a Perspex column with an inner diameter of 8cm and height of 50 cm. Six 10-mm holes were drilled into the column to provide monitoring points with a distance of between holes. At the 5 cm height of the column, a perforated stainless steel plate was inserted to maintain the soil and distribution of the inlet gas uniformly.

The soil venting experiments were conducted in three stages: (1) introduction of soil and gasoline to the column; (2) an equilibration period to allow for distribution of the gasoline throughout the column; and (3) the soil venting tests. Test soil with an initial gasoline concentration of 6% (Mgasoline:Msoil) and adjusted moisture content with sterilized water was cautiously and rapidly placed into the column. Once preparation of the soil column was completed, the column was allowed to equilibrate for 24 to 48 hours. Following the equilibration step, the soil venting process was started. Finally, in order to avoid atmospheric contamination an activated carbon filter was used to absorb the the off-gas exiting from columns before reaching the atmosphere. Five sets of soil venting experiments were conducted to investigate the effects the of the following variables on the removal efficiency: (1) air injection vs. air extraction, (2) continuous vs. pulsed extraction, (3) rate of airflow, (4) initial soil gasoline concentration, and (5) soil moisture content. Detail information for each venting condition is shown in Table 2. The venting efficiency (η) of each experiment was calculated from the initial gasoline concentration (C0) and the gasoline concentration (Ct) of soil after venting using the equation η=1-Ct/C0 are also shown in Table 2.

Table 1. Characteristics of soil for experiment

Figure 1. Experimental equipment used for soil venting

Table 2. Design of experimental groups and the main results

2.3. Analytical Measurements

The concentration of gasoline in the soil was quantified by an Agilent gas chromatography equipped with flame ionization detector (Agilent GC, 6820, United States). The GC-FID procedure was optimized as follows. The amount of 1 μL of extracted liquid sample was injected into the instrument. Helium with flow rate of 1.11 mL/min was used as the carrier gas and N2 with flow rate of 30 mL/min as the makeup gas. Air at 300 mL/min and H2 at 30 mL/min were used as flame gases. The characteristic of GC column was Agilent a HP-5 capillary column (30 m, 0.32 i.d). The column temperature was programmed to start at 30°C (3.5 min) then increase to 100°C at a rate of 6°·min-1, and then from 100°C to 200°C at a rate of 25°·min-1. The temperatures of the injector and detector were held fixed at 210, and 280°C, respectively. Toluene quantification was determined by a previously prepared calibration curve with correlation coefficient of 0.999. Toluene showed a retention time of 9.29 min under the experimental condition.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Air Injection and Air Extraction

The efficiency of gasoline removal by air injection and vacuum extraction venting for a soil column with desiccated soil at an airflow of 60 mL•min-1 are shown in Table 2 (Group I). Only 49.54% of the gasoline in the soil column was removed by air-injection from the column bottom after 95 hours of venting when the initial soil gasoline concentration was 1.128 mg•g⁻¹. In contrast, 73.52% of the gasoline was removed by vacuum extraction from the top of the column after only 90 hours of venting with a high initial soil gasoline concentration of 2.937 mg•g-1. The efficiency of gasoline removal during injection of air into the bottom of the column was affected by airflow distribution, which is dependent on the operating conditions and capillary pressure-related characteristics of the medium and are sensitive to relatively subtle changes in soil structure [14]. Air injection can also lead to inefficient removal due to the formation of preferential flow paths and in practice can cause contaminants to be trapped under impenetrable surfaces [15]. While for air extraction, the volatility organic pollution and air ware extracted firstly, which caused negative pressure in soil column, then the air flew into the column due to the pressure grade between inside and outside of column. Extraction-injection and injection-extraction maybe more efficient for the smooth air flow, thus the homogeneous air distribution would be form.

Figure 2. Effect of venting method

3.2. Effect of Initial Soil Gasoline Concentration

The results of tests using a flow rate of 60 mL•min-1 and different initial concentrations are shown in Group II in Table 2. With an initial soil gasoline concentration of 2.934 mg g-1, 80.49% was removed after 104.5 hours. This decreased to 65.38% after 163 hours when the initial gasoline concentration increased to 9.177 mg•g-1. This decreasing trend was further proved when the initial gasoline concentration increased to 76.40 mg•g-1, for the gasoline removal efficiency was only 47.43% after 163 hours at such higher initial concentration. From these results, it was obvious that vacuum extraction efficiency decreased significantly as initial soil gasoline concentrations increasing. To reach a particular remediation goal, longer remediation times will be required for sites with higher initial contaminant concentrations than comparable sites with lower pollutant concentrations treated using the same conditions. Gasoline will be present as light non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) in soil when the concentration is high enough to reach residual saturation [16]. This will lead to the accumulation of gasoline at the bottom of the column, reduce the amount of gasoline extracted effectively from the column, and therefore reduce the overall efficiency of soil venting. Kaslusky and Udell [17] have determined that with sufficient NAPL accumulation, gravitational forces could overcome trapping forces leading to downward flow of the liquid. When the initial gasoline concentration in column was increased to 76.40 mg•g-1, we did find NAPL concentrated at the bottom of column in this study.

Figure 3. Effect of initial gasoline concentration

3.3. Effect Pulse and Continuous Vacuum Extraction

Group III (Table 2) shows gasoline removal efficiencies for pulsed and continuous vacuum extraction under identical initial conditions. 89.29% of the gasoline in the soil column was removed after 264 hours under continuous vacuum extraction with an initial soil gasoline concentration of 9.177 mg•g-1, the ratio of Massgasoline to Masssoil was 6%, and the airflow rate was 100 mL•min-1. Only 7.37% of the gasoline in the control column (no flow) was removed during the same period. The fraction of gasoline removed using a 12 hour•day⁻¹ pulsed vacuum extraction scheme was 41.82%. This is nearly half of the total removal during the eleven days continuous extraction, indicating that a significant fraction of the gasoline present in the soil was very difficult to remove using continuous extraction.

Figure 4. Effect of venting time on removal of gasoline

3.4. Effect of Air Flow Rate on SVE

Thornton and Wootan [18] have determined that the rate of gasoline removal is dependent on the soil venting airflow rate. Higher venting velocities will cause the extraction front to reach the extraction point faster, thus lead to more rapid pollutant breakthrough. While Wilson et al. [19] have found that there is an optimal venting airflow rate and vapor flux. When the venting airflow rate increases beyond a point, the venting flux does not increase continuously. The influence of airflow rate on the efficiency of soil venting in our experiments showed in Group IV in Table 1. Only 31 hours were required to remove 96.40% of the gasoline from the soil column when the venting airflow rate was 800 mL•min-1, compared to 96 hours for 96.30% removal at 400 mL•min-1 and 142 hours for 92.00% removal at 200 mL•min-1. When the venting airflow rate was further reduced to 100 mL•min-1, it took 264 hours to remove only 89.29% of the gasoline present in the soil column. This confirms the relationship between soil venting airflow rate and the rate of gasoline removal that higher venting velocities led to more rapid removal of gasoline from sandy soil columns.

Figure 5. Removal of gasoline under different airflow

3.5. Effect of Soil Water Content on SVE

Harper et al. [20] have considered that soil moisture content is one of the factors mostly affecting remediation time due to its influence on contaminant availability and soil permeability. The effect of moisture content on the efficiency of soil venting is shown in Group V of Table 2. It took 264 hours to remove 89.29% of the gasoline present in the column when soil moisture content was 0% at an initial gasoline concentration of 6% and venting airflow rate of 100 mL•min-1. While when the soil moisture content increased to 5%, 10%, and 15% and the other conditions were all like above, it only took 138 hours to remove >90% of the gasoline in columns. And the highest efficiency of 98.74% for 138 hours was achieved when the soil moisture content reached 15%. This indicates that increasing the soil moisture content in a certain range will lead to accelerated gasoline removal by soil venting. While the soil moisture content reduces the void space (porosity attributed to air) in soil, makes it more difficult for air to move into the soil and may potentially have a negative influence on the remediation process [21]. This is because increased moisture content leads to a decrease in the mass transfer coefficient between the NAPL and gas phases by reducing the interfacial surface area between them [20,22]. However, the presence of water enhances the volatilization of organic compounds by displacing them from particle surfaces, therefore increasing the rate of vapor transfer and the efficiency of remediation by reducing the vapor sorption capacity of the soil matrix. This is further enhanced by the competition between water and VOCs for mineral surfaces, which is illustrated by the ability of dry soils to retain large quantities of sVOC for long time, releasing them if there is an increase in the soil moisture content [23,24].

Figure 6. Removal of gasoline at different soil moisture contents

4. Conclusions

From column tests using a real soil, we have evaluated the efficiency of SVE under different conditions and drawn the following conclusions: i. Air extraction was more efficient than air injection. ii. The initial soil gasoline concentration affected the gasoline removal rate. When residual saturation occurred, the dominant phase of petroleum hydrocarbons was a NAPL phase and the efficiency of its removal reduced significantly. iii. There was a positive correlation between the soil venting airflow rate and rate of gasoline removal. Higher venting velocities led to more rapid gasoline removal. The presence of water enhanced the volatilization of organic compounds in gasoline, increasing the rate of vapor transfer and increasing remediation efficiency. As the moisture content of a sandy soil increased, the rate of gasoline removal and efficiency increased.

Acknowledgements

The studies described in this paper were funded jointly by the 863 Program (2007AA06A410) of the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology and the studies of safety evaluation and pollution prevention technology and demonstration for groundwater resources in Beijing (D07050601510000).

References

[1]   | J. M. M. de Mello, H. de Lima Brandão, A. A. U. de Souza, A. da Silva, and S. M. de A. G. Ulson, “Biodegradation of BTEX compounds in a biofilm reactor—modeling and simulation,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., vol. 70, no. 1-2, pp. 131-139, 2010.
[2]   | Y. J. Tham, P. A. Latif, A. M. Abdullah, A. Shamala-Devi, and Y. H. Taufiq-Yap, “Performances of toluene removal by activated carbon derived from durian shell,” Bioresour. Technol., vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 724-728, 2011.
[3]   | F. I. Khan, T. Husain, and R. Hejazi, “An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 95-122, 2004.
[4]   | G. Malina, J. T. C. Grotenhuis, W. H. Rulkens, S. L. J. Mous, and J. C. M. De Wit, “Soil vapour extraction versus bioventing of toluene and decane in bench-scale soil columns,” Environ. Technol., vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 977-991, 1998.
[5]   | K. S. Jørgensen, “In situ bioremediation,” Adv. Appl. Microbiol., vol. 61, pp. 285-305, 2007.

[6]  
S. M. C. Magalhães, R. F. Jorge, and P. M. Castro, “Investigations into the application of a combination of bioventing and biotrickling filter technologies for soil decontamination processes—a transition regime between bioventing and soil vapour extraction,” J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 170, no. 2-3, pp. 711-715, 2009.

[7]   | S. M. C. Bezerra and R. G. Zytner, “Bioventing of gasoline-contaminated soil: some questions to be answered,” 2002.
[8]   | V. Kaleris and J. Croise, “Estimation of cleanup time for continuous and pulsed soil vapor extraction,” J. Hydrol., vol. 194, no. 1-4, pp. 330-356, 1997.
[9]   | C. Qin, Y. Zhao, W. Zheng, and Y. Li, “Study on influencing factors on removal of chlorobenzene from unsaturated zone by soil vapor extraction,” J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 176, no. 1-3, pp. 294-299, 2010.
[10]   | U. Fischer, R. Schulin, and M. Keller, “Experimental and numerical investigation of soil vapor extraction,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 3413-3427, 1996.
[11]   | J.-Y. Lee, C.-H. Lee, K.-K. Lee, and S.-I. Choi, “Evaluation of soil vapor extraction and bioventing for a petroleum-contaminated shallow aquifer in Korea,” Soil Sediment Contam., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 439-458, 2001.
[12]   | J. B. Jones Jr, “Soil test methods: past, present, and future use of soil extractants,” Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., vol. 29, no. 11-14, pp. 1543-1552, 1998.
[13]   | L. de Lima Rodrigues, S. H. Daroub, R. W. Rice, and G. H. Snyder, “Comparison of three soil test methods for estimating plant-available silicon,” Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., vol. 34, no. 15-16, pp. 2059-2071, 2003.
[14]   | P. C. Johnson, R. L. Johnson, C. L. Bruce, and A. Leeson, “Advances in in situ air sparging/biosparging,” Bioremediation J., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 251-266, 2001.
[15]   | K. W. Rutherford and P. C. Johnson, “Effects of process control changes on aquifer oxygenation rates during in situ air sparging in homogeneous aquifers,” Groundw. Monit. Remediat., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 132-141, 1996.
[16]   | Z. Li, L. Li, and G. P. J. Chen, “Bioavailability of Cd in a soil–rice system in China: soil type versus genotype effects,” Plant Soil, vol. 271, no. 1, pp. 165-173, 2005.
[17]   | S. F. Kaslusky and K. S. Udell, “Co-injection of air and steam for the prevention of the downward migration of DNAPLs during steam enhanced extraction: An experimental evaluation of optimum injection ratio predictions,” J. Contam. Hydrol., vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 325-347, 2005.
[18]   | J. S. Thornton and W. L. Wootan Jr, “Venting for the removal of hydrocarbon vapors from gasoline contaminated soil,” J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 31-44, 1982.
[19]   | D. J. Wilson, J. M. RodríGuez-Maroto, and C. Goamez-Lahoz, “Soil cleanup by in-situ aeration. XIX. Effects of spill age on soil vapor extraction remediation Rates,” Sep. Sci. Technol., vol. 29, no. 13, pp. 1645-1671, 1994.
[20]   | B. M. Harper, W. H. Stiver, and R. G. Zytner, “Influence of water content on SVE in a silt loam soil,” J. Environ. Eng., vol. 124, no. 11, pp. 1047-1053, 1998.
[21]   | T. G. Poulsen, P. Moldrup, T. Yamaguchi, P. Schjønning, and J. A. Hansen, “Predicting soil-water and soil-air transport properties and their effects on soil-vapor extraction efficiency,” Groundw. Monit. Remediat., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 61-70, 1999.
[22]   | H. Yoon, J. H. Kim, H. M. Liljestrand, and J. Khim, “Effect of water content on transient nonequilibrium NAPL–gas mass transfer during soil vapor extraction,” J. Contam. Hydrol., vol. 54, no. 1-2, pp. 1-18, 2002.
[23]   | J. Ruiz, R. Bilbao, and M. B. Murillo, “Convective transport and removal of vapors of two volatile compounds in sand columns under different air humidity conditions,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 33, no. 21, pp. 3774-3780, 1999.
[24]   | M. C. Tekrony and R. C. Ahlert, “Adsorption of chlorinated hydrocarbon vapors onto soil in the presence of water,” J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 84, no. 2-3, pp. 135-146, 2001.