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

Alfa-Sika Mande Seyf-Laye^{1, 2,} , Tchakala Ibrahim³, Balogoun Kolawole Clement⁴, Akpataku Kossitse Venyo^{1, 3}, Bawa Limam Moctar³ and Chen Honghan⁵

¹Research Laboratory of Water and Environmental Engineering, University of Kara, BP 404, Togo

²Laboratory of Applied Hydrology and Environment, Faculty of Science, University of Lome, BP. 1515;Beijing Key Laboratory of Water Resources & Environmental Engineering, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, P.R. China

³Laboratory of Applied Hydrology and Environment, Faculty of Science, University of Lome, BP. 1515

⁴Applied Chemistry Study and Research Laboratory, Polytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi University, 01 BP. 2009, Benin

⁵Beijing Key Laboratory of Water Resources & Environmental Engineering, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, P.R. China

Cite this paper:
Alfa-Sika Mande Seyf-Laye, Tchakala Ibrahim, Balogoun Kolawole Clement, Akpataku Kossitse Venyo, Bawa Limam Moctar and 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. 2022; 10(2):67-72. doi: 10.12691/env-10-2-3

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

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

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.