Influence of sulfide, chloride and dissolved organic matter on mercury adsorption by activated carbon in aqueous system

被引:0
作者
Chi Chen
Yu Ting
Boon-Lek Ch’ng
Hsing-Cheng Hsi
机构
[1] National Taiwan University,Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering
来源
Sustainable Environment Research | / 30卷
关键词
Mercury; Activated carbon; Chloride; Sulfide; Dissolved organic matter;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Using activated carbon (AC) as thin layer capping to reduce mercury (Hg) released from contaminated sediment is a feasible and durable remediation approach. However, several aqueous factors could greatly affect the Hg fate in the aquatic system. This study thus intends to clarify the influences on Hg adsorption by AC with the presence of sulfide, dissolved organic matter (DOM), and chloride. The lab-scale batch experiments were divided into two parts, including understanding (1) AC adsorption performance and (2) Hg distribution in different phases by operational definition method. Results showed that the Hg adsorption rate by AC was various with the presence of sulfide, chloride, and DOM (from fast to slow). Hg adsorption might be directly bonded to AC with Hg-Cl and Hg-DOM complexes and the rate was mainly controlled by intraparticle diffusion. In contrast, “Hg + sulfide” result was better described by pseudo-second order kinetics. The Hg removal efficiency was 92–95% with the presence of 0–400 mM chloride and approximately 65–75% in the “Hg + sulfide” condition. Among the removed Hg, 24–29% was formed into aqueous-phase particles and about 30% Hg was adsorbed on AC with 2–20 μM sulfide. Increasing DOM concentration resulted in more dissolved Hg. The proportion of dissolved Hg increased 31% by increasing DOM concentration from 0.25 to 20 mg C L− 1. Simultaneously, the proportion of adsorbed Hg by AC decreased by 47%. Overall, the presence of chloride increases the Hg adsorption by AC. In contrast, the presence of sulfide and DOM causes a negative effect on AC adsorption.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 197 条
[1]  
Hong YS(2012)Methylmercury exposure and health effects J Prev Med Public Health. 45 353-63
[2]  
Kim YM(2017)Influence of porewater sulfide on methylmercury production and partitioning in sulfate-impacted lake sediments Sci Total Environ. 580 1197-204
[3]  
Lee KE(2013)Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments Environ Sci Technol. 47 11810-20
[4]  
Bailey LT(2019)Distribution of mercury and methylmercury in surface water and surface sediment of river, irrigation canal, reservoir, and wetland in Taiwan Environ Sci Pollut R. 26 17762-73
[5]  
Mitchell CPJ(2011)In-situ sorbent amendments: a new direction in contaminated sediment management Environ Sci Technol. 45 1163-8
[6]  
Engstrom DR(2013)Mercury contaminated sediment sites – an evaluation of remedial options Environ Res. 125 131-49
[7]  
Berndt ME(2015)Positioning activated carbon amendment technologies in a novel framework for sediment management Integr Environ Asses. 11 221-34
[8]  
Wasik JKC(2012)Impact of remobilized contaminants in Ecotox Environ Safe. 85 96-103
[9]  
Johnson NW(2016) during dredging operations in a harbour area: bioaccumulation and biomarker responses Environ Sci Pollut R. 23 4370-86
[10]  
Gilmour CC(2018)Active capping technology: a new environmental remediation of contaminated sediment J Hazard Mater. 354 116-24