This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] On: 01 January 2015, At: 15:40 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Technology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tent20

Chemical sulphate removal for treatment of construction and demolition debris leachate a

b

c

Pimluck Kijjanapanich , Ajit P. Annachhatre , Giovanni Esposito & Piet N.L. Lens a

a

UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Westvest 7, AX Delft 2611, The Netherlands

b

Environmental Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, PO Box 4, Klongluang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand c

Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Via Di Biasio, 43 – 03043 Cassino, (FR), Italy Published online: 10 Mar 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Pimluck Kijjanapanich, Ajit P. Annachhatre, Giovanni Esposito & Piet N.L. Lens (2014) Chemical sulphate removal for treatment of construction and demolition debris leachate, Environmental Technology, 35:16, 1989-1996, DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2014.889219 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2014.889219

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Environmental Technology, 2014 Vol. 35, No. 16, 1989–1996, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2014.889219

Chemical sulphate removal for treatment of construction and demolition debris leachate Pimluck Kijjanapanicha∗ , Ajit P. Annachhatreb , Giovanni Espositoc and Piet N.L. Lensa a UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Westvest 7, AX Delft 2611, The Netherlands; b Environmental Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, PO Box 4, Klongluang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand; c Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Via Di Biasio, 43 – 03043 Cassino, (FR), Italy

Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 15:40 01 January 2015

(Received 7 November 2013; accepted 26 January 2014 ) Construction and demolition debris (CDD) is a product of construction, renovation or demolition activities. It has a high gypsum content (52.4% of total gypsum), concentrated in the CDD sand (CDDS) fraction. To comply with the posed limit of the maximum amount of sulphate present in building sand, excess sulphate needs to be removed. In order to enable reuse of CDDS, a novel treatment process is developed based on washing of the CDDS to remove most of the gypsum, and subsequent sulphate removal from the sulphate-rich CDDS leachate. This study aims to assess chemical techniques, i.e. precipitation and adsorption, for sulphate removal from the CDDS leachate. Good sulphate removal efficiencies (up to 99.9%) from the CDDS leachate can be achieved by precipitation with barium chloride (BaCl2 ) and lead(II) nitrate (Pb(NO3 )2 ). Precipitation with calcium chloride (CaCl2 ), calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) and calcium oxide (CaO) gave less efficient sulphate removal. Adsorption of sulphate to aluminium oxide (Al2 O3 ) yielded a 50% sulphate removal efficiency, whereas iron oxide-coated sand as adsorbent gave only poor (10%) sulphate removal efficiencies. Keywords: adsorption; chemical precipitation; construction and demolition debris; sulphate precipitation; sulphate removal

1. Introduction Construction and demolition debris (CDD) originates from building, demolition and renovation of buildings and roads. Nearly 40% of the total mass of CDD is the fine fraction, called CDD sand (CDDS), which consists of gypsum (52.4% of total gypsum).[1,2] Reuse of this CDDS, which contains a high sulphate content, is a concern because of the chemical composition of the reused material and the potential risk to human health and the environment.[3] Therefore, limits have been set for the sulphate content of reused CDDS (1.73 g sulphate per kg of sand for the Netherlands). Processes for sulphate removal from CDDS have been developed based on the leaching of the gypsum out from the CDDS material. Treatment of the CDDS leachate has been studied using biological sulphate reduction processes.[4,5] A sulphate removal efficiency of 75–85% was achieved with an initial sulphate concentration of 600–1350 mg L−1 and the treated leachate can be reused in the CDDS leaching process.[4,5] In addition, if the CDDS leachate contained heavy metals, these heavy metals can precipitate with the sulphide produced in the system.[6] However, the biological sulphate reduction process has some disadvantages, including slow process kinetics, requirement and cost of an external electron donor and the need for a post-treatment of the sulphide containing CDDS leachate.

∗ Corresponding

author. Email: [email protected]

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

The removal of sulphate by chemical techniques can be an alternative to remove the sulphate contained in the CDDS leachate. Chemical precipitation is a widely used, proven technology for the removal of metals and other inorganics, suspended solids, fat, oils and greases from wastewater.[7] Chemicals such as barium or calcium salts have been used for sulphate precipitation from mine water and academic laboratory waste chemicals.[8,9] The chemical precipitation processes require short treatment times, have no need for a sophisticated operation and have low maintenance costs (requiring only replenishment of the chemicals used) [7] as compared with biological sulphate reduction processes. This present study aims to develop a chemical removal process as an alternative for sulphate removal from the CDDS leachate. Both precipitation and adsorption for sulphate removal from the CDDS leachate were investigated to find an appropriate chemical sulphate removal process.

2. Material and methods 2.1. Construction and demolition debris sand leachate CDD samples were collected from Smink Afvalverwerking B.V. (Amersfoort, the Netherlands). Preparation of CDDS

1990

P. Kijjanapanich et al.

Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 15:40 01 January 2015

samples was accomplished as per the procedure in the study of Kijjanapanich et al.[4] CDDS was washed by demineralized water using a 1:10 ratio of CDDS:demineralized water at room temperature (20 ± 3◦ C) until a constant sulphate concentration (around 1516 mg L−1 ) was obtained in the leachate (approximately 2–3 days). The leachate was left for one day to allow the settling of the CDDS. The supernatant was then further used as the CDDS leachate for the experiments. The characteristics of this CDDS leachate are described in the study of Kijjanapanich et al.[4]

2.2. Experimental design The experiments to study the effect of the chemical type, pH and the presence of calcium and acetate on the chemical sulphate removal can be divided into four steps (Table 1). First, a screening of chemicals to precipitate or adsorb the sulphate from the CDDS leachate was done at room temperature (20 ± 3◦ C) with CDDS of a pH 7. The two chemicals which yielded the best sulphate removal (barium chloride

Table 1. Conditions and parameters applied in each step of the experiments. Parameters Step

Chemicals

pH

Sulphate (mg L−1 )

Calcium (mg L−1 )

Acetate (mg L−1 )

I

Al2 O3 BaCl2 CaCl2 CaCO3 CaO IOCS Pb(NO3 )2 BaCl2 BaCl2 BaCl2 BaCl2 Pb(NO3 )2 Pb(NO3 )2 Pb(NO3 )2 Pb(NO3 )2 Al2 O3 BaCl2 CaCl2 CaCO3 CaO IOCS Pb(NO3 )2 Al2 O3 BaCl2 CaCl2 CaCO3 CaO IOCS Pb(NO3 )2 BaCl2 Pb(NO3 )2

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 5 10 12 2 5 10 12 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 12 2

1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 – –

II

III

IV

(BaCl2 ) and lead(II) nitrate (Pb(NO3 )2 )) were selected to study the effect of the CDDS leachate pH on the sulphate precipitation at room temperature (20 ± 3◦ C) at different pH values (2, 5, 10 and 12). Hydrochloric acid (0.5 M) (HCl) and sodium hydroxide (0.5 M) (NaOH) solutions were used for pH adjustment. The precipitates from sulphate removal using BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 at pH 7 were characterized based on their capillary suction time (CST), particle size distribution (PSD) and sludge volume index (SVI). The effect of calcium and acetate ions, which are contained in the CDDS leachate,[4] on sulphate precipitation was investigated at the third step. 2.3. Chemical sulphate precipitation Jar tests were used to test the sulphate removal from the CDDS leachate by chemical precipitation using BaCl2 , calcium chloride (CaCl2 ), calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ), calcium oxide (CaO) and Pb(NO3 )2 . In each jar test, the CDDS leachate (500 ml) was filled in a 1 L beaker. All chemicals were supplied to the leachate 1.5 times the stoichiometric amount of the chemical precipitation reaction on a mole basis (Table 2). Then, the leachate was stirred at 200 rpm for 20 min. The leachate was then left for 1.5 h to investigate the appropriate settling time. During this 1.5 h, samples were collected at 15, 45 and 90 min, respectively. Each chemical was tested in triplicate. 2.4.

Chemical sulphate adsorption

Jar tests were also used to test the sulphate removal from the CDDS leachate by chemical adsorption using aluminium oxide (Al2 O3 ) and iron oxide-coated sand (IOCS) at pH 7. Al2 O3 or IOCS was added in a 1:10 ratio (solid:liquid) in each jar test. The procedure of this test was same as described in Section 2.3 ‘chemical sulphate precipitation’. 2.5. Analytical methods Sulphate removal was tested in VELP scientifica FC6S jar tests. The pH was measured using a micro pH 2001 pH meter and a 691 Metrohm pH meter using a SenTix 21 WTW pH electrode. Sulphate was measured with the turbidimetric method using a CECIL CE2030 UV–visible spectrophotometer,[11] an Metrohm 883 Basic IC plus Ion Chromatography (IC) and an ICS-1000 Dionex IC.[11] Calcium was measured by the ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid titration method and an AAnalyst 200 Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (AAS)-Flame.[11] The dewatering properties of the precipitates were assessed by using a Triton CST Apparatus Model 200 (Triton Electronics Ltd., Essex, UK) with standard filter papers and an 18 mm sludge reservoir. PSD was calculated by DTS software (Malvern Instrument) using the dynamic light scattering method by a Zetasizer Nano ZS (Malvern Instrument) at a laser beam of 633 nm, a scattering angle of

Environmental Technology Table 2.

Stoichiometry of the chemical sulphate precipitation reactions. Reaction

Solubility product constant(Ksp ) (25◦ C) [10]

BaCl2

Ba2+ (aq) + SO2− 4 (aq) → BaSO4(s)

1.00 × 10−10

CaCl2

Ca2+

CaCO3

Ca2+ (aq)

CaO

Ca2+ (aq)

Pb(NO3 )2

Pb2+ (aq)

Chemical

(aq)

+ SO2− 4 (aq) + SO2− 4 (aq) + SO2− 4 (aq) + SO2− 4 (aq)

→ CaSO4(s)

2.57 × 10−5

→ CaSO4(s)

2.57 × 10−5

→ CaSO4(s)

2.57 × 10−5

→ PbSO4(s)

1.58 × 10−8

Sulphate removal efficiency (%)

100 75

50 25 0 25

50 Time (min)

75

100

(b)

an increase in the calcium concentration to 1620 and 1124 mg L−1 in the treated leachate when using, respectively, CaCl2 and CaO as chemical for sulphate precipitation (Figure 1(b)). The pH of the initial CDDS leachate was around 7.3. The pH of the leachate remained at 7.0–7.6 after addition of CaCl2 , CaCO3 and BaCl2 for sulphate precipitation (Table 3). However, the pH of the CDDS leachate changed from 7.3 to 12.5 and 3.7, when adding CaO and Pb(NO3 )2 , respectively (Table 3). BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 gave the best sulphate removal efficiency and were thus selected for the next step of the experiment.

1800 Calcium (mg L–1)

Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 15:40 01 January 2015

(a)

0

1991

3.2. 1200

Effect of the initial CDDS leachate pH on sulphate precipitation

The effect of pH on sulphate precipitation was investigated using BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 at room temperature (20 ± 3◦ C).

600 0 0

25

50 Time (min)

75

100

Figure 1. Performance of sulphate removal using jar tests as a function of operation time at pH 7: (a) sulphate removal efficiency and (b) calcium concentration. () Blank, () BaCl2 , () CaCl2 , (×) CaCO3, (∗ ) CaO, (•) IOCS, (+) Al2 O3 and (-) Pb(NO3 )2 .

173◦ C, 23◦ C, refractive index of 1.64 and 1.89, and absorption of 0.440 and 0.184 at 633 nm for BaSO4 and PbSO4 , respectively. SVI was measured using Imhoff cones.[11]

3. Results 3.1. Effect of chemicals on sulphate precipitation Figure 1(a) shows the removal of sulphate using different chemicals. BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 show good performance for sulphate precipitation (up to 99.9%), followed by CaO (30%) (Figure 1(a)). The initial sulphate concentration (1516 mg L−1 ) was reduced to less than 2 mg L−1 in the case of BaCl2 (Table 3). From the calculations, around 8 mM or 1010 and 1660 mg L−1 of Ba2+ and Pb2+ remained in the system. Sulphate precipitation using CaCl2 and CaCO3 removed only around 3% of the sulphate (Figure 1(a)). There was

3.2.1. Barium chloride (BaCl2 ) The sulphate removal efficiencies did not change significantly at different pH values (pH 2, 5, 7, 10 and 12): sulphate removal efficiencies of 99.87–99.92% were achieved (Figure 2(a)). The highest sulphate removal efficiency (99.92%) was achieved at pH 7. The calcium concentration did not change significantly (Figure 2(b)). 3.2.2. Lead(II) nitrate (Pb(NO3 )2 ) The sulphate removal efficiencies varied between 98.50% and 99.90% when using Pb(NO3 )2 . The CDDS leachate at pH 2 and 5 yielded the best sulphate removal efficiency of 99.90% (Figure 3(a)). The lowest sulphate removal efficiency (98.50%) was achieved with CDDS leachate at pH 12. The calcium concentrations of the CDDS leachate did not change at all pH values investigated (Figure 3(b)). 3.3.

Precipitate characterization

X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Visual MINTEQ software analysis showed that the precipitate from sulphate precipitation using BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 were solely barite (BaSO4 ) and anglesite (PbSO4 ) (data not shown). The CST of the precipitates using BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 was 6.0 and 6.2 s

1992

P. Kijjanapanich et al. Table 3.

The effect of the chemical type on sulphate precipitation.

Chemicals

Initial pH

Final pH

BaCl2 CaCl2 CaCO3 CaO Pb(NO3 )2

7.31 ± 0.01 7.31 ± 0.01 7.31 ± 0.01 7.31 ± 0.01 7.31 ± 0.01

7.52 ± 0.05 7.35 ± 0.02 7.48 ± 0.04 12.51 ± 0.01 3.69 ± 0.1

Al2 O3 IOCS

7.31 ± 0.01 7.31 ± 0.01

7.60 ± 0.03 6.89 ± 0.03

Initial Precipitation 1516 ± 21 1516 ± 21 1516 ± 21 1516 ± 21 1516 ± 21 Adsorption 1516 ± 21 1516 ± 21

Initial

Final

99%) at pH 4.0 with waste chemicals from academic laboratories. In contrast, no sulphate precipitation was observed when using CaCl2 in this present study. This was mainly due to the initial sulphate concentration used in this study (1516 mg L−1 ) which was near gypsum solubility and much lower than those used in Benatti et al.’s [8] study (142,000–151,000 mg L−1 ). An alternative source of calcium as CaCO3 was also tested. Figure 1(b) shows that CaCO3 did not dissolve (leachate calcium concentration did not increase) due to its low solubility, resulting in almost no sulphate precipitation (3% removal efficiency). The percentage of the sulphate precipitation in this experiment followed the trend in solubility product (Ksp ) values (Table 2), as Ba2+ yielded the highest (Figure 1(a)), whereas Ca2+ (Figure 1(a)) yielded the lowest sulphate removal efficiency. The IOCS shows good performance in many studies for the removal of arsenic.[16–19] However, Figure 1(a) shows that IOCS gave only a poor sulphate removal efficiency (10%). Al2 O3 is widely used for adsorption of many compounds such as phosphate and metals.[20–22] In this study, the highest sulphate removal efficiency via adsorption of 50% was achieved when using Al2 O3 as adsorbent. This is higher than those found in the study of Kawasaki et al.,[23] where the highest sulphate removal efficiency of only 5.8% was obtained at pH 9.7 using calcined aluminium oxide. This is because of the presence of phosphate in the tested solution,[23] which adsorbs better on Al2 O3 than sulphate. In contrast, the higher sulphate removal efficiency might be due to the interference of calcium ions which are present in the CDDS system of this present study.

4.2.

Sulphate precipitation for the CDDS leachate treatment Calcium and acetate contained in the CDDS leachate did not show any significant effect on the sulphate removal efficiency using BaCl2 or Pb(NO3 )2 precipitation. This is due to the low solubility of BaSO4 and PbSO4 . It was

1994

P. Kijjanapanich et al. Table 4.

Chemical sulphate precipitation using calcium and barium salts.

Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 15:40 01 January 2015

Sulphate concentration (mg L−1 ) Chemicals

pH

Initial

Final

Removal efficiency (%)

References

CaO BaS CaO BaS CaO BaCO3 CaCl2 BaCl2 CaCl2 CaCO3 CaO BaCl2

9.3 12.0 12.0 11.9 10.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 7.3 7.5 12.5 2.0 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.0 2.0 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.0

2060 1970 2650 1250 2275 2000 142,000–151,000 142,000–151,000 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516 1516

1970 120 1250 250 2000 200 1000 – 1504 1500 1055 99 >99 >99 >99 >99 >99 99 98

Bosman et al. [13]

Pb(NO3 )2

confirmed by XRD and Visual MINTEQ software that the precipitate from sulphate precipitation using BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 were solely barite (BaSO4 ) and anglesite (PbSO4 ) (data not shown). Barium carbonate (BaCO3 ) and barium sulphide can be alternative chemicals for sulphate precipitation.[9,13,14] BaCO3 can only be used for the removal of sulphate from wastewater that also contains a lot of calcium. This is because calcium is required to remove the carbonate. This chemical is nevertheless not suitable for metal containing leachate treatment, because BaCO3 becomes inactive when coated with metal hydroxide precipitates.[14] Moreover, a problem in separating BaSO4 and CaCO3 , which co-precipitate, has to be overcome.[14] In the case of BaS, a high sulphate removal efficiency can be achieved.[14] However, a sulphide trapping and sulphur recovery unit are required when using BaS. Calcium was found to affect the sulphate sorption onto Al2 O3 . It is possible that the sulphate concentration near the Al2 O3 surface exceeds the sulphate concentration in the CDDS leachate, due to the adsorption of sulphate. When sulphate is continuously adsorbed, calcium contained in the system can precipitate with this adsorbed sulphate as calcium sulphate (gypsum) and attach to Al2 O3 , resulting in reducing both the sulphate and calcium concentration in the system.

4.3.

Chemical versus biological treatment of the CDDS leachate for sulphate removal Table 5 compares the use of chemical and biological sulphate removal processes for the CDDS leachate

Maree et al. [14] Hlabela et al. [9] Benatti et al. [8] This study

Table 5. Comparison between chemical and biological sulphate removal technologies for the CDDS leachate treatment.

Parameter

Chemical sulphate precipitation

Biological sulphate reduction and sulphur recovery

Sulphate removal Direct removal

Convert sulphate to sulphide and sulphide oxidation Time Fast Slow Reactor size Small Large Product Sulphate precipitate H2 S and elemental sulphur Electron donor No need Required Ethanol (sulphate Chemical needed Ba2+ or Pb2+ (expensive) reduction), Oxygen (sulphide oxidation) Sludge Chemical sludge Elemental sulphur and bio-anaerobic sludge

treatment. Chemical precipitation is a well-established technology with ready availability of equipment and many chemicals.[7] Chemical sulphate removal processes require a short time for treatment (minutes time scale) and a low maintenance as compared with biological sulphate reduction processes (hours or days time scale). Therefore, a small reactor volume is required for the chemical sulphate precipitation process. Moreover, chemical sulphate precipitation requires only replenishment of the chemical used. In contrast, continuous supply of electron donor is required in case of biological sulphate reduction and the H2 S is a product which requires a post-treatment.

Environmental Technology

1995

Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 15:40 01 January 2015

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.

Schematic diagrams of (a) silicone membrane extraction reactor and (b) anion exchange membrane reactor.

The chemicals used in chemical precipitation processes can nevertheless be expensive. Besides, although BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 show good performance in sulphate precipitation, Ba2+ and Pb2+ , which remained in the leachate (8 mM) after the precipitation process, are toxic compounds. They can result in an adverse impact on the environment if the leachate is directly discharged without any post-treatment. The minimum amount of BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 required for sulphate removal needs to be investigated in order to minimize the amount of chemical used and reduce the residual toxic compounds in the treated water. Moreover, systems for precipitate separation and appropriate reuse or disposal of the solid phase are necessary.[24] For example, BaSO4 can be converted to BaS, due to reducing conditions created by the conversion of coal to CO and CO2 , using a Muffle furnace as reported in Maree et al.[14] Recent research concentrates on combining chemical precipitation with other treatment methods such as photochemical oxidation,[7] reverse osmosis (RO), membrane extraction and ion exchange resins [25–27] to optimize performance. The combination of chemical sulphate precipitation with extractive or ion exchange membrane

technology (Figure 5) can be an attractive option to separate toxic compounds used for sulphate precipitation from the CDDS leachate or treated wastewater. The membrane process can be used either before or during the precipitation process. The membrane process, such as an RO, extractive or anion exchange membrane, can be used for separation of sulphate from the CDDS leachate. The sulphate contained in the retentate is then precipitated with the chemical either in the same unit or separately in a crystallization unit. The sludge produced from such a process is easy to manage due to the more concentrated starting sulphate concentration. 5. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the feasibility of chemical sulphate precipitation and adsorption for sulphate removal from the CDDS leachate using various chemicals such as barium, lead and aluminium salts. BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 yielded a high sulphate precipitation efficiency (up to 99.9%). The effect of the initial CDDS leachate pH on sulphate precipitation using BaCl2 and Pb(NO3 )2 can be negligible. However, Ba2+ and Pb2+ are toxic compounds,

1996

P. Kijjanapanich et al.

further research is thus needed to investigate new separation technologies for sulphate precipitation to minimize their use or to explore the use of other non-toxic chemicals with a low solubility product of the sulphate salt. Acknowledgements The authors also sincerely thank Smink Afvalverwerking B.V. (Amersfoort, The Netherlands), which provided the construction and demolition debris for this study. The authors would like to thank Dr Eric D. van Hullebusch, the Laboratoire Géomatériaux et Environnement of the Université Paris-Est and the laboratory staff of UNESCO-IHE for the analytical support.

Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 15:40 01 January 2015

Funding This research was supported through the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Environmental Technologies for Contaminated Solids, Soils, and Sediments (ETeCoS3 ) (FPA no. 2010–0009).

References [1] Montero A, Tojo Y, Matsuto T, Yamada M, Asakura H, Ono Y. Gypsum and organic matter distribution in a mixed construction and demolition waste sorting process and their possible removal from outputs. J Hazard Mater. 2010;175:747–753. [2] Townsend T, Tolaymat T, Leo K, Jambeck J. Heavy metals in recovered fines from construction and demolition debris recycling facilities in Florida. Sci Total Environ. 2004;332:1–11. [3] Jang YC, Townsend T. Sulfate leaching from recovered construction and demolition debris fines. Adv Environ Res. 2001;5:203–217. [4] Kijjanapanich P, Annachhatre AP, Esposito G, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PNL. Biological sulfate removal from gypsum contaminated construction and demolition debris. J Environ Manage. 2013;131:82–91. [5] Kijjanapanich P, Do AT, Annachhatre AP, Esposito G, Yeh DH, Lens PNL. Biological sulfate removal from construction and demolition debris leachate: effect of bioreactor configuration. J Hazard Mater. Forthcoming 2013. [6] Kijjanapanich P, Pakdeerattanamint K, Lens PNL, Annachhatre AP. Organic substrates as electron donors in permeable reactive barriers for removal of heavy metals from acid mine drainage. Environ Technol. 2012;33:2635–2644. [7] U.S.EPA. Wastewater technology fact sheet chemical precipitation, E. 832-F00-018 ed. Washington, DC; 2000. [8] Benatti CT, Tavares CRG, Lenzi E. Sulfate removal from waste chemicals by precipitation. J Environ Manage. 2009;90:504–511. [9] Hlabela P, Maree J, Bruinsma D. Barium carbonate process for sulphate and metal removal from mine water. Mine Water Environ. 2007;26:14–22. [10] Snoeyink VL, Jenkins D. Water chemistry. USA: Wiley; 1980. [11] Eaton AD, APHA AWWA WEF. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC; 2005.

[12] FAO. FAO soils bulletin 62: management of gypsiferous soils. Rome; 1990. [13] Bosman DJ, Clayton JA, Maree JP, Adlem CJL. Removal of sulphate from mine water with barium sulphide. Mine Water Environ. 1990;9:149–163. [14] Maree JP, Hlabela P, Nengovhela R, Geldenhuys AJ, Mbhele N, Nevhulaudzi T, Waamders FB. Treatment of mine water for sulphate and metal removal using barium sulphide. Mine Water Environ. 2004;23:195–203. [15] Lens PNL, Visser A, Janssen AJH, Hulshoff Pol LW, Lettinga G. Biotechnological treatment of sulfate rich wastewaters. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 1998;28:41–88. [16] Yuan T, Hu JY, Ong SL, Luo QF, Ng WJ. Arsenic removal from household drinking water by adsorption. J Environ Sci Health Part A: Toxic/Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2002;37:1721–1736. [17] Thirunavukkarasu OS, Viraraghavan T, Subramanian KS. Removal of arsenic in drinking water by iron oxide-coated sand and ferrihydrite – batch studies. Water Qual Res J Canada. 2001;36:55–70. [18] Vaishya RC, Gupta SK. Arsenic(V) removal by sulfate modified iron oxide-coated sand (SMIOCS) in a fixed bed column. Water Qual Res J Canada. 2006;41:157–163. [19] Petrusevski B, Sharma S, Schippers JC, Shordt K. Arsenic in drinking water.. Delft, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre; 2007. [20] Tanada S, Kabayama M, Kawasaki N, Sakiyama T, Nakamura T, Araki M, Tamura T. Removal of phosphate by aluminum oxide hydroxide. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2003; 257:135–140. [21] Genz A, Kornmüller A, Jekel M. Advanced phosphorus removal from membrane filtrates by adsorption on activated aluminium oxide and granulated ferric hydroxide. Water Res. 2004;38:3523–3530. [22] Pavlova V, Sigg L. Adsorption of trace metals on aluminium oxide: a simulation of processes in freshwater systems by close approximation to natural conditions. Water Res. 1988;22:1571–1575. [23] Kawasaki N, Ogata F, Takahashi K, Kabayama M, Kakehi K, Tanada S. Relationship between anion adsorption and physicochemical properties of aluminum oxide. J Health Sci. 2008;54:324–329. [24] Silva AJ, Varesche MB, Foresti E, Zaiat M. Sulphate removal from industrial wastewater using a packedbed anaerobic reactor. Process Biochem. 2002;37:927– 935. [25] Guimarães D, Leão VA. Studies of sulfate ions removal by the polyacrylic anion exchange resin Amberlite IRA458: batch and fixed-bed column studies. In: Rüde TR, Freund A, Wolkersdorfer C. editors, 11th International mine water association congress – mine water – managing the challenges. Aachen: Germany; 2011. p. 337–341. [26] Simkin SM, Lewis DN, Weathers KC, Lovett GM, Schwarz K. Determination of sulfate, nitrate, and chloride in throughfall using ion-exchange resins. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2004;153:343–354. [27] Kratochvil D, Marchant B, Bratty M, Lawrence R. Innovation in ion-exchange technology for the removal of sulfate, in the 69th annual international water conference. San Antonio, TX, USA; 2008.

Chemical sulphate removal for treatment of construction and demolition debris leachate.

Construction and demolition debris (CDD) is a product of construction, renovation or demolition activities. It has a high gypsum content (52.4% of tot...
348KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views