An in situ remediation method was developed based on low-frequency ultrasound, and ozone nanobubbles to remediate heavily contaminated Passaic River sediments. This study evaluated the performance of the method to remediate organic pollutants in sediments. The ultrasound brings soil into suspension and causes desorption of contaminants from sediments due to both sono-physical and sono-chemical effects. Ozone oxidizes the desorbed contaminants to products that are water soluble and benign for removal by treatment and subsequent filtration. Nanobubbles are gas cavities in an aqueous solution with diameters smaller than 1 μm. Ozone delivered as nanobubbles enhanced the mass transfer efficiency with long retention time in the aqueous phase when compared to use of commonly found bubbles. Simulated dredge sediments made of synthetic soil contaminated with a known concentration of p-terphenyl to represent polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons was used to evaluate the proposed technology. Test results showed,with increased sonication power, and longer treatment time, increase in treatment efficiency. The addition of ozone nanobubbles significantly enhanced treatment efficiency when compared with only ultrasound. The prolonged sonication increased the solution temperature and decreased the dissolved ozone and nanobubble concentration. With higher power levels, in addition to the desorption of contaminants, there was breakage of soil particles. Hence, pulsed sonication was used, and ozone was added to the system in stages, before and after sonication. Test results showed a maximum treatment efficiency of 91.50% (initial p-terphenyl 1875 mg/kg) for 1.2 W/cm3 ultrasound power over 4 h of sonication with 2-min pulses, confirmed the removal of organic pollutants in sediments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmetaS.C., and AmetaR. (Eds.). (2018). Advanced oxidation processes for wastewater treatment: emerging green chemical technology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
2.
AndreozziR., CaprioV., InsolaA., and MarottaR. (1999). Advanced oxidation processes (AOP) for water purification and recovery. Catal. Today.
3.
AzevedoA., EtchepareR., CalgarotoS., and RubioJ. (2016). Aqueous dispersions of nanobubbles: Generation, properties and features. Miner. Eng. 94, 29.
4.
BatagodaJ.H., Aluthgun HewageS., and MeegodaJ.N. (2019). Remediation of heavy-metal-contaminated sediments in USA using ultrasound and ozone nanobubbles. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 14, 130.
5.
BatagodaJ.H., HewageS.D.A., and MeegodaJ.N. (2018). Nano-ozone bubbles for drinking water treatment. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 14, 57.
6.
Berger, L. (2017). Community Involvement Plan for the Lower Passaic River. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 112 pp. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/02/538469.pdf (accessed June1, 2020).
7.
BunkinN.F., YurchenkoS.O., SuyazovN.V., and ShkirinA.V. (2012). Structure of the nanobubble clusters of dissolved air in liquid media. J. Biol. Phys. 38, 121.
ChenD. (2012). Applications of Ultrasound in Water and Wastewater Treatment. In: ChenD., SharmaS.K., and MudhooA. (Ed.). Handbook on applications of ultrasound: sonochemistry for sustainability. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
10.
ChungH., and KamonM. (2005). Ultrasonically enhanced electrokinetic remediation for removal of Pb and phenanthrene in contaminated soils. Eng. Geol. 77, 233.
11.
CollingsA.F., FarmerA.D., GwanP.B., PintosA.P.S., and LeoC.J. (2006). Processing contaminated soils and sediments by high power ultrasound. Miner. Eng. 19, 450.
12.
ConklinA. (1995). Secrets of clay: Why is it most stubborn and difficult soil type to clean up?Soil Groundw Cleanup.
13.
CotillasS., LacasaE., Herraiz-CarbonéM., SáezC., CañizaresP., and RodrigoM.A. (2020). Innovative photoelectrochemical cell for the removal of CHCs from soil washing wastes. Sep. Purif. Technol.
14.
DietrichM., AndaluriG., SmithR.C., and SuriR. (2017). Combined ozone and ultrasound for the removal of 1,4-dioxane from drinking water. Ozone Sci. Eng.
15.
EffendiA.J., WulandariM., and SetiadiT. (2019). Ultrasonic application in contaminated soil remediation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health.
16.
FalcigliaP.P., MancusoG., ScanduraP., and VagliasindiF.G.A. (2015). Effective decontamination of low dielectric hydrocarbon-polluted soils using microwave heating: Experimental investigation and modelling for in situ treatment.Sep. Purif. Technol.
17.
FengD., and AldrichC. (2000). Sonochemical treatment of simulated soil contaminated with diesel. Adv. Environ. Res. 4, 103.
18.
FloresR., BlassG., and DomínguezV. (2007). Soil remediation by an advanced oxidative method assisted with ultrasonic energy. J. Hazard. Mater. 140, 399.
19.
GlazeW.H., KangJ.-W., and ChapinD.H. (1987). The Chemistry of water treatment processes involving ozone, hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet radiation. Ozone Sci. Eng. 9, 335.
20.
GoiA., and ViisimaaM. (2015). Integration of ozonation and sonication with hydrogen peroxide and persulfate oxidation for polychlorinated biphenyls-contaminated soil treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.
21.
GreenbergA.E., ClesceriL.S., and EatonA.D., American Public Health Association., American Water Works Association., and Water Environment Federation. (1992). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
22.
HatanakaS., YasuiK., KozukaT., TuziutiT., and MitomeH. (2002). Influence of bubble clustering on multibubble sonoluminescence. Ultrasonics, 40, 655.
23.
HatzingerP.B., and AlexanderM. (1995). Effect of aging of chemicals in soil on their biodegradability and extractability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29, 537.
24.
Hewa BatagodaJ. (2018). Decontamination of the Passaic River sediments using ultrasound with ozone nano-bubbles (Doctoral dissertation, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ). NJIT Campus Respository. https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/dissertations/1368/ (accessed June1, 2020).
25.
HoffmannM. (1996). Application of ultrasonic irradiation for the degradation of chemical contaminants in water. Ultrason. Sonochem. 3, S163.
26.
HoignéJ., and BaderH. (1983). Rate constants of reactions of ozone with organic and inorganic compounds in water—I. Water Res. 17, 173.
27.
HungH.-M., and HoffmannM.R. (1999). Kinetics and mechanism of the sonolytic degradation of chlorinated hydrocarbons: Frequency effects. J. Phys. Chem. A, 103, 2734.
28.
JohnsonP.N., and DavisR.A. (1996). Diffusivity of ozone in water. J. Chem. Eng. Data, 41, 1485.
29.
KavanaughM.C., and TrussellR.R. (1980). Design of aeration towers to strip volatile contaminants from drinking water. Journal-American Water Works Association, 72, 684.
30.
KimY.U., and WangM.C. (2003). Effect of ultrasound on oil removal from soils. Ultrasonics, 41, 539.
31.
KrishnanS., RawindranH., SinnathambiC.M., and LimJ.W. (2017). Comparison of various advanced oxidation processes used in remediation of industrial wastewater laden with recalcitrant pollutants. IOP Conf. Series Mater. Sci. Eng.
32.
LemaireJ., BuèsM., KabecheT., HannaK., and SimonnotM.O. (2013). Oxidant selection to treat an aged PAH contaminated soil by in situ chemical oxidation. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.
33.
LiJ., SongX., HuG., and ThringR.W. (2013). Ultrasonic desorption of petroleum hydrocarbons from crude oil contaminated soils. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A, 48, 1378.
34.
LundstedtS. (2003). Analysis of PAHs and their transformations products in contaminated soil and remedial processes (Doctoral dissertation, Kemi).
35.
MackayD., ShiuW.Y., and MaK.C.(1997). Illustrated handbook of physical-chemical properties of environmental fate for organic chemicals (Vol. 5). CRC press. PubChem Home Page. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (accessed March17, 2020).
36.
MasonT. (2004). Sonic and ultrasonic removal of chemical contaminants from soil in the laboratory and on a large scale. Ultrason. Sonochem. 11, 205.
37.
MastenS.J., and HoignéJ. (1992). Comparison of ozone and hydroxyl radical-induced oxidation of chlorinated hydrocarbons in water. Ozone Sci. Eng. 14, 197.
38.
MeegodaJ.N., Aluthgun HewageS., and BatagodaJ.H. (2018). Stability of nanobubbles. Environ. Eng. Sci. 35.
39.
MeegodaJ.N, Aluthgun HewageS., and BatagodaJ.H. (2019). Application of the diffused double layer theory to nanobubbles. Langmuir, 0:null-null.
40.
MeegodaJ.N., and MartinL. (2019). In-situ determination of specific surface area of clays. Geotech. Geol. Eng.
41.
MeegodaJ.N., and PereraR. (2001). Ultrasound to decontaminate heavy metals in dredged sediments. J. Hazard. Mater.
42.
MeegodaJ.N., and VeerawatK. (2002). Ultrasound to decontaminate organics in dredged sediments. Soil Sediment Contam.
43.
NirmalkarN., PacekA.W., and BarigouM. (2018). On the existence and stability of bulk nanobubbles. Langmuir, 34, 10964.
44.
O'MahonyM.M., DobsonA.D.W., BarnesJ.D., and SingletonI. (2006). The use of ozone in the remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Chemosphere.
45.
OhgakiK., KhanhN.Q., JodenY., TsujiA., and NakagawaT. (2010). Physicochemical approach to nanobubble solutions. Chem. Eng. Science. 65, 1296.
46.
PavlostathisS.G., and MathavanG.N. (1992). Desorption kinetics of selected volatile organic compounds from field contaminated soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26, 532.
47.
PetersC.A., KnightesC.D., and BrownD.G. (1999). Long-term composition dynamics of PAH-containing NAPLs and implications for risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol.
48.
RochaI.M.V., SilvaK.N.O., SilvaD.R., Martínez-HuitleC.A., and SantosE.V. (2019). Coupling electrokinetic remediation with phytoremediation for depolluting soil with petroleum and the use of electrochemical technologies for treating the effluent generated. Sep. Purif. Technol.
49.
SeddonJ.R.T., LohseD., DuckerW.A., and CraigV.S.J. (2012). A deliberation on nanobubbles at surfaces and in bulk. Chemphyschem, 13, 2179.
50.
ShresthaR.A., PhamT.D., and SillanpääM. (2009). Effect of ultrasound on removal of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) from different types of soils. J. Hazard Mater.
51.
SonY. (2015). Advanced oxidation processes using ultrasound technology for water and wastewater treatment. In: Handbook of Ultrasonics and Sonochemistry. Singapore, Singapore: Springer, pp. 1–22.
52.
SpeightJ.G. (2018). Reaction Mechanisms in Environmental Engineering: Analysis and Prediction. Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
53.
StaehelinJ., and HoigneJ. (1982). Decomposition of ozone in water: Rate of initiation by hydroxide ions and hydrogen peroxide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16, 676.
54.
TiwariB.K. (2015). Ultrasound: A clean, green extraction technology. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 71, 100.
55.
UchidaT., LiuS., EnariM., OshitaS., YamazakiK., and GoharaK. (2016). Effect of NaCl on the lifetime of micro- and nanobubbles. Nanomaterials, 6, 31.
U.S. EPA. (2016). Record of Decision: Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
WesterhoffP., SongR., AmyG., and MinearR. (1997). Applications of ozone decomposition models. Ozone Sci. Eng. 19, 55.
60.
WulandariM., and EffendiA.J. (2018). Effect of frequency and ratio solid liquid on ultrasonic remediation of petroleum contaminated soil. 020120.
61.
ZhangJ., LiJ., ThringR., and LiuL. (2013). Application of ultrasound and Fenton's reaction process for the treatment of oily sludge. Procedia Environ. Sci. 18, 686.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
