Environmental assessment on electrokinetic remediation of multimetal-contaminated site: a case study
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Do-Hyung Kim (1)
Jong-Chan Yoo (2)
Bo-Ram Hwang (2)
Jung-Seok Yang (3)
Kitae Baek (2) (4) - 关键词：Environmental assessment ; Electrokinetic remediation ; Multimetal ; contaminated site ; Green and sustainable remediation
- 刊名：Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- 出版年：2014
- 出版时间：May 2014
- 年：2014
- 卷：21
- 期：10
- 页码：6751-6758
- 全文大小：
- 参考文献：1. Acar YB, Gale RJ, Alshawabkeh AN, Marks RE, Puppala S, Bricka M, Parker R (1995) Electrokinetic remediation: basics and technology status. J Hazard Mater 40:117-37 CrossRef
2. Amrate S, Akretche DE, Innocent C, Seta P (2005) Removal of Pb from a calcareous soil during EDTA-enhanced electrokinetic extraction. Sci Total Environ 349:56-6 CrossRef
3. Bayer P, Finkel M (2006) Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies. J Contam Hydrol 83:171-99 CrossRef
4. Cadotte M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2007) Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. Int J Life Cycle Ass 12:239-51 CrossRef
5. Cho JM, Kim KJ, Chung KY, Hyun S, Baek K (2009) Restoration of saline soil in cultivated land using electrokinetic process. Sep Sci Technol 44:2371-384 CrossRef
6. Cho JM, Park SY, Baek K (2010) Electrokinetic restoration of saline agricultural lands. J Appl Electrochem 40:1085-093 CrossRef
7. Gent DB, Bricka RM, Alshawabkeh AN, Larson SL, Fabian G, Granade S (2004) Bench- and field-scale evaluation of chromium and cadmium extraction by electrokinetics. J Hazard Mater 110:53-2 CrossRef
8. Harbottle MJ, Al-Tabbaa A, Evans CW (2007) A comparison of the technical sustainability of in situ stabilisation/solidification with disposal to landfill. J Hazard Mater 141:430-40 CrossRef
9. Higgins MR, Olson TM (2009) Life-cycle case study comparison of permeable reactive barrier versus pump-and-treat remediation. Environ Sci Technol 43:9432-438 CrossRef
10. Hu X, Zhu J, Ding Q (2011) Environmental life-cycle comparisons of two polychlorinated biphenyl remediation technologies: incineration and base catalyzed decomposition. J Hazard Mater 191:258-68 CrossRef
11. Institute BM (2011). SiteWise?/sup> version 2 user guide
12. ITRC (2011) Green and sustainable remediation: state of the science and practice, The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Green and Sustainable Remediation Team
13. Kim BK, Park GY, Jeon EK, Jung JM, Jung HB, Ko SH, Baek K (2013a) Field application of in situ electrokinetic remediation for As-, Cu-, and Pb-contaminated paddy soil. Water Air Soil Pollut 224:1698 CrossRef
14. Kim DH, Jeon CS, Baek K, Ko SH, Yang JS (2009) Electrokinetic remediation of fluorine-contaminated soil: conditioning of anolyte. J Hazard Mater 161:565-69 CrossRef
15. Kim DH, Cho JM, Baek K (2011) Pilot-scale / ex situ electrokinetic restoration of saline greenhouse soil. J Soils Sediments 11:947-58 CrossRef
16. Kim DH, Jo SU, Choi JH, Yang JS, Baek K (2012) Hexagonal two dimensional electrokinetic systems for restoration of saline agricultural lands: a pilot study. Chem Eng J 198-99:110-21 CrossRef
17. Kim DH, Hwang BR, Moon DH, Kim YS, Baek K (2013b) Environmental assessment on a soil washing process of a Pb-contaminated shooting range site: a case study. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:8417-424 CrossRef
18. Kim DH, Jo SU, Yoo JC, Baek K (2013c) / Ex situ pilot scale electrokinetic restoration of saline soil using pulsed current. Sep Purif Technol 120:282-88 CrossRef
19. Lee YJ, Choi JH, Lee HG, Ha TH, Bae JH (2011) Pilot-scale study on in situ electrokinetic removal of nitrate from greenhouse soil. Sep Purif Technol 79:254-63 CrossRef
20. Lemming G (2010) Environmental assessment of contaminated site remediation in a life cycle perspective, Technical University of Denmark
21. Lemming G, Hauschild M, Bjerg P (2010a) Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. Int J Life Cycle Ass 15:115-27 CrossRef
22. Lemming G, Hauschild MZ, Chambon J, Binning PJ, Bulle CC, Margni M, Bjerg PL (2010b) Environmental impacts of remediation of a Trichloroethene-contaminated site: life cycle assessment of remediation alternatives. Environ Sci Technol 44:9163-169 CrossRef
23. MOE (1995). Soil Environment Conservation Act
24. MOE (2007). Guideline for contaminated soil remediation methods
25. MOE (2008). Clean Air Conservation Act
26. MOE (2012). National LCI DB. In: http://www.edp.or.kr/lcidb/lcidb/lcidb_intro.asp (Hrsg.)
27. Morais SA, Delerue-Matos C (2010) A perspective on LCA application in site remediation services: critical review of challenges. J Hazard Mater 175:12-2 CrossRef
28. Page CA, Diamond ML, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999) Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: case study. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:801-10 CrossRef
29. Ryu BG, Yang JS, Kim DH, Baek K (2010) Pulsed electrokinetic removal of Cd and Zn from fine-grained soil. J Appl Electrochem 40:1039-047 CrossRef
30. Sanscartier D, Margni M, Reimer K, Zeeb B (2010) Comparison of the secondary environmental impacts of three remediation alternatives for a diesel-contaminated site in Northern Canada. Soil Sediment Contam 19:338-55 CrossRef
31. Suèr P, Nilsson-P?ledal S, Norrman J (2004) LCA for site remediation: a literature review. Soil Sediment Contam 13:415-25 CrossRef
32. Suer P, Andersson-Sk?ld Y (2011) Biofuel or excavation?—life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenerg 35:969-81 CrossRef
33. Toffoletto L, Deschênes L, Samson R (2005) LCA of / ex-situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil (11?pp). Int J Life Cycle Ass 10:406-16 CrossRef
34. USEPA (2008a) Incorporating sustainable practices into site remediation, EPA 542/F/08/002
35. USEPA (2008b) Green remediation: incorporating sustainable environmental practices into remediation of contaminated site, EPA 542/R/08/002
36. Volkwein S, Hurtig HW, Kl?pffer W (1999) Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation. Int J Life Cycle Ass 4:263-74 CrossRef
37. Zhou DM, Cang L, Alshawabkeh AN, Wang YJ, Hao XZ (2006) Pilot-scale electrokinetic treatment of a Cu contaminated red soil. Chemosphere 63:964-71 CrossRef - 作者单位：Do-Hyung Kim (1)
Jong-Chan Yoo (2)
Bo-Ram Hwang (2)
Jung-Seok Yang (3)
Kitae Baek (2) (4)
1. Department of Civil and Environmental Sciences, Korea Army Academy at Yeong-Cheon, 495 Hoguk-ro, Gogyeong-meyon, Yeongcheon-si, Gyeongbuk, 770-849, Republic of Korea
2. Department of Environmental Engineering, Chonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju, Jeollabuk-do, 561-756, Republic of Korea
3. Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), Gangneung Institute, Gangneung, Ganwon-do, 210-340, Republic of Korea
4. Department of Bioactive Material Sciences, Chonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju, Jeollabuk-do, 561-756, Republic of Korea - ISSN：1614-7499
文摘
In this study, an environmental assessment on an electrokinetic (EK) system for the remediation of a multimetal-contaminated real site was conducted using a green and sustainable remediation (GSR) tool. The entire EK process was classified into major four phases consisting of remedial investigations (RIs), remedial action construction (RAC), remedial action operation (RAO), and long-term monitoring (LTM) for environmental assessment. The environmental footprints, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, total energy used, air emissions of criteria pollutants, such as NOx, SOx, and PM10, and water consumption, were calculated, and the relative contribution in each phase was analyzed in the environmental assessment. In the RAC phase, the relative contribution of the GHG emissions, total energy used, and PM10 emissions were 77.3, 67.6, and 70.4?%, respectively, which were higher than those of the other phases because the material consumption and equipment used for system construction were high. In the RAO phase, the relative contributions of water consumption and NOx and SOx emissions were 94.7, 85.2, and 91.0?%, respectively, which were higher than those of the other phases, because the water and electricity consumption required for system operation was high. In the RIs and LTM phases, the environmental footprints were negligible because the material and energy consumption was less. In conclusion, the consumable materials and electrical energy consumption might be very important for GSR in the EK remediation process, because the production of consumable materials and electrical energy consumption highly affects the GHG emissions, total energy used, and air emissions such as NOx and SOx.