Modified Oyster Shell Powder with iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate to improve arsenic uptake in solution and in contaminated soils

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1943399/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Modified Oyster Shell Powder with iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate to improve arsenic uptake in solution and in contaminated soils

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1943399/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Arsenic is a metalloid whose presence can be due to natural or anthropological causes. It is considered as a toxic chemical that puts human health at high risk. In this study, we evaluated a novel modified oyster shell (MOS) that was coated with iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate using two different proportions through batch sorption experiments in an arsenic solution and in arsenic-contaminated soils. The soils contaminated with Arsenic were extracted from a contaminated site in Cheonan, South Korea and the average arsenic concentration of the soil collected was 136.28 mg/kg. Different doses of oyster shell, and modified oyster was used to understand the effect of the addition of iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate via a sorption test with 50 g of contaminated soil, pot cultivation test with 150 g and column percolation test with 150 g. The authors observed a comparable improvement of Arsenic stabilization from 10–60% with the addition of iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate to oyster shell.

soil remediation

potentially toxic metals

Arsenic pollution

Oyster shell

soil pollution

soil stabilization

Anthropogenic pollution of Arsenic can be traced back to mining and other industrial activities, as well as pesticide and herbicide use in agricultural soils (Kahakachchi et al., 2004). Besides anthropogenic pollution, Arsenic can also be found naturally, e.g., in many subsurface drinking water aquifers (Oremland & Stolz, 2003). Arsenic, similar to Lead, Copper, Zinc, and Cadmium, is a potentially toxic metal, because even trace amounts of Arsenic can have a carcinogenic effect on humans (Mondal et al., 2006). The mode of toxicity varies depending on the chemical form of Arsenic. Arsenic exists in four oxidation states: Arsenate [As (V)], the predominant form of inorganic arsenic in aerobic aqueous environments; and trivalent arsenite [As (III)] in anoxic environments (Bilici Baskan & Pala, 2011; Kahakachchi et al., 2004; Oremland & Stolz, 2003; Yuan & Chiang, 2008). As(III) is 10 to 60 times more toxic than As(V) (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2018; Oremland & Stolz, 2003). Arsenate impedes the oxidative phosphorylation, whereas Arsenite impairs the function of many proteins by binding to sulfhydryl groups.

Arsenic is present in the soil as Arsenate and Arsenite (the inorganic forms), whereas monomethyl arsenic (MMA) and dimethyl arsenic (DMA) can be traced at lower amounts (Chowdhury, 2015). The presence of Arsenic in natural waters and soils can be attributed to the presence of iron (hydr)oxides because Fe-oxides strongly sorb Arsenate and Arsenite onto their surfaces, forming inner-sphere complexes (Suzuki et al., 2015; Violante et al., 2010). Arsenic can occur naturally in the soil in the range of 1–40 mg/kg (U.S. EPA, 2011; WHO, 1996). Regardless of the form of Arsenic, its concentration in soils needs to be controlled due to its potential toxicity. Canada has set a limit of 12 mg/kg for Arsenic in agricultural soils, whereas Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, and the UK have a cap of 20 mg/kg (Chen et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). Environmental Protection Agency of the USA has limited the Arsenic concentration to 5.0 mg/L or 100 mg/kg for hazardous wastes. In South Korea, for an industrial land use area, Arsenic concentrations in the soils should be less than 50 mg/kg. Although the regulations are established, the arsenic contamination around the abandoned mines in South Korea (Ko et al., 2012) is still an issue that needs immediate response.

Although the remediation of Arsenic-contaminated soil and Arsenic-contaminated water is extensively studied, solidification and stabilization technique (Hunce et al., 2012; Kargar et al., 2015; Xia et al., 2019) has captured the attention of researchers due to the benefits associated with the technology. Different stabilizer compounds, such as limestone, steel mill slag, and granular ferric hydroxide (Ko et al., 2012), have been investigated. Among them, Zeolite (Babel & Kurniawan, 2003; Bilici Baskan & Pala, 2011; Pan et al., 2022) and Oyster shell (OS) powder (Moon et al., 2013; Ok et al., 2010; Torres-Quiroz et al., 2021) were effective in stabilizing potentially toxic metals, such as Pb, Cu, Cd, and Zn. However, OS powder was not effective in stabilizing Arsenic-contaminated soils (Lim et al., 2009). Many researchers have been investigating different chemical agents that can improve the performance of binding agents by adding oxidizing chemicals. Mondal et al. (2006) investigated the performance of Zeolite with chlorine and potassium permanganate (Mondal et al., 2006), and others (Bilici Baskan & Pala, 2011) observed that NaCl and FeCl₃ solutions improved the performance of Zeolite (Clinoptilolite). Moreover, some researchers Smedley and Kinniburgh (2002) demonstrated that Ca increased the As (V) adsorption at high pH, and others Jang et al. (2016) showed that phosphate (PO₄^-3) improved Arsenic adsorption. Fe (III) has a high affinity for inorganic Arsenic. Thus, its use in the stabilization of Arsenic-contaminated soils has attracted the attention of scientific communities. Hydrous ferric oxide was the most effective compound for removing Arsenic (III) and Arsenic (V) from aqueous solutions because of the high specific area and iso-electric point (Huo et al., 2017). However, the removal of Arsenic was affected by the pH, in fact in soils, it was found that Arsenic sorption was less in Alkaline soils (pH range > 11). Most oxyanions including Arsenate become less sorbed when the pH increases (Cui et al., 2010; Dzombak & Morel, 1990), as a result it increases the arsenic mobility in alkaline soils. Therefore, the binders seek to reduce the mobility of Arsenic.

A large amount of oyster shells is being discarded as waste from various industries, and it is well known that the decomposition of OS emits toxic gases(Bonnard et al., 2020; Lim et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2018; Ramakrishna et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2019). The calcination properties of OS provides good characteristics for its use as a good alternative and a low-cost binder. However, calcium carbonate tends to increase the pH and has not shown good performance in controlling arsenic contamination. Considering these factors, this study aimed to enhance the performance of the OS powder by adding low doses of Fe (2) to converted it into a new value-added product.

2.1 Materials

2.1.1 As-Contaminated soil

Arsenic-contaminated soil was collected from an industrial area in Seobuk-gu, Cheonan, in South Korea. The chemical characterization of the soil indicated the presence of other toxic metals, such as Pb, Cu, and Zn (Table S1) but at lower concentrations. The soil was classified as well-graded sand (SW) with a fine content lower than 5% through a particle size analysis. All the soil samples were air-dried and passed through a 2 mm mesh prior to the preliminary analysis and experiments. When extracted with aqua regia solution, the soil had an initial Arsenic concentration of 136.28 mg/kg.

2.1.2 Binders

OS powder was obtained from a domestic supplier (Jisan Industrial Co., Ltd., Busan, Korea). It was being used as an agricultural amendment. The XRF analysis revealed that the OS contained 89.3% CaCO₃ (Table 1). Then, the authors modified the OS (the modified OS will be referred to as MOS from here onwards) by mixing 5 g of OS (after passing through 0.15 mm sieve) with 40 ml of 0.25 M Iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO₄.7H₂O) solution in 45 ml conical tubes. The mixture in the tubes were combined using a rotary machine for 24 h at 50 rpm. Similarly, another modified OS sample was prepared with a 0.05 M FeSO₄.7H₂O solution (this sample will be called MOS(R)). After mixing, the mixture was centrifuged for 10 min. The separated soil was rinsed with DI water and filtered through a 45 µm membrane filter. The retained soil was oven dried at 60°C for 24 h. The adsorption characteristics of MOS and MOS(R) were evaluated using prepared Arsenic (III) solutions.

Table 1

Chemical compounds on the soil, oyster shell powder, and modified MOS obtained through XRF analysis.
	C.E.C.	Matrix	SiO₂	Al₂O₃	Fe₂O₃	CaO	MgO	Na₂O	K₂O	P₂O₅	TiO₂	SO₃	Others
Soil			60.790	24.640	3.100	2.500	2.190	1.140	4.180	0.540	0.590	0.320	0.010
OS	4.810		2.270	0.628	0.517	94.17	0.545	0.460	0.156	0.375	-	0.511	0.368
MOS	11.590	44.500	1.640	0.470	10.58	34.72	0.325	0.280	0.070	0.292	-	7.018	0.105
MOS(R)	-	38.800	2.820	0.851	2.421	52.72	0.605	0.623	0.114	0.249	0.040	0.704	0.053

2.2 Characterization of the materials and binders

XRF analysis was performed to characterize the chemical compounds of the Arsenic-contaminated soil and the binders using S8 Tiger (Bruker, Germany). XRD analysis was conducted using S4 Pioneer by using CuKα radiation (Bruker AXS, Germany) (Fig S1). FTIR analysis was performed to determine whether new functional groups had been generated by the addition of OS and MOS. The samples were scanned from 600 cm^− 1 to 4000 cm^− 1 using Vertex-80v-Bruker, Germany (Fig S2). The cation exchange capacity was measured using Ammonium acetate method by NICEM (National Instrumentation Center for Environmental Management). Finally, SEM-EDS Field-Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (SIGMA) with EDS analysis was performed on the binder (Fig S3).

2.3 Methods

a) Batch experiments: Sorption and desorption with Arsenic solution

Batch sorption experiments were performed on OS, MOS, and MOS(R) to understand the Arsenic sorption by the OS, MOS, and MOS(R). A standard Arsenic solution at 1000 mg/L (As₂O₃・NaCl_(0.05%)・HCl), which was purchased from Kanto Chemicals Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan, was used to make 5, 25, and 50 mg/L Arsenic solutions. Initially, OS and MOS were mixed with Arsenic solutions separately at a solid to liquid ratio (S/L ratio) of 1/20 to observe their adsorption capacity. However, the authors later decided to reduce the S/L ratio, because the adsorption was more than 99% for all the Arsenic concentrations (Fig. 1). Therefore, authors decided to reduce the S/L ratio to 1/100 to observe changes in the adsorption characteristics of MOS and MOS(R). The Arsenic solutions were mixed with the OS, MOS, and MOS(R) using an orbital shaker for 2 h at 150 rpm. The mixed samples were then centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min and filtered through mixed cellulose ester membrane of 0.45 µm pore size. The pH values were measured before and after binder addition for all the samples using a pH meter (Thermo Scientific Orion Series – Model Meter 121900 (USA)), as shown in Table S2. The solid retained on the filter was oven dried for 24 h at 60 ° C before Arsenic extraction using M-3 extraction solution.

b) Batch experiments: Sorption Test in Arsenic contaminated soil

The Arsenic-contaminated soil (50 g) was mixed with DI water with an S/L ratio of 1:3, and this was used as the control sample. To evaluate the adsorption efficiency of the binders (OS, MOS, and MOS(R)), binders were added (3 and 5% of the total weight) to the Arsenic-contaminated soil. All samples were agitated in an orbital shaker at 150 rpm for 2 h in accordance with methods used previously (Torres-Quiroz et al., 2021). The supernatant fluid was extracted for Arsenic analysis through ICP-AES (ICP-730ES, Australia). The solid phase, the control samples, and stabilized soil were oven dried at 60°C for 24 h. Finally, TCLP (U.S. EPA, 1992) and Mehlich-3 (Mehlich, 1984) single extraction methods were used to extract the Arsenic that was absorbed by the binder.

c) Pot cultivation test

For the pot cultivation test, 150 g of arsenic-contaminated soil was mixed with each binder at different proportion (3% and 5% w/w of OS or 3% and 5% of w/w MOS). The soil moisture content was maintained at 30% of the total weight. The exposure to sunlight was prevented by keeping samples in a dark and covered environment (inside polypropylene amber wide neck round bottles). Each week, a small portion of the control and treated soils was extracted and oven dried for 24 h. Then, Arsenic was extracted using Mehlich extraction. Finally, the concentration in mg/L was determined by ICP-AES analysis. The test was conducted in two stages: first, the soils were collected in 2020 (S-I); second, the soils were collected in 2021(S-II) from the field.

d) Column percolation test

Dynamic flow adsorption experiments or column percolation tests were conducted using the methods suggested by Naka et al. (2016) and Yasutaka et al. (2017). The columns made of polypropylene (5 cm diameter and 30 cm length) were packed with the dried Arsenic-contaminated soil without binder (S) and the treated soil with the binder (SB). The filled soil mass was 790 ± 10 g, which was packed as five layers of 160 g. The up-flow column experiments were conducted in triplicate for each case S and SB. Deionized water (DI) was used as an eluent solution at an up-flow rate of 0.6 ml/min. After 16 h, samples were collected. The efficiency of the binder in binding Arsenic in the soil was evaluated by measuring the concentration of Arsenic released from the eluent samples, which were collected at liquid to solid ratios of 0.1,0.2,0.5,1,5, 7.5, and 10. The samples were taken to the ICP-AES to determine the Arsenic concentration. Additionally, the samples of S and SB, were dried, and 20 g of the sample was assessed for Arsenic using sequential extraction Wenzel method (Wenzel et al., 2001).

3.1 Chemical changes after modification of Oyster Shell

The chemical compounds observed in the X-Ray Fluorescence analysis of the Arsenic-contaminated soil and the binders are presented in Table 1. The Arsenic-contaminated soil consisted of SiO₂ and Al₂O₃. In the case of the binders, OS consisted of 94.17% CaO, whereas MOS had only 34.72% of CaO. The authors observed 0.52% Fe₂O₃ in OS, 10.59% in MOS, and 2.42% in MOS(R). The authors detected a matrix that amounted to 44.5% of the soil treated with MOS FT-IR analysis of the same and reported C-O bonding and a reduction of C-O-H in plane bending in Carbohydrates (Ca-O) for both binders (Fig S2) (Huh et al., 2016). The texture of the binders observed by SEM analysis is presented in Fig S3. A matrix formed in MOS and MOS(R). Thus, a less scattered/crystalized structure for both MOS and MOS(R) was observed.

3.2 Batch experiments: Sorption test

The OS under a solid-to-liquid rate of 1:20 sorbed less than 8% of Arsenic, which corroborated the findings of Lim et al. (2009). However, after the modification, the efficiency reached 99.9% (Fig. 1). As it was impossible to determine the maximum sorption capacity for Arsenic_(III) under a solid-to-liquid ratio of 1:20, the authors resorted a lower solid-to-liquid ratio (1:100). The MOS sorbed 97.18% of Arsenic from 5 ppm (4.99 mg/L) Arsenic solution and 68.17% from a 50 ppm (52.67 mg/L) Arsenic solution. The MOS(R) also demonstrated better performance compared with OS, but this was less efficient than MOS; 73.62% and 29.95% of Arsenic was removed from 5 and 50 ppm Arsenic solutions, respectively. The Freundlich isotherms illustrated in Fig. 2 showed that the performance of MOS(R) was intermediate, i.e., between the performances of OS and MOS. The XRF analysis conducted for the binders (MOS and MOS(R)) after mixing with the 25 ppm Arsenic solution revealed 0.06% of As₂O₃ in both the binders. Moreover, the XRD analysis showed the presence of Cu₃AsS₄ when MOS was used as a binder. Arsenic_(III) in the solution was oxidized to form Arsenic_(V) ( Cu₃AsS₄). Additionally, the desorption test performed on the solid-phase of MOS after the sorption test using M-3 extraction method was used to measure the bioavailability of the Arsenic. The authors observed that the desorption rate was lower than 1%. This suggested that the binding strength was strong. Thus, bound Arsenic will not be readily bioavailable (Table 2).

Table 2

Desorption test results for MOS
Initial concentration of Arsenic-solution		Adsorption Test			Desorption Test
Initial concentration of Arsenic-solution		Equilibrium concentration of Arsenic (mg/L) (liquid phase)	Arsenic-absorbed by mass of binder (solid phase)	Adsorption rate (%)	M-3 extraction Arsenic (mg/L)	Desorption rate (%)
As50	52.7	0.147	52.553	99.72	0.53	1.00
As25	26.6	0.052	26.548	99.81	0.20	0.77
As5	4.99	0.005	4.985	99.89	0.04	0.74

3.3 Arsenic binding capacity in the soil

Binder efficiency in soil decreased by 55.7% with the addition of MOS (just 5% of the total weight). In contrast, the addition of OS resulted in just a 10.4% reduction in the Arsenic leached by the soil. These figures corresponded to the leaching tests conducted using M-3 extraction solution, thereby demonstrating better extraction efficiencies compared with TCLP (Fig. 3 and Table 3). The addition of FeSO₄.7H₂O may lead to increased levels of Fe and S. Thus, the concentrations of Fe and S were measured in the leachate. The addition of FeSO₄.7H₂O had no impact on the Fe concentration. In fact, the Fe concentration in the leachate did not change significantly for soils of MOS and MOSR compared with the soil treated with just OS (Fig S4). By contrast, the addition of the amendment drastically increased the S concentration in the leachate. The mobilization of S can be attributed to the repulsion of S by the negative charge of the soil particles. The DI water, TCLP, and M-3 extraction agents had pH values of 6.50, 2.88, and 2.5, respectively. The pH of the solution did not change much when Arsenic-contaminated soil was mixed with MOS-treated soil, although a slight increment could be observed for OS-treated soil. When OS was used, the pH changed from 6.50 to 8.39 (Fig S5), which may have affected the mobility of S.

Table 3

Adsorption capacity of the binder on soil treatment
		DI	M-3	TCLP
Arsenic-soil	Initial concentration of liquid phase (Co) Arsenic-soil	0.018	0.395	0.110
OS	Equilibrium concentration of liquid phase Soil treated with 5% of binder - C (mg/L)	0.015	0.354	0.084
	Arsenic Adsorbed by mass of the binder	0.003	0.041	0.026
	Adsorption rate (%)	16.7%	10.4%	23.6%
MOS	Equilibrium concentration of liquid phase Soil treated with 5% of binder - C (mg/L)	0.007	0.175	0.060
	Arsenic Adsorbed by mass of the binder	0.011	0.220	0.050
	Adsorption rate (%)	61.1%	55.7%	45.5%

The Canadian regulations stipulated that the Fe concentration in irrigation water used for agricultural purposes should not exceed 5 mg/L (CCME, 2020). In the US, secondary drinking water should have less than 0.3 mg/L of Iron (U.S. EPA, 2011). The authors were not able to find regulations for S. The pot cultivation test suggested that over a period of 3 weeks. The arsenic concentration decreased in the leachate compared with the initial concentration in the soil without any binders. Adding 5% of MOS resulted in a binding efficiency of 66.9%, whereas 3% of dosage had an efficiency of 54.0% (S-II) (Fig. 4). The performance of OS in the S-II increased by more than twice for a 5% dose and four times for a 3% dose of the binder. The difference between the initial concentrations in Arsenic-contaminated soil from the stage I (S-I) and from the stage II (S- II) can be attributed to the prolonged exposed to the atmospheric oxygen after the collection in 2020. Arsenic oxidizes in the presence of oxygen (natural attenuation). Descriptive statistics are shown in Fig S6. Finally, the second binder MOS(R), which was prepared using a reduced amount of iron sulfate, demonstrated that the MOS(R) can be used under dynamic conditions (up-flow percolation < 0.6 ml/min) through the column percolation test. Arsenic concentration was reduced by 61% after the addition of the binder (Fig. 5). Wenzel extractions performed on the S and SB samples after the experiment, showed a total arsenic leaching of 47.46 and 57.28 mg/kg, respectively. These values accounted for 34.83% and 42.03% of the total (136.28 kg/mg) initial Arsenic content in the soil (Table 4 and Fig S7).

Table 4

Wenzel extraction results of As-soil, and the samples S and SB after percolation test
Extraction Step	Phases*	S (before percolation test)	S (After percolation test)	SB (After the percolation test)
I	Ionically bound soluble	0.26	N.D.	N.D.
II	Adsorbed	4.01	4.22	5.61
III	Amorphous and poorly crystalline, hydrous oxide of Fe and Al.	26.32	24.30	28.11
IV	Crystalline Fe oxyhydroxide	16.22	15.39	17.89
V	Residual	5.56	3.55	5.67
	Total arsenic (mg/kg)	52.37	47.46	57.28
*Ko et al. (2012) and Wenzel et al. (2001). N.D not detected.
*S = Arsenic soil / SB = Arsenic soil treated MOS(R)

3.4 The binding mechanism of Arsenic in MOS

Ko et al. (2012) found that the granular ferric hydroxide reduced Arsenic by 50% in leachate collected through a column percolation test. In our study, we observed a reduction of 61%, which was on par with the values observed by other researchers (Ko et al., 2012). The iron (oxyhydr)oxides, especially poorly crystalline Fe (III) minerals such as ferrihydrite, have been used for arsenic immobilization of soils successfully (Wang et al., 2020)

The XRD analysis in the binder showed that MOS consisted of 62% Calcite (CaCO₃), 33% Gypsum (CaSO₄), 1.63% FeCO_3, and 2.76% Goethite (FeOOH). Meanwhile, MOS(R) showed no Gypsum formation, and the analysis reported over 90% calcite. The results of the Wenzel extraction (Table 4) in the soil treated with the binder (SB) suggested that the increase in the percentage of the adsorbed arsenic can be associated with the amorphous and poorly crystalline and hydrous oxide of Fe and Al (Wenzel extraction step 3) and crystalline Fe oxyhydroxide (Wenzel extraction step 4) (Liu et al., 2011).

MOS and MOS(R) demonstrated a removal efficiency in the range of 70–100% when introduced to the As(III) aqueous solution of 5 ppm. The desorption test using M-3 extraction solution suggested a strong binding mechanism, in which the arsenic recovered was less than 1%. However, the efficiency of the binder decreased in the soil environment, which can be attributed to the pH conditions and the presence of other chemical compounds in the soil. The extraction method had a significant impact on Arsenic leaching. We observed M-3 extraction, thereby suggesting a stabilization of 55.7%. TCLP suggested a stabilization of only 45.5% (for MOS).

Pot cultivation test showed that the bioavailable Arsenic decreased by 66% with the addition of 5% of the MOS (average of the last 3 weeks of the experiment). The column percolation test, which evaluated the performance of the binder MOS(R), suggested that MOS(R) was effective in stabilizing the Arsenic. MOS seems to be efficient in reducing arsenic mobility in soils and can be used to remove Arsenic from contaminated water. The doses of the iron salt to modify the OS powder should be adjusted according to the expected arsenic reduction goals.

Gypsum formation was recognized as the possible root cause for the enhancement of the efficiency of MOS, which corroborated the findings of Palansooriya et al. (2020).

Ethical Approval

Not Applicable

Consent to Participate

Not Applicable

Consent to publish

All the authors have read and agreed to consider publication in Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

Availability of data and materials

All the relevant data is provided in the supplementary document. Should other data be requested, authors will gladly comply.

Funding

This research was supported by the Korea Ministry of Environment through the grant 2019002470002 “The SEM (Subsurface Environment Management) projects.” The authors would also like to thank the Institute of Engineering Research and the Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineering at Seoul National University.

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation and data collection and analysis were performed by Torres Quiroz, Cecilia and Junboum Park. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Torres Quiroz, Cecilia and reviewed and edited by Janith Dissanayake. Finally, it was checked by Junboum Park. All authors commented on the previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript

Babel, S., & Kurniawan, T. A. (2003). Low-cost adsorbents for heavy metals uptake from contaminated water: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 97(1), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00263-7
Bilici Baskan, M., & Pala, A. (2011). Removal of arsenic from drinking water using modified natural zeolite. Desalination, 281, 396-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.015
Bonnard, M., Boury, B., & Parrot, I. (2020). Key Insights, Tools, and Future Prospects on Oyster Shell End-of-Life: A Critical Analysis of Sustainable Solutions. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03736
CCME. (2020, 2020/11/13). Canadian Environmental Quality Guideline. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,. Retrieved 2020/11/13 from http://st-ts.ccme.ca/en/index.html
Chen, S.-b., Wang, M., Li, S.-s., Zhao, Z.-q., & E, W.-d. (2018). Overview on current criteria for heavy metals and its hint for the revision of soil environmental quality standards in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 17(4), 765-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2095-3119(17)61892-6
Chowdhury, M. R. I. (2015). Removal of Arsenic from Contaminated Water by Granular Activated Carbon Embedded with Nano scale Zero-valent Iron. Concordia University]. Canada.
Cui, Y., Du, X., Weng, L., & Van Riemsdijk, W. H. (2010). Assessment of In Situ Immobilization of Lead (Pb) and Arsenic (As) in Contaminated Soils with Phosphate and Iron: Solubility and Bioaccessibility. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 213(1-4), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-010-0370-8
Dzombak, D. A., & Morel, F. M. M. (1990). Surface Complexation Modeling: Hydrous Ferric Oxide. John Wiley & Sons.
Huh, J. H., Choi, Y.-H., Ramakrishna, C., Cheong, S. H., & Ahn, J.-W. (2016). Use of Calcined Oyster Shell Powders as CO2 Adsorbents in Algae-Containing Water. Journal of the Korean Ceramic Society, 53, 429-434.
Hunce, S. Y., Akgul, D., Demir, G., & Mertoglu, B. (2012). Solidification/stabilization of landfill leachate concentrate using different aggregate materials. Waste Management, 32(7), 1394-1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.03.010.
Huo, L., Zeng, X., Su, S., Bai, L., & Wang, Y. (2017). Enhanced removal of As (V) from aqueous solution using modified hydrous ferric oxide nanoparticles. Scientific Reports, 7, 40765. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40765
Jang, Y.-C., Somannaa, Y., & Kim, H. (2016). Source, Distribution, Toxicity and Remediation of Arsenic in the Environment – A review. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences, 11(2), 559-581.
Kahakachchi, C., Uden, P. C., & Tyson, J. F. (2004). Extraction of arsenic species from spiked soils and standard reference materials. Analyst, 129(8), 714-718. https://doi.org/10.1039/b406050d
Kargar, M., Clark, O. G., Hendershot, W. H., Jutras, P., & Prasher, S. O. (2015). Immobilization of Trace Metals in Contaminated Urban Soil Amended with Compost and Biochar. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 226(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-015-2450-2
Ko, M. S., Kim, J. Y., Bang, S., Lee, J. S., Ko, J. I., & Kim, K. W. (2012). Stabilization of the As-contaminated soil from the metal mining areas in Korea. Environ Geochem Health, 34 Suppl 1, 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-011-9407-1
Lim, J. E., Moon, D.-H., Kim, D., Kwon, O.-K., Yang, J. E., & Ok, Y. S. (2009). Evaluation of the Feasibility of Oyster-Shell and Eggshell Wastes for Stabilization of Arsenic-Contaminated Soil. Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Engineers, 31(12), 1095-1104.
Liu, B., Wang, D., Li, H., Xu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2011). As(III) removal from aqueous solution using α-Fe2O3 impregnated chitosan beads with As(III) as imprinted ions. Desalination, 272(1-3), 286-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.034
Liu, L., Li, W., Song, W., & Guo, M. (2018). Remediation techniques for heavy metal-contaminated soils: Principles and applicability. Science of The Total Environment, 633, 206-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.161
Lu, J., Cong, X., Li, Y., Hao, Y., & Wang, C. (2018). Scalable recycling of oyster shells into high purity calcite powders by the mechanochemical and hydrothermal treatments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1978-1985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.228
Mehlich, A. (1984). Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15(12), 1409-1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628409367568
Mondal, P., Majumder, C. B., & Mohanty, B. (2006). Laboratory based approaches for arsenic remediation from contaminated water: recent developments. J Hazard Mater, 137(1), 464-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.02.023
Moon, D. H., Park, J. W., Cheong, K. H., Hyun, S., Koutsospyros, A., Park, J. H., & Ok, Y. S. (2013). Stabilization of lead and copper contaminated firing range soil using calcined oyster shells and fly ash. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 35(6), 705-714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-013-9528-9
Mukhopadhyay, M., Lakhotia, S. R., Ghosh, A. K., & Bindal, R. C. (2018). Removal of arsenic from aqueous media using zeolite/chitosan nanocomposite membrane. Separation Science and Technology, 54(2), 282-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2018.1459704
Naka, A., Yasutaka, T., Sakanakura, H., Kalbe, U., Watanabe, Y., Inoba, S., Takeo, M., Inui, T., Katsumi, T., Fujikawa, T., Sato, K., Higashino, K., & Someya, M. (2016). Column percolation test for contaminated soils: Key factors for standardization. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 320, 326-340.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.08.046
Ok, Y. S., Oh, S.-E., Ahmad, M., Hyun, S., Kim, K.-R., Moon, D. H., Lee, S. S., Lim, K. J., Jeon, W.-T., & Yang, J. E. (2010). Effects of natural and calcined oyster shells on Cd and Pb immobilization in contaminated soils. Environmental Earth Sciences, 61(6), 1301-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0674-4
Oremland, R. S., & Stolz, J. F. (2003). The Ecology of Arsenic. Science, 300(5621), 939. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1081903
Palansooriya, K. N., Shaheen, S. M., Chen, S. S., Tsang, D. C. W., Hashimoto, Y., Hou, D., Bolan, N. S., Rinklebe, J., & Ok, Y. S. (2020). Soil amendments for immobilization of potentially toxic elements in contaminated soils: A critical review. Environment International, 134, 105046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105046
Pan, B., Capponi, C., Meniconi, S., Brunone, B., & Duan, H.-F. (2022). Efficient leak detection in single and branched polymeric pipeline systems by transient wave analysis. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108084
Ramakrishna, C., Thenepalli, T., Nam Seong, Y., Kim, C., & Ahn Ji, W. (2018). Oyster Shell waste is alternative sources for Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) instead of Natural limestone. Journal of Energy Engineering, 27(1), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.5855/ENERGY.2018.27.1.059
Silva, T. H., Mesquita-Guimarães, J., Henriques, B., Silva, F. S., & Fredel, M. C. (2019). The Potential Use of Oyster Shell Waste in New Value-Added By-Product. Resources, 8(1), 13. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/13
Smedley, P. L., & Kinniburgh, D. G. (2002). A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Applied Geochemistry, 17(5), 517-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-2927(02)00018-5
Suzuki, M., Shimura, N., Fukumura, T., Yoneda, O., & Tasaka, Y. (2015). Seismic performance of reinforced soil wall with untreated and cement-treated soils as backfill using a 1-g shaking table. Soils and Foundations, 55(3), 626-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.04.013
Torres-Quiroz, C., Dissanayake, J., & Park, J. (2021). Oyster Shell Powder, Zeolite and Red Mud as Binders for Immobilising Toxic Metals in Fine Granular Contaminated Soils (from Industrial Zones in South Korea). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2530. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052530
U.S. EPA. (1992). METHOD 1311 Toxicity characteristic Leaching Procedure. In Hazardous waste test methods. United States: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2011). 40 CFR 261.24 - Toxicity Characteristic. In C. o. F. Regulations (Ed.). United States: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Violante, A., Cozzolino, V., Perelomov, L., Caporale, A. G., & Pigna, M. (2010). Mobility and bioavalability of heavy metals and metalloids in soil environments. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 10(3), 268 - 292. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162010000100005
Wang, Y. N., Tsang, Y. F., Wang, H., Sun, Y., Song, Y., Pan, X., & Luo, S. (2020). Effective stabilization of arsenic in contaminated soils with biogenic manganese oxide (BMO) materials. Environ Pollut, 258, 113481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113481
Wenzel, W. W., Kirchbaumer, N., Prohaska, T., Stingeder, G., Lombi, E., & Adriano, D. C. (2001). Arsenic fractionation in soils using an improved sequential extraction procedure. Analytica Chimica Acta, 436(2), 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(01)00924-2
WHO. (1996). Permessible limits for heavy metals in soils and plants. In. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO),.
Xia, W.-Y., Du, Y.-J., Li, F.-S., Li, C.-P., Yan, X.-L., Arulrajah, A., Wang, F., & Song, D.-J. (2019). In-situ solidification/stabilization of heavy metals contaminated site soil using a dry jet mixing method and new hydroxyapatite based binder. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 369, 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.02.031
Xu, X., Liu, X., Oh, M., & Park, J. (2019). Oyster Shell as a Low-Cost Adsorbent for Removing Heavy Metal Ions from Wastewater. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 28(4), 2949-2959. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/92941
Yasutaka, T., Naka, A., Sakanakura, H., Kurosawa, A., Inui, T., Takeo, M., Inoba, S., Watanabe, Y., Fujikawa, T., Miura, T., Miyaguchi, S., Nakajou, K., Sumikura, M., Ito, K., Tamoto, S., Tatsuhara, T., Chida, T., Hirata, K., Ohori, K., . . . Ogawa, S. (2017). Reproducibility of up-flow column percolation tests for contaminated soils. PLOS ONE, 12(6), e0178979. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178979
Yuan, C., & Chiang, T. S. (2008). Enhancement of electrokinetic remediation of arsenic spiked soil by chemical reagents. J Hazard Mater, 152(1), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.06.099

SupplementDoc.docx

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
09 Oct, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Sep, 2022
Editor invited by journal
06 Sep, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
23 Aug, 2022
First submitted to journal
19 Aug, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Modified Oyster Shell Powder with iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate to improve arsenic uptake in solution and in contaminated soils

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials And Methods

2.1 Materials

2.1.1 As-Contaminated soil

2.1.2 Binders

2.2 Characterization of the materials and binders

2.3 Methods

3. Results And Discussions

3.1 Chemical changes after modification of Oyster Shell

3.2 Batch experiments: Sorption test

3.3 Arsenic binding capacity in the soil

3.4 The binding mechanism of Arsenic in MOS

4. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1