Home Articles Article Details
    Abstracting/Indexing   
      p-ISSN: 1735-1472
     e-ISSN: 1735-2630
    
    (In Press)
Volume 10 (2013)
Volume 9 (2012)
Volume 8 (2011)
Volume 7 (2010)
Volume 6 (2009)
Volume 5 (2008)
Volume 4 (2007)
Volume 3 (2006)
Volume 2 (2005)
Volume 1 (2004)
Sulphate reducing bacteria to precipitate mercury after electrokinetic soil remediation
Article 15: Volume 5, Number 2, Spring 2008, Pages 267-274 (8) XML PDF (100 K)
Authors
T. Hakansson; P. Suer; B. Mattiasson; B. Allard
Abstract
Combined treatment with electroremediation and sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) was tested in laboratory and pilot scale. The contaminated soil came from a chlor-alkali factory and contained about 100 mg/kg Hg. Iodide/iodine complexing agent was used to mobilize mercury. Mercury iodide complexes were moved to the anode solution using an electric field. The anode solution was then mixed with hydrogen sulphide (H2S) containing water, causing precipitation of mercury sulphide. The H2S was produced at site by a SRB reactor. Precipitation problems arising from the nature of the anode solution were expected, since this solution is highly acidic, very oxidised and may contain iodide/iodine that strongly complexes mercury and can hinder mercury sulphide precipitation. Mercury concentrations in the anode solution were up to 65.7 mg/L (field) and 15.4 mg/L (lab. scale). Reduction of mercury in the water was >93% at all times. Iodide did not hinder the process: Nonetheless, in the lab system, iodide concentration was high in the anode solution but mercury reduction was > 99.9%. The redox potential was sufficiently low for HgS precipitation during the experiments, except for a short period, when the mercury removal decreased to 94%. Sulphate reducing bacteria are shown as a viable tool for the treatment of mercury contaminated, acidic, oxidative, iodide containing water, such as that produced by electrokinetic remediation. A second SRB step or other water treatment is required to reduce the mercury concentration to environmentally acceptable levels. Redox potential is the most sensitive factor in the system.
Keywords
Hydrogen sulphide; In situ; Iodide; On site; Soil contamination; Wastewater treatment
Main Subjects
Mercury; Bacteria; Soil remediation
Related Articles in IJEST Publication by Main Subject
References
1. - (1997/98). Swedish governmental bill. - (Nr 145)
2. Acar, Y. B.; Alshawabkeh, A. N., (1993). Principles of electrokinetic remediation. ES&T. 27 (13), 2638-2647 (10 Pages), DOI: 10.1021/es00049a002. Abstract | Full Text
3. Alvarez, M. T.; Pozzo, T.; Mattiasson, B., (2006). Enhancement of sulphide production in anaerobic packed bed bench-scale biofilm reactors by sulphate reducing bacteria. Biotechnol. Lett., 28 (3), 175-181 (7 Pages), DOI: 10.1007/s10529-005-5332-7. Abstract | Full Text (348 K)
4. Barnes, L. J., (1994). Emerging technology for bioremediation of metals. J. L. Means and R. E. Hinchee. Boca Raton, Lewis Public Cop., , 39-43 (5 Pages)
5. Cord-Ruwisch, R., (1985). A quick method for the determination of dissolved and precipitated sulfides in cultures of sulfate-reducing bacteria. J. Microbiol. Methods 4 (1), 33-36 (4 Pages), DOI: 10.1016/0167-7012(85)90005-3. Abstract | Full Text (163 K)
6. Cox, C. D.; Shoesmith, M. A.; Ghosh, M. M., (1996). Electrokinetic remediation of mercury-contaminated soils using iodine/iodide lixiviant. Environ. Sci. Technol., 30 (6), 1933-1938 (6 Pages) Abstract
7. Hamilton, W. A., (1998). Sulfate-reducing bacteria: Physiology determines their environmental impact. Geomicrobiol. J., 15 (1), 19-28 (10 Pages), DOI: 10.1080/01490459809378059. Abstract | Full Text
8. Hansen, T. A., (1994). Metabolism of sulfate-reducing prokaryotes. Antonie van Leeuwnhoek, 66 (1-3), 165-185 (21 Pages), DOI: 10.1007/BF00871638. Abstract | Full Text (2100 K)
9. HÃ¥kansson, K.; Mattiasson, B., (2002). Microbial degradation of acetonitrile using a suspended-carrier biofilm process. Biotechnol. Lett., 24 (4), 287-291 (5 Pages), DOI: 10.1023/A:1014001823573. Abstract | Full Text (90 K)
10. Ho, S. V.; Athmer, C.; Sheridan, P. W.; Hughes, B. M.; Orth, R.; McKenzie, D.; Brodsky, P. H.; Shapiro, A. M.; Sivavec, T. M.; Salvo, J.; Schultz, D.; Landis, R.; Griffith, R.; Shoemaker, S., (1999). The lasagna technology for in situ soil remediation 2 Large field test. Environ. Sci. Technol., 33 (7), 1092-1099 (8 Pages) Abstract | Full Text
11. Jorgensson, B. B., (1982). Ecology of the bacteria of the sulphur cycle with special reference to anoxic-oxic interface environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Bio. Sci., 298 (1093), 543-561 (19 Pages) Abstract | Full Text
12. Khan, F. I.; Husain, T.; Hejazi, R., (2004). An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J. Environ. Manage., 71 (2), 95-122 (28 Pages), DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.02.003. Abstract | Full Text (558 K)
13. Kolmert, Ã…., (1999). Sulfate-reducing bacteria in bioremediation processes. Lund, Lund University.
14. Kolmert, Ã….; Henrysson, T.; Hallberg, R.; Mattiasson, B., (1997). Optimization of sulphide production in an anaerobic continuous biofilm process with sulphate reducing bacteria. Biotechnol. Lett. 19 (10), 971-975 (5 Pages), DOI: 10.1023/A:1018435031058. Abstract | Full Text (590 K)
15. Lageman, R.; Pool, W., (2001). Thirteen years electror e c l a m a t i o n i n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s . E R E M 2 0 0 1. 3 rd. Symposium and status report on electrokinetic remediation, Karlsruhe, Germany, Angewandte Geologi Karlsruhe.
16. Lifvergren, T., (2001). Remediation of mercury polluted soil. Örebro studies in Environmental science 1.Örebro, Sweden, Örebro University.
17. Lifvergren, T.; Suer, P.; Wievegg, U., (2000). Microwaveassisted digestion of mercury polluted soil. 11th. Annual international conference on heavy metals in the Environment, University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (CD-ROM). . Full Text
18. Lloyd, J. R.; Klessa, D. A.; Parry, D. L.; Buck, P.; Brown, N. L., (2004). Stimulation of microbial sulphate reduction in a constructed wetland: microbiological and geochemical analysis. Water Res., . 38 (7), 1822-1830 (9 Pages), DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2003.12.033. Abstract | Full Text (254 K)
19. Monhemius, A. J., (1977). Precipitation diagrams for metal hydroxides, sulphides, arsenates and phosphates. Transactions of the institutions of mining and metallurgy section C-Mineral processing and extractive metallurgy. , 202-206 (5 Pages)
20. Monserrate, E.; Häggblom, M. M., (1997). Dehalogenation and biodegradation of brominated phenols and bezoic acids under Iron-Reducing, Sulfidogenic and Methanogenic Conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 63 (10), 3911-3915 (5 Pages) Abstract | Full Text (188 K)
21. Naturvårdsverket, (1997). Slutförvar av kvicksilver (Final disposal of mercury). Stockholm, Naturvårdsverket.
22. Pott, B. M.; Mattiasson, B., (2004). Separation of heavy metals from water solutions at the laboratory scale. Biotechnol. Lett., 26 (5), 451-456 (6 Pages), DOI: 10.1023/B:BILE.0000018267.09698.cc. Abstract | Full Text (5 K)
23. Probstein, R. F.; Hicks, R. E., (1993). Removal of contaminant from soils by electric fields. Science, 260 (5107), 498-503 (6 Pages), DOI: 10.1126/science.260.5107.498. Abstract | Full Text
24. Reddy, K. R.; Xu, C. Y.; Chinthamreddy, S., (2001). Assessment of electrokinetic removal of heavy metals form soils by sequential extraction analysis. J. Hazar. Mater. 84 (2), 279-296 (18 Pages), DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00237-0. Abstract | Full Text (647 K)
25. Suer, P., Gitye, K.; Allard, B., (2003). Speciation and transport of heavy metals and macroelements during electroremediation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 37 (1), 177-181 (5 Pages), DOI: 10.1023/A:1022873019904. Abstract | Full Text (125 K)
26. Suer, P.; Allard, B., (2003). Mercury transport and speciation during electrokinetic soil remediation. Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 143 (1-4), 99-109 (11 Pages), DOI: 10.1023/A:1022873019904. Abstract | Full Text (125 K)
27. Suer, P.; Lifvergren, T., (2001). Electrokinetic remediation of mercury contaminated soil with iodide addition. 6th. International conference on mercury as a global pollutant, Minamata Japan.
28. Suer, P.; Lifvergren, T., (2003). Mercury contaminated soil remediation by iodide and electroreclamation. J. Environ. Eng., 129 (5), 441-446 (6 Pages), DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2003)129:5(441)). Abstract | Full Text
29. Svensson, M.; Allard, B.; Düker, A., (2006a). Formation of HgS - mixing HgO or elemental Hg with S, FeS or FeS2. Sci. Total Environ. 368 (1), 418-423 (6 Pages), DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.09.040. Abstract | Full Text (1193 K)
30. Svensson, M.; Düker, A.; Allard, B., (2006b). Formation of cinnabar - estimation of favourable conditions in a proposed Swedish repository. J. Hazard. Mater., (3), 830-836 (7 Pages), DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.01.018. Abstract | Full Text (389 K)
31. van Houten, R. T.; Pol, L. W. H.; Lettinga, G., (1994). Biological sulphate reduction using gas-lift reactors fed with hydrogen and carbon dioxide as energy and carbon source. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 44 (5), 586-594 (9 Pages), DOI: 10.1002/bit.260440505. Abstract | Full Text (1165 K)
32. Webb, J. S.; McGinness, S.; Lappin-Scott, H. M., (1998). Metal removal by sulphate-reducing bacteria from natural and constructed wetlands. J. Appl. Microbiol., 84 (2), 240-248 (9 Pages) Abstract | Full Text