Dry Binder Mixing of Field Trial Investigation Using Soil Mix Technology: A Case Study on Contaminated Site Soil

Authors: M. Allagoa, A. Al-Tabbaa

Abstract:

The study explores the use of binders and additives, such as Portland cement, pulverized fuel ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, and MgO, to reduce the concentration and leachability of pollutants in contaminated site soils. The research investigates their effectiveness and associated risks of binders, with a focus on Total Heavy Metals (THM) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH). The goal of this research is to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of binders and additives in remediating soil pollutants. The study aims to assess the suitability of the mixtures for ground improvement purposes, determine the optimal dosage, and investigate the associated risks. The research utilizes physical (unconfined compressive strength) and chemical tests (batch leachability test) to assess the efficacy of the binders and additives. A completely randomized design one-way ANOVA is used to determine the significance within mix binders of THM. The study also employs incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) assessments and other indices to evaluate the associated risks. The study finds that Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS): MgO is the most effective binder for remediation, particularly when using low dosages of MgO combined with higher dosages of GGBS binders on TPH. The results indicate that binders and additives can encapsulate and immobilize pollutants, thereby reducing their leachability and toxicity. The mean unconfined compressive strength of the soil ranges from 285.0-320.5 kPa, while THM levels with a combination of Ground granulated blast furnace slag and Magnesium oxide, Portland cement and Pulverised fuel ash were less than 10 µg/l. Portland cement was below 1 µg/l. The ILCR ranged from 6.77E-02 - 2.65E-01 and 5.444E-01 - 3.20 E+00, with the highest values observed under extreme conditions. The hazard index (HI), risk allowable daily dose intake (ADI), and risk chronic daily intake (CDI) were all less than 1 for the THM. The study identifies MgO as the best additive for use in soil remediation.

Keywords: Risk daily dose intake, risk chronic daily intake, incremental lifetime cancer risk, ILCR, novel binders, additives binders, hazard index.

References:

[1] Z. Wang, “Regional Study on Soil Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Liaoning: Patterns, Sources, and Cancer Risks. Dalian University of Technology, Dalian”. 2007.
[2] W.D. Hafner, D.L. Carlson, R.A. Hites, “Influence of local human population on atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations”, Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, pp 7374–7379, 2005.
[3] Y.X. Zhang, S.Tao, J. Cao, R.M. Coveney, “Emission of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in China by county”, Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, pp 683–687, 2007.
[4] W. Zhang, S. Zhang, C. Wan, D. Yue, Y. Ye, X. Wang. “Source diagnostics of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban road runoff, dust, rain and canopy throughfall”, Environ. Pollut. 153, pp 594-601, 2008.
[5] H.B. Zhang, Y.M. Luo, M.H. Wong, Q.G. Zhao, G.L. Zhang, “Distributions, Concentrations of PAHs in Hong Kong soils”, Environ. Pollut. 141 pp 107–114,2006.
[6] A.R. Johnsen, L.Y. Wick, H. Harms, “Principles of microbial PAH-degradation in soil,” Environmental Pollution 133 (1), pp 71–84, 2005.
[7] Y. Liu, C-L. Ling, J. Zhao, Y. Wei, Z. Pan, X.Z. Meng, Q. Huang, W. Li, “Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the surface soil of Shanghai, China: Concentrations, distribution and sources”, Organic Geochemistry 41, pp 355–362, 2010.
[8] S. Liu, X. Xia, L. Yang, M. Shen, R. Liu, “Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban soils of different land uses in Beijing, China: distribution, sources and their correlation with the city's urbanization history”. J Hazard Mater 177, pp1085–92, 2010.
[9] C.A. De Sousa, “Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto”. Landscape and Urban Planning 62: 4; pp 181-198, 2003.
[10] G. Thornton, M. Franz, D. Edwards, G. Pahlen, P. Nathanail, “The challenge of sustainability: incentives for brownfield regeneration in Europe”, Environmental Science & Policy 10:2; pp116-134, 2007.
[11] A. Mehdipour, H.R. Nia. “The Role of Brownfield Development in Sustainable Urban Regeneration”. Journal of Sustainable Development Studies 4, 2;pp 78-87, 2013.
[12] M. Allagoa, “Solidification/ Stabilization technology: Field versus Laboratory”. MPhil Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2011.
[13] F. Jin, “Chapter 10 - Long-term effectiveness of in situ solidification/stabilization. Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated”. Soil and Groundwater Materials, Processes, and Assessment pp 247-278, 2020.
[14] S. Kuppusamy, T. Palanisami, M. Megharaj, K. Venkateswarlu, R. Naidu, “Ex-Situ Remediation Technologies for Environmental Pollutants: A Critical Perspective”, Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 236, pp 117-192, 2016.
[15] V.R. Ouhadi, R.N.M. Yong, M. Deiranlou, Enhancement of cement-based solidification/stabilization of lead-contaminated smectite clay. Journal of Hazardous Materials 403, 123969, 2021.
[16] R.N. Okparanma, A.S. Shedrack, J.M. Ayotamuno, Heavy metal human health risk assessment of stabilized/solidified low-temperature thermally desorbed oil-based drill cuttings. European Journal of Engineering and Technology 7:4, pp 42-52, 2019.
[17] M. Liska, “Post-doctoral Researcher, University of Cambridge”, Personal Communication,2011.
[18] H.R. Harris. M.R, Herbert, S.M., Smith, M.A. (1995). Remedial treatment for contaminated land, Vol. IX: In-situ methods of remediation. Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Special Report No. 109, pp 121-131.
[19] A. Knafla, K.A. Phillipps, R.W. Brecher, S. Petrovic, M. Richardson, “Development of a dermal cancer slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene”, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 45,pp 159-168,2006.
[20] USEPA, “Benzo
[a]pyrene (BaP) (CASRN 50-32-8)” from http://www.epa.gov/ ncea/iris/subst/0136.htm, 1994.
[21] Z. Wang, “Regional Study on Soil Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Liaoning: Patterns, Sources and Cancer Risks”. Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 2007.
[22] BMEPRI, “Guidance of Site Environmental Assessment”, Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau, Beijing, 2007.
[23] C. Peng, C. Weiping, X. Liao M. Wang, Z. Ouyang, W. Jiao, Y. Bai, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban soils of Beijing: Status, sources, distribution and potential risk. Environmental Pollution 159,pp 802-808, 2011.
[24] C-M. Liao, K-C. Chiang, “Probabilistic risk assessment for personal exposure to carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Taiwanese temples”. Chemosphere 63 pp 1610-1619, 2006.
[25] I.C.T. Nisbet, P.K. LaGoy, “Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology”, 16, pp 290-300,1992.
[26] USEPA, “IRIS (United States Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Risk Information System)”, 2004.
[27] EPA, “Soil Screening Guidance: Users Guide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency”. (EPA/540/R-96/018, April 1996).
[28] M. Allagoa, “Effective use of Cementitious Materials, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Bentonite in treating contaminants on polluted land”, Proceedings of the Shale Energy Engineering 2014 conference, held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 21-23, 2014. Sponsored by the Energy Division of ASCE.