Premium
Effects of Natural Organic Matter on PCB‐Activated Carbon Sorption Kinetics: Implications for Sediment Capping Applications
Author(s) -
Fairey Julian L.,
Wahman David G.,
Lowry Gregory V.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of environmental quality
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.888
H-Index - 171
eISSN - 1537-2537
pISSN - 0047-2425
DOI - 10.2134/jeq2009.0505
Subject(s) - sorption , activated carbon , mass transfer , adsorption , diffusion , carbon fibers , chemistry , effluent , environmental chemistry , environmental remediation , chemical engineering , kinetics , total organic carbon , materials science , environmental engineering , contamination , chromatography , organic chemistry , composite material , environmental science , thermodynamics , ecology , physics , quantum mechanics , biology , composite number , engineering
In situ capping of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)–contaminated sediments with a layer of activated carbon has been proposed, but several questions remain regarding the long‐term effectiveness of this remediation strategy. Here, we assess the degree to which kinetic limitations, size exclusion effects, and electrostatic repulsions impaired PCB sorption to activated carbon. Sorption of 11 PCB congeners with activated carbon was studied in fixed bed reactors with organic‐free water (OFW) and Suwannee River natural organic matter (SR–NOM), made by reconstituting freeze‐dried SR–NOM at a concentration of 10 mg L −1 as carbon. In the OFW test, no PCBs were detected in the column effluent over the 390‐d study, indicating that PCB‐activated carbon equilibrium sorption capacities may be achieved before breakthrough even at the relatively high hydraulic loading rate (HLR) of 3.1 m h −1 However, in the SR–NOM fixed‐bed test, partial PCB breakthrough occurred over the entire 320‐d test (HLRs of 3.1‐, 1.5‐, and 0.8 m h −1 ). Simulations from a modified pore and surface diffusion model indicated that external (film diffusion) mass transfer was the dominant rate‐limiting step but that internal (pore diffusion) mass transfer limitations were also present. The external mass transfer limitation was likely caused by formation of PCB–NOM complexes that reduced PCB sorption through a combination of (i) increased film diffusion resistance; (ii) size exclusion effects; and (iii) electrostatic repulsive forces between the PCBs and the NOM‐coated activated carbon. However, the seepage velocities in the SR–NOM fixed bed test were about 1000 times higher than would be expected in a sediment cap. Therefore, additional studies are needed to assess whether the mass transfer limitations described here would be likely to manifest themselves at the lower seepage velocities observed in practice.