Removal of Cr(VI) from Cr-contaminated groundwater through electrochemical addition of Fe(II)
Introduction
Removal of Cr from certain contaminated groundwater remains an important issue in environmental remediation because of the mutagenic and carcinogenic characters of various chromium (Cr) compounds (Nriagu and Nieboer, 1988). Contamination of groundwater by Cr at numerous localities primarily resulted from uncontrolled or accidental release of Cr-bearing solutions, used in various industrial applications, into the subsurface environment. Cr in such solutions mostly occurs as oxyacids and oxyanions of Cr(VI). It is this oxidation state in which Cr is highly soluble, mobile, and toxic.
Hexavalent Cr can be removed from an aqueous solution by a variety of techniques, such as chemical reduction–precipitation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and adsorption by granular activated carbon (Frank and McMullen, 1996). Of these, chemical reduction–precipitation whereby Cr(VI) is reduced to Cr (III) with subsequent precipitation of Cr(III) as chromic hydroxide [Cr(OH)3(s)] is the most widely used method for removal of Cr(VI) from waste streams (Eckenfelder, 1989). The reducing agent in this process is chiefly a salt of either S(IV) or Fe(II). The method is a two-step process in which reduction and precipitation at highly acidic and alkaline pH conditions, respectively, occur in succession. A variation of this method that emerged in the past decade is the reduction and precipitation of Cr(VI) from the contaminated water stream in a single step by electrochemical addition of Fe(II). A formal description of this technology, the controlling factors, its merits and limitations are lacking in the literature. Eary and Rai (1988) cited several patented studies of Cr(VI) reduction by Fe(II) and conducted their own study using synthetic Cr(VI) solutions and salts of Fe(II) to examine the stoichiometry of the Cr(VI)–Fe(II) reaction as a function of dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and ionic composition with the aim of optimizing experimental conditions for Cr(VI) removal from aqueous wastes. Sengupta (1995) commented that the chemical reduction–precipitation method of removal of Cr(VI) from a waste stream is inefficient both thermodynamically and kinetically, especially when Cr(VI) occurs in water at low concentration levels (e.g. <10 mg/L).
In this paper, we present the results of a laboratory investigation, carefully designed, to show that removal of high as well as low levels of Cr(VI) from groundwater, contaminated by anthropogenic release of Cr-bearing aqueous solutions, by electrochemical addition of Fe(II) is an efficacious method, both thermodynamically and kinetically.
Section snippets
The groundwater source
One notable area where from Cr-contaminated groundwater has been identified at several localities is the city of Odessa, Ector County, Texas (Fig. 1). This widespread contamination resulted from several industrial sources, including machine and chrome plating shops that were operational in the past (e.g., see Henderson, 1994). The present investigation is based upon groundwater from the Precision Machine and Supply Superfund site (Precision site; Latitude: 31°50′29″N, Longitude: 102°21′48″W).
Extent of chromium contamination
The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Cr in drinking water is 0.1 mg/L according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and 0.05 mg/L according to World Health Organization, European Economic Community, and Health and Welfare Canada (Cotruvo and Craig, 1990). Cr concentrations in groundwater from the Precision site far exceed such MCL limits. In general, the shallow aquifer is contaminated with dissolved Cr reaching concentrations as high as 118 mg/L, whereas the extent of
Chemical calculations
Equilibrium distributions of various aqueous species resulting from the chemical reactions discussed in this study were calculated by the PHREEQC computer program (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999). These results were used in subsequent thermodynamic calculations outside the PHREEQC environment. The thermodynamic data used in this study are those given in PHREEQC database. However, this database does not contain the thermodynamic data on aqueous Cr species. These were incorporated in the database
Aqueous species of Cr(VI) and Cr(III) in the groundwater source
Various authors used different conventions in describing aqueous speciation of Cr(VI) and Cr(III) as a function of both Eh and pH (e.g., Deltombe et al., 1966; Robertson, 1975; Richard and Bourg, 1991; Deutsch, 1997). For the sake of consistency, the speciation models of the groundwater sources are presented below.
In pure chromate solutions, the critical Cr(VI) bearing aqueous species are the oxyanions or oxyacids, namely (bichromate/hydrogen chromate ion), (chromate ion),
The electrochemical process
The electrochemical process relies upon the redox reactions taking place at the surface of the conductive electrodes immersed into water. With an applied electrical potential difference through a direct current source, the simultaneous reactions are as follows:Oxidation reaction at the anode:Fe→Fe2+ (aq)+2e−Reduction reaction at the cathode:2H2O+2e− →H2↑+2OH−(aq).
The amount of Fe2+ released primarily depends upon the applied current and the duration of the passage of the current through the
Reaction stoichiometry
In the conventional chemical reduction–precipitation process, reduction reactions are normally carried out at an acidic pH condition, usually in the range between 2 and 3 (Eckenfelder, 1989). In contrast, the electrochemical reduction–precipitation can be carried out at a near neutral pH. The pH values typically found in groundwater vary between 7 and 8. Thus, the predominant Cr(VI) species involved in the redox reaction is . The redox equilibrium describing the transformation of the
Experimental methods
Cr concentration and pH as measured after collection of the groundwater samples (Table 1) could change over time. For this reason, immediately prior to the electrochemical experiments, the initial concentration of Cr(VI), the pH, and the conductivity were measured for each of the two water streams. These initial conditions were used to determine operational parameters such as the electrochemical Fe(II)-dose and necessary pH adjustment for optimal condition of hydroxide precipitation. For the
Experimental results
The experimental results are summarized in Table 4. Due to differences in the methods of determination of CrT and Cr(VI), some of the Cr (VI) concentrations are higher than the corresponding values of CrT. In general, compared to the ICP spectroscopy, the colorimetric method is less accurate. For this reason, the CrT values are more reliable than the corresponding Cr(VI) values reported in Table 4. All of the experiments yielded an effluent containing less than 0.1 mg/L of CrT (Table 4). The
Thermodynamics of Cr(VI) reduction and hydroxides precipitation
As noted earlier, the predominant Cr(VI) species in the near neutral pH condition and given CrT concentration, in both MW-15 and MW-30 source waters, is . Thus, the thermodynamics of the redox reaction (3) is examined to determine the relative merits of pure chemical versus electrochemical addition of Fe(II) in causing the reduction of aqueous Cr(VI).
The standard free energy change (ΔG0) of reaction (3) is −213.51 kJ/mol. The corresponding equilibrium constant, . Due to this
Conclusions
The chemical principle involved in the electrochemical method is essentially the same as that of the chemical reduction–precipitation method. However, the difference in these two methods lies in the manners in which the reductant is introduced and precipitation is carried out. In the electrochemical process, ferrous iron as a reducing agent is contributed directly into the source water from an iron electrode rather than in the form of a ferrous salt such as FeSO4 or FeCl2 used in conventional
Acknowledgements
This study was undertaken by the authors as part of a project conducted by Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) under the Superfund Engineering and Remediation Contract (no. 4300093000) with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). Thus, the data presented in this paper are from the reports submitted by E&E to TNRCC. The ideas and interpretations presented here are those of the authors and the authors are solely responsible for any error or omission. The authors are thankful
References (24)
- et al.
Recovery of Chromium(VI) from wastewaters with iron (III) hydroxide—I
Water Research
(1982) - et al.
The reduction of chromium (VI) by iron (II) in aqueous solutions
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
(1998) - et al.
Aqueous geochemistry of chromium: a review
Water Research
(1991) - et al.
Reduction of hexavalent chromium by ferrous iron
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
(1997) - Ashworth, J.B., Hopkins, J., 1995. Aquifers of Texas, Texas Water Development Board, Report 345, 1995, pp....
- Ashworth, J.B., Christian, P., Waterreus, T., 1991. Evaluation of ground water resources in the southern High Plains of...
- et al.
Rationale for water quality standards and goals
- et al.
Advanced Inorganic Chemistry
(1999) - et al.
Chromium
Groundwater Geochemistry
(1997)
Chromate removal from aqueous waste by reduction with ferrous iron
Environmental Science and Technology
Kinetics of chromate reduction by ferrous ions derived from hematite and biotite at 25 °C
American Journal of Science
Cited by (85)
Metallic nanoparticles for catalytic reduction of toxic hexavalent chromium from aqueous medium: A state-of-the-art review
2022, Science of the Total EnvironmentBioreduction performance of Cr(VI) by microbial extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and the overlooked role of tryptophan
2022, Journal of Hazardous MaterialsCitation Excerpt :As an essential mineral raw material, chromium (Cr) plays a crucial role in the leather, steel manufacturing, electroplating, dyeing industries, and nanomaterial modification fields (Das et al., 2014; Miretzky and Cirelli, 2010; Sun et al., 2019) However, Cr, especially hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)), often becomes deposited in industrial wastewaters due to improper treatment before disposal, and a broad estimation of the amount of Cr emissions in the aquatic environment from different industrial activities in the EU was more than 90 tons per year (Vaiopoulou and Gikas, 2020). More seriously, wastewater contaminated by Cr(VI) damages wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) by inhibiting microorganisms (Buaisha et al., 2020), and groundwater is also contaminated by Cr(VI) due to leakage from chromate mines, inappropriate disposal and supplies (Cocârţă et al., 2016; Mukhopadhyay et al., 2007). Because of its mobile, carcinogenic and mutagenic nature, Cr(VI) was classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as one of the 129 substances that is particularly hazardous to the environment (Cherdchoo et al., 2019).
Synthesis and validation of polystyrene-based polyethylenimine composite for Cr(VI) removal from aqueous solution: Performance and mechanism
2022, Journal of Environmental Chemical EngineeringEnhanced remediation of Cr(VI)-contaminated groundwater by coupling electrokinetics with ZVI/Fe<inf>3</inf>O<inf>4</inf>/AC-based permeable reactive barrier
2022, Journal of Environmental Sciences (China)
- 1
Present address: Walter P Moore and Associates, Inc. 3131 Eastside, Houston, TX 77098-1919, USA.
- 2
Present address: URS Corporation, 282 Delaware Ave. Buffalo, NY 14202, USA.