Está en la página 1de 10

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(7), pp. 202-211, 2013 Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.

com/ijsrk ISSN: 2322-4541; 2013 IJSRPUB http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsrk-2013-p202-211

Full Length Research Paper Remediation of Tetrachloroethylene -Contaminated Soil with Zero Valent Iron Utilizing Electrokinetic Reactors
Maryam Taghizadeh1, Daryoush Yousefi Kebria2,*
1

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Iran

Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering, Babol University of Technology, P.O. Box: 484, Babol, Iran. *Corresponding Author: Dy.kebria@nit.ac.ir
Received 21 April 2013; Accepted 25 May 2013

Abstract. This study was conducted to evaluate an integrated technique a combination of electrokinetics (EK) and zero-valent iron and a nonionic surfactant, Triton X-100(TX-100), which was selected as the solubility-enhancing agent for the remediation of soils-contaminated with Tetrachloroethylene (TCE). Four Lab-scale tests (T1 toT4) were conducted to investigate the performance of EK-PRB on TCE removal from soils. Electrical current, cumulative electro -osmosis flow and the pH in anode and cathode reservoir were measured every 24 h during the run. Results show that coupling EK with ZVI- PRB would greatly enhance the removal efficiency of TCE from soils. With this method TCE removal would generally be increased by approximately 40% when EK is coupled with PRB as compared with EK alone. The highest TCE removals were respectively recorded in T4 about 80% and 55% near to the anode and cathode of the electrokinetic cell. Key words: Combination of Electrokinetics and zero-valent iron, Tetrachloroethylene, Surfactant, Triton X-100, soil, Electro osmosis

1. INTRODUCTION Chlorinated organic compounds (COCs) refer to the substitution of one or more hydrogen in aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons and their derivatives by chlorine. COCs are widely used in the fields of chemistry, medicine, electronics, pesticides, ect. Many COCs are endocrine disturbance substances; show carcinogenic effects, and have been listed as priority pollutants by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). When released into the environment, COCs are transported in both air and water. However, COCs are chemically stable and difficult to destroy, and they are eventually deposited in soils and sediments due to their hydrophobic it. Soil and sediments contaminated with COCs are long-term sources of pollutants and pose great threats to human health and ecosystems. Therefore, remediation of these contaminated soils and sediments is of great importance (Reddy and Camesella, 2009). Various chlorinated organic compounds, including tetrachloroethylene (TCE), are widely used as solvents in various industries. When entering the subsurface environment, they generally would pose great threats to the environment as well as human health. For example, TCE is harmful to the central nervous system of human bodies and can enter the body through respiratory or dermal exposure. Tetrachloroethylene dissolves fats from the skin, potentially resulting in skin irritation. Because of these hazards to the environment and potential

groundwater contamination, remediation of TCE contaminated soils is necessary to reduce public health risk (WHO, 2006). Few remediation technologies are available for the removal of chlorinated hydrocarbon from rather low hydraulic permeability media, such as clay. The use of an electrokinetic (EK) process in soil remediation has received increasing attention worldwide because of its unique applicability to low-permeability soils (Khodadadi et al., 2011; Gholami and Yousefi Kebria, 2012). Electrokinetics, also known as electroreclamation, electrokinetic soil processing, electrokinetic extraction, electrodialytic remediation and electrochemical decontamination is the application of a DC current to induce the movement of chemical species. Electrokinetic phenomena comprise of (i) electromigration- the movement of charged ions due to an electric potential difference, (ii) electrophoresisthe movement of colloids or macromolecules due to an electric potential difference and (iii) electroosmosis- the bulk movement of water due to an electric potential difference. Electrokinetics is not affected by the hydraulic conductivity of the soil matrix, and thus has the potential to be a treatment technique for soils possessing low hydraulic conductivities (Van Cauwenberghe, 1997). EK has been reported to be successful and a costeffective method to treat both organic (Yalcin et al. 1992, Weng et al., 2003) and inorganic contaminants (Coletta et al., 1997; Alshawabkeh et al., 1999; Sah

202

Taghizadeh and Kebria Remediation of Tetrachloroethylene -Contaminated Soil with Zero Valent Iron Utilizing Electrokinetic Reactors

and Lin., 2000) from low permeability soils (Weng et al., 2007). To improve the efficiency of EK remediation for TCE-contaminated soils, the combination of EK with other techniques may provide a solution. For example, the effect of electrokinetic on the microbial remediation of PCP contaminated soil was investigated. However, the introduction of microorganisms into soil with low permeability is still a problem in the bioelectrokinetic process. Comparatively, electrokinetics coupled with a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) can simultaneously realize the EK transport and PRB destruction of contaminants. Great enhancement has been recorded for the treatment of contaminants in soils by EK-PRB (Li et al., 2011). In the present study, a PRB filled with Fe particles was installed between anodes and cathodes in order to reach an enhanced remediation of TCE-contaminated soil. When TCE transports through the PRB, it can be dechlorinated to ethylene, which has much lower toxicity and larger aqueous solubility than TCE. The electroosmotic removal of ethylene can therefore be achieved easily. Because TCE is weakly water-soluble and has preferential sorption in soils, it is very difficult to drive out via electro-osmosis. As a result, surfactants are the facilitating agents that both lower the interfacial surface tension and increase the solubility of TCE through a process called micellar stabilization Surfactant-enhanced electro-osmosis remediation techniques and surfactants can be adsorbed at interfaces and reduce interfacial energies. Therefore, surfactants can be used to mediate mass transport in the dechlorination process. Surfactant enhanced remediation has been suggested as a promising technology for the remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater (Zheng et al., 2009). The objectives of this study are (1) to assess the remediation efficiency of PCE contaminated soil by electrokinetics coupled with Pd/Fe PRB, (2) to evaluate the migration and removal of PCE and its dechlorination products during remediation process. Triton X-100 (TX-100) was chosen as the enhancement agent because of its solubility-enhancing capacity for TCE. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Chemicals and materials TCE and microscaled zero-valent iron was purchased from DAE JUNG, Korea. Triton X-100 (TX-100) was from Merck and was used as received. The model soil in this study was collected from the top soil layer (50 cm in depth) from farmland located

in northern Iran. The physical-chemical properties of soil are listed in Table 1. The texture of this soil was classified as clay.
Table 1: Soil properties
Characteristics Texture Organic Content (%) Soil pH Density (g/cm3) Optimum Moisture (%) Porosity (%) Permeability (cm/s) value clay 7.7 7.6 2.71 25 40.3 610-3

The soil samples were air-dried and passed through a 2mm sieve, then for preparation of simulated TCEcontaminated soil at a concentration of 600 mg.kg-1 dry soil, was made by adding 600 mg TCE and 100 mL acetone to 1000 g dry soil, and then this was thoroughly stirred to obtain simulated TCEcontaminated soil. The simulated soil was then dried in air for 24h and stored in the dark bottle for treatment. The uniform distribution of TCE in simulated TCE-contaminated soil was verified by the consistency of gas chromatography (GC) analysis for three random samples. 2.2. EK-PRB experiment Lab-scale EK-PRB experiments were conducted in a setup as shown in Fig.1. The setup was comprised of two Plexiglas soil columns (4.5*4.5*6cm), one PRB compartment (1*4.5*6cm) and two pairs of electrolyte compartments (4.5*5*6cm) which were used as the EK cell. Perforated graphite electrodes (50*40*5mm) were used as anodes and cathodes. The anode flushing solution was siphoned from a stocking bottle via a soft rubber tube, which was attached to a piston in order to control the inlet flow. The electro-osmotic flow in the cathode was collected and measured with a 500mL cylinder whose top was sealed with gummed tape to avoid the evaporation of water. The constant potential was supplied by a DC power (DAZHENG, 30V/5A). The electric current was monitored with a multimeter. Electrical current and cumulative EOF was measured every day during the run. Contaminated soil was prepared by mixing a TCE solution and soil with a water content of 25% in order to reach 600 mg TCE per kilogram of dry soil. About 400 g of contaminated soil were used. This was compacted in five additions under a static load of 50 kPa; leading to specimen dimensions of 4.5*4.5*6 cm. Filter paper was sequentially attached to each end of the column to avoid the leakage of soil particles.

203

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(7), pp. 202-211, 2013

Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of EK-PRB setup

The acid-washed iron particles were then blended with acid-washed quartz sand (with the initial mass to mass of 1:1) to ensure even dispersion and impede clogging by iron precipitation. The columns were weighted and assembled with the electrodes and compartments; meanwhile approximately 30 g of PRB materials was loaded into the PRB compartment. Four tests were carried out with parameters as listed in Table 2. In T3-T4 the surfactant was used in order to increase efficiency. In T3, surfactant was used as an anode-flushing solution and in T4, surfactant is mixed with soil. The electric field induced significant pH changes at both cathode and anode. Furthermore, in order to prevent, or control, the resulting changes in soil chemistry, the pH of either electrolyte could be controlled with manual addition of either sulphuric acid (at the cathode) or sodium hydroxide solution (at the anode). As shown in Table 2, the control experiment of T1 was conducted to depict the transport behavior of PCE under electric field without PRB. From T2 to T4, PRB was installed at the position of 0.5 (normalized distance from anode).
Table 2: Associated parameters with EK-PRB tests
No. T1 T2 T3 T4 PRB No Yes Yes Yes Anode Column Spiked Soil Spiked Soil Spiked Soil Spiked Soil Cathode Column Spiked Soil Spiked Soil Clear Soil Spiked Soil Duration(day) 10 10 10 10

spatial distribution of the pH and residual TCE remaining in the soil. pH was measured with a pH meter (HANNA, HI-8314, Italy) by mixing 3 g soil sample with 7.5 ml NaCl 0.02 M. For the analysis of TCE in moist soils, samples were dried in air for about 48h. Each sample was prepared twice. Then, the samples passed through a 2mm sieve. In order to extract the target organics from the soil, 2 g dry soil was mixed with 2 mL 0.1 M sulfuric acid and 5 mL hexan for shaking 24 h. The chlorinated organic in the extractor were determined by gas chromatography equipped with an electron capture detector (GC/ECD, Varian CP3800). After analyzing experimental data, the removal efficiency of TCE under different experimental conditions could be obtained. The recovery of TCE in the processes was verified to be above 85%. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Variation of electrical current during EK-PRB experiments In all experiments, a constant voltage was applied across the electrodes. It was found that, whilst the voltage between the electrodes was kept constant, the potential difference across the soil was variable and impossible to control in this manner. This effect was due to the movement of ions and changes in moisture in the soil system (Li et al., 2011). Fig. (2) Displays the variations of electrical current versus time for the four tests. As shown in Fig. (2), the current decreased in 10 days. In general, the maximal current was reached at the start of test when the quantity of ions in the pore solution was the greatest.

2.3. Analysis of the samples At the end of the EK experiments, soil was extracted from the electrokinetic cell and divided into three sections along the length of the cell to analyze the

204

Taghizadeh and Kebria Remediation of Tetrachloroethylene -Contaminated Soil with Zero Valent Iron Utilizing Electrokinetic Reactors

Fig. 2: Variation of electrical current in EK tests

Fig. 3: Variation of cumulative EOF in EK tests

The increase in current indicates that many ions entered into the soil column, while the decrease suggests the moving out or precipitation of ions (Li et al., 2011). Comparison of the electrical current during 2-10 days in four experiments indicates that tests with PRB had higher currents than tests without (T1), suggesting a slight promotion on the electrical current with the presence of PRB. The variation of current is in agreement with that which was reported by Chang and Cheng (Chang and Cheng., 2006), whereas the EK-ZVM test had a higher electrical current than the EK test, due to the higher conductivity of pore solution and lower resistance of high electric conductive ZVM (Chang and Cheng., 2006; Wan et al., 2010).

3.2. Variation of cumulative EOF during EK-PRB Flow induced by the presence of an electrified field was found to have a certain amount of repeatability between experiments, in that the flow would initially be slow to start, and then accelerate substantially, before reducing or stopping entirely. The results of four different experiments are shown in Fig. (3). Fig. (3) Reveals that the cumulative EOF collected at the cathode reservoir varied from test to test. According to the Helmholtz-Smoluchowski equation, the EO velocity is directly proportional to the zeta potential of soil and the dielectric constant of pore fluid (Virkutyte et al., 2002; Richard and Krishna, 2005).

205

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(7), pp. 202-211, 2013

As known, considerable H2 can be generated by the ZVI system, due to the decomposition of H2O by Fe (0) (Zhang, 2003; Wan et al., 2010). So there would be an accumulation of gas in the PRB compartment, which would dramatically decrease the dielectric constant of the pore fluid within the system. Furthermore, the presence of quartz sand could further contribute to the decrease of dielectric constant of pore fluid, considering its poor conductivity when compared with water or even soil. The lower permeability of soil in cathode regions, which was caused by the block of Fe oxides, formed because of the very alkali circumstance near the cathode. This was indicated by an increasing darkgreen color in the cathode regions during the EK-PRB process. In addition, higher ion strength of the pore solution due to the dissolution of ZVI is also expected to impede the EOF by compressing the thickness of diffusive double layer (Wan et al., 2010). According to Fig. (3) With the addition of TX-100 (T3 and T4), the cumulative EOF of T3-T4 in ten days, was more than that of T1 and T2. The absorption of TX-100 within soil will reduce the absorption of mobile ions, release the ions and reduce the formation of precipitate (Yuan et al., 2006). Besides, as a kind of dispersing agent, TX-100 could improve the permeability of soil (Siachek and Reddy, 2002). Thus, the pore Fluid could be mobilized more smoothly in T3 and T4 than in T1 and T2. 3.3. pH distribution Changes in the pH of the electrolyte fluids were found in all experiments, due to water electrolysis at the

electrodes. It was expected that the hydrogen and hydroxyl ions produced would migrate into the soil, primarily through electromigration and diffusion, changing the pH of the soil pore fluid. This was observed many times (Virkutyte et al., 2002; Wan et al., 2009). Typical results from a range of different experiment types are presented in Fig. (4). According to Fig. (4), in ten days, pH in anode reservoirs decreases due to the production of H+, and increase in cathode reservoirs due to production of OH-. In comparison, tests without PRB showed a higher pH, which may be attributed to less H+ generation at anodes due to the lower electrical current. Furthermore, it can be found that tests with PRB exhibited a more fluctuant pH compared with tests without PRB. It is suggested that in the presence of PRB, reactions between Fe particles and the contaminants, the corrosion and transformation of Fe and its oxides, as well as reactions associated with quartz sand may all affect the variation of pH (Wan et al., 2009). 3.4. Soil pH distribution The soil pH values across the columns, upon the completion of EK tests, are plotted in Fig. (5) Due to water electrolysis at the electrodes the soil pH near the anodes drop and the soil pH near the cathodes rise.

206

Taghizadeh and Kebria Remediation of Tetrachloroethylene -Contaminated Soil with Zero Valent Iron Utilizing Electrokinetic Reactors

Fig. 4: Variation of (a) anolyte and (b) catholyte pH

Fig. 5: Distribution of soil pH

According to the Fig. 5, pH in the soil sample did not indicate many changes due to buffering properties of soil compared to the initial soil pH (7.6). Overall, pH increases from the anode to the cathode and it did not change more than 2 units. These negligible changes indicate that the pH control is partially at the right time at the anode and cathode reservoir. 3.5. Distribution of TCE in the soils TCE is highly insoluble in water and is preferentially absorbed in soils. It is therefore difficult to drive TCE

out by electro-osmosis. In order to accomplish the EK remediation of TCE contaminated soils, the first step is to de-absorb TCE from soils and dissolve it in a porous solution. Surfactants have both hydrophilic and lipophilic groups, so it can improve the solubility of many HOCs (Ko et al., 2000; Reddy and Richard, 2003; Saichek and Reddy, 2002). Fig. (6) Illustrates removal percentage in the four tests upon the completion of remediation.

207

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(7), pp. 202-211, 2013

Fig. 6: Removal percentage of TCE in EK tests Table 3: Mass balance of TCE for four tests
Test No Initial Mass(mg) Anode T1 T2 T3 T4 240 240 240 240 59.77 91.08 67.08 23.54 Soil Column (mg) Middle 69.77 16.34 31.18 28.82 Cathode 73.07 98.8 11.01 50.1 25.95 31.6 60.11 60.7 Catholyte (mg)

In addition, the mass of TCE in each column and in cumulative EOF was calculated and listed in Table. 3. The curve of T1 in Fig. 6 depicts the movement of TCE in the electric field without the influence of PRB. TCEs near the anode were moved to the middle section and the cathode via electro-osmosis. As shown by the mass balance calculated in Table. 3, negligible TCE was removed from the soil in T1, which is indicative of low EK remediation efficiency for TCEcontaminated soil. The observation confirms the fact that EK alone can only facilitate a reliable removal of HOCs in anode regions, as found was confirmed several previous studies. When PRB was installed, as indicated in T2, more TCE near the anode column migrated towards the cathode when compared to T1. Correspondingly, the overall TCE removal in the cathode column in T2 was much higher than that in T1. For T3 and T4, TCE distribution in the anode column was higher than T2, and in the cathode column, the residue was lower than in T2. Particularly, no detectable TCE was recorded in

the cathode regions in T3, suggesting that no TCE from the anode column moved into these regions. In the EK-PRB process, there are two main approaches that contribute to the removal of TCE from soils. One is the electro-osmotic (EO) movement of contaminants across the soil from anode to cathode, which plays a primary role in HOC removal in conventional EK remediation (Siachek and Reddy, 2002; Virkutyte et al., 2002). The other is the adsorption/degradation of TCE by Fe particles in the PRB compartment. Generally, EO functioned as the predominant approach to move TCE in the anode column, and ZVI-PRB functioned as a unit to remove TCE that was moved by EOF from the anode (Li et al., 2009). Comparison of TCE residue in an anode column (Table. 3) reveals that the test with PRB generally obtained an overall TCE removal of about 70%, which was nearly 40% higher than by EK alone. This reliable promotion in contaminants removal with the combination of EK and ZVI-PRB has also been reported in literature (Mooon et al., 2005; Yuan et al., 2006).

208

Taghizadeh and Kebria Remediation of Tetrachloroethylene -Contaminated Soil with Zero Valent Iron Utilizing Electrokinetic Reactors

4. CONCLUSIONS In this study we investigated the performance of EKPRB technique to remediate TCE in contaminated soils. TX-100 was selected as a solubility-enhanced agent and microscale Fe particles were used as a PRB material. The results showed that EK-PRB could greatly enhance the removal of target contaminants in soils. Major conclusions can summed up as follows: 1) The integration technique is feasible to clean up TCE contaminated soils in a lab scale; the best TCE removal efficiency can reach 79% after a 10-days treatment. 2) The combination of EK and Fe (0) PRB could increase the overall TCE removal from soils by 40% when compared with EK alone. The results also suggest that TX-100 is a superior enhancement agent for TCE removal, both in the EOF movement process and in the Fe (0) degradation process. 3) Mass balance of TCE revealed that in the EKPRB system, TCE could be removed from soil through several sequential processes: the movement driven by EOF in the anode column, the complete adsorption/ degradation by the Fe (0) PRB and the consequent movement by EOF and probable degradation by electrochemical reactions in the cathode column. 4) Comparison of the electrical current during 2-10 day in four experiments indicates that tests with PRB due to the higher conductivity of pore solution and lower resistance of high electric conductive ZVM had higher currents than tests without (T1). REFERENCES Alshawabkeh AN, Yeung AT, Bricka MR (1999). Practical aspects of in-situ electrokinetic extraction. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 125(1): 27-35. Chang JH, Cheng SF (2006). The remediation performance of a specific electrokinetics integrated with zero-valent metals for perchloroethylene contaminated soils. Journal of hazardous materials, 131(1): 153-162. Coletta TF, Bruell CF, Rayan DK (1997). Cationenhance removal of lead from kaolinite by electrokinetics. Environmental Engineering Science, 123(12): 1227-1233. Gholami M, Yousefi Kebria D (2012). The comparison of phytoremediation and electrokinetic methods in remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons contaminated soil. Second International Conference on Geotechnique, Construction Matrials and Environment, Kuala lumpur, Malaysia Nov. 1416, 2012(ISBN: 978-4-9905958-1-4 C3051).

Khodadadi A, Yousefi D, Ganjidoust H, Yari M (2011). Bioremediation of diesel- contaminated soil using Bacillus sp. (stratin TMY-2) in soil by uniform and non- uniform electrokinetic technology field. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Heaith Sciences, 3(15): 376384. Ko SO, Schlautman M. A.., E.R. Carraway (2000). "Cyclodextrin-enhanced electrokinetic removal of phenanthrene from a model caly soil." Environ. Sci. Technol 34: 1535-1541. Li Z, Yuan S, Wan J, Long H, Tong M (2011). A combination of electrokinetics and Pd/Fe PRB for the remediation of pentachlorophenolcontaminated soil. Journal of contaminant hydrology. Li TP, Yuan SH, Wan JZ, Lin L, Long HY, Wu XF, Lu XH (2009). Pilot-scale electrokinetic movement of HCB and Zn in real contaminated sediments enhanced with hydroxypropyl-betacyclodextrin. Chemosphere, 76: 1226-1232. Moon JW, Moon HS, Kim H, Roh Y (2005). "Remediation of TCE-contaminated groundwater using zero valent iron and direct current: experimental results and electron competition model. Environ. Geol., 48: 805817. Reddy KR, Cameselle C (2009). Electrochemical remediation technologies for polluted Soils, sediments and groundwater. Wiley. Reddy Krishna R, Saichek RE (2003). Effect of soil type on electrokinetic removal of phenantherene using surfactants and cosolvents. J. Environ. Eng., 129: 336-346. Sah JG, Lin LY (2000). Electrokinetic study on copper contaminated soils. Journal of Environmental Science & Health Part A, 35(7): 1117-1139. Siachek Richard E, Reddy Krishna R (2002). Effect of pH control at the anode for the electrokinetic removal of phenanthrene from kaolin soil." Chemosphere (51): 273-287. Siachek Richard E, Reddy KR (2005). Electrokinetically enhanced remediation of hydrophobic organic compounds in soils: A review. Critical reviews in environmental science and technology, 35(2): 115-192. Van Cauwenberghe (1997). Electrokinetics. Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, To-97-03. Virkutyte J, Sillanp, M, Latostenmaa P (2002). Electrokinetic soil remediation critical overview. Science of The Total Environment 289(1-3): 97-121. Wan J, Li Z, Lu X,Yuan S (2010). Remediation of a hexachlorobenzene-contaminated soil by

209

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(7), pp. 202-211, 2013

surfactant-enhanced electrokinetics coupled with microscale Pd/Fe PRB." Journal of hazardous materials 184(1-3): 184-190. Wan JZ, Yuan SH, Chen J, Li TP, Lin L, Lu XH (2009). Solubility-enhanced electrokinetic movement of hexachlorobenzene in sediments: a comparison of cosolvent and cyclodextrin. J Hazard Mater., 166: 221-226. Weng CH, Lin YT, Lin TY, Kao CM (2007). "Enhancement of electrokinetic remediation of hyper-Cr (VI) contaminated clay by zero-valent iron." Journal of hazardous materials 149(2): 292-302. Weng CH, Yuan C, Tu HH (2003). Removal of trichloroethylene from clay soil by serieselectrokinetic process. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management, 7(1): 25-30. WHO (2006). World Health Organization. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 68, Tetrachloroethylene.

Yalcin B, Li HRJ (1992). Phenol removal from kaolinite by electrokinetics. J. Geotech. Eng., 118(11): 1837-1853. Yuan C (2006). The effect of Fe(0) on electrokinetic remediation of clay contaminated with perchloroethylene. Water Sci. Technol., 53: 9198. Yuan S, Tian M, Lu X (2006). Electrokinetic movement of hexachlorobenzene in clayed soils enhanced by Tween 80 and B-cyclodextrin. J Hazard Mater., B137: 1218-1225. Zhang, W. X. (2003). "Nanoscale iron particles for environmental remediation: an overview." J. Nanopart . Res 5: 323-332. Zheng Z, Yuan S, Yuan S, Liu Y, Lu, Wan X, Wu J, Chen J (2009). Reductive dechlorination of hexachlorobenzene by Cu/Fe bimetal in the presence of nonionic surfactant. Journal of hazardous materials, 170(2): 895-901.

210

Maryam Taghizadeh has MSC in civil engineering-Environment Science from Babol Noshirvani university of Technology (Iran).Currently; she works in the Islamic azad university of behshahr. She has more than 5 articles in the international conference and Journal.

Daryoush Yousefi Kebria has PHD in civil engineering-Environment Science from Tarbiat modares University(Tehran-Iran).Currently, he is Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering, Babol University of Technology. he has more than 7 articles in the international conference and Journal.

211

También podría gustarte