Groundwater Treatment "in situ" with Special Reference to Iron and Manganese

1988 ◽  
Vol 139 (2) ◽  
pp. 525-533
Author(s):  
Ulrich Rott
2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Rott ◽  
C. Meyer ◽  
M. Friedle

The paper presents a residue-free kind of water treatment process for the removal of metals like arsenic, iron and manganese and other water constituents like ammonia which may deteriorate drinking water quality. In this process the underground body, i.e. the aquifer, is used as a natural reactor. The results of field experiments of two technical-scale in-situ groundwater treatment plants are reported.


2021 ◽  
pp. 125995
Author(s):  
So Yeon Yoon ◽  
Seok Byum Jang ◽  
Kien Tiek Wong ◽  
Hyeseong Kim ◽  
Min Ji Kim ◽  
...  

1988 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Braester ◽  
Rudolf Martinell

Nearly one fifth of all water used in the world is obtained from groundwater. The protection of water has become a high priority goal. During the last decades pollution of water has become more and more severe. Today groundwater is more and more used in comparison with surface water. Recently we have seen accidents, which can pollute nearly all surface water very quickly. Generally the groundwater is easier to protect, as well as cheaper to purify, and above all it is of better quality than the surface water. During the past two decades, alternatives to the traditional method of treating the water in filters have been developed, that is in situ water treatment i.e. the VYREDOX and NITREDOX methods. The most common problem regarding groundwater is too high content of iron and manganese, which can be reduced with the VYREDOX method. In some areas today there are severe problems with pollution by hydrocarbons and nitrate as well, and with modification of the VYREDOX treatment method it is used for hydrocarbon and nitrate treatment as well. The method to reduce the nitrate and nitrite is known as the NITREDOX method.


Nature ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 340 (6232) ◽  
pp. 376-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson Belzile ◽  
Richard R. De Vitre ◽  
André Tessier

Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 354
Author(s):  
Muhammad A. Imran ◽  
Yuzhen Tong ◽  
Qing Hu ◽  
Mingzhu Liu ◽  
Honghan Chen

Phthalic acid esters (PAEs) are often detected in remediated groundwater using appropriate oxidant materials by in situ groundwater treatment. The study compares zero-valent iron–persulfate with a pyrite–persulfate system to degrade three PAEs—di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and dimethyl phthalate (DMP). Column experiments were conducted, and rapid oxidation occurred in a pyrite–persulfate system due to sulfate radical generation. DMP concentration was found at about 60.0% and 53.0% with zero-valent iron (ZVI) and pyrite activation of persulfate, respectively. DBP concentration was measured as 25.0–17.2% and 23.2–16.0% using ZVI–persulfate and pyrite–persulfate systems, respectively. However, DEHP was not detected. The total organic carbon concentration lagged behind the Ʃ3 PAEs. Persulfate consumption with ZVI activation was half of the consumption with pyrite activation. Both systems showed a steady release of iron ions. Overall, the oxidation–reduction potential was higher with pyrite activation. The surface morphologies of ZVI and pyrite were investigated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), and XPS. Intensive corrosion occurs on the pyrite surface, whereas the ZVI surface is covered by a netting of iron oxides. The pyrite surface showed more oxidation and less passivation in comparison with ZVI, which results in more availability of Fe 2 + for persulfate activation. The pyrite–persulfate system is relatively preferred for rapid PAE degradation for contamination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document