Mercury Contaminated Sites: A Review of Remedial Solutions

The physio-chemical characteristics of mercury have made it a favourable component for many industrial and agricultural applications. Significant anthropogenic Hg sources include fossil fuel combustion, the chloralkali industry and pharmaceuticals. Modifications to industrial practices and stricter regulations have led to emission reductions in many countries; however, this has been countered by the increased use of Hg for gold amalgamation, particularly in tropical, developing countries. Under any of these circumstances, varying quantities and forms of Hg have been inevitably released to environments where it can pose a risk to human and ecological health. Given the unique behaviour of Hg, remediation of Hg contaminated sites can be complicated and costly. This paper reviews commonly employed and emerging techniques to mitigate Hg pollution and describes key design considerations and concerns associated with each method. Well-established ex-situ (external) techniques, such as physical separation and thermal treatment of excavated materials, are discussed in theory and practice. Potential in-situ (i.e. in place) Hg recovery methods, such as soil vapour extraction combined with soil heating and the use of leaching agents, are also explored. Finally, containment strategies are described for sites where more conclusive measures cannot be employed.

[1]  S. E. Lindberg,et al.  Natural and Anthropogenic Mercury Sources and Their Impact on the Air-Surface Exchange of Mercury on Regional and Global Scales , 1999 .

[2]  Peter A. Forsyth,et al.  Mechanisms Controlling Vacuum Extraction Coupled With Air Sparging for Remediation of Heterogeneous Formations Contaminated by Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids , 1995 .

[3]  Paul C. Johnson,et al.  Quantitative analysis for the cleanup of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils by in-situ soil venting , 1990 .

[4]  George E. Taylor,et al.  Effect of temperature and air movement on the flux of elemental mercury from substrate to the atmosphere , 1997 .

[5]  H. Yabuta,et al.  Basic Study on the Remediation Technology of Mercury Compound-Contaminated Soil by Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment , 1999 .

[6]  L. Rosengrant,et al.  Final best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) background for mercury-containing wastes D009, K106, P065, P092, and U151. Volume 17 , 1990 .

[7]  Saulo Rodrigues-Filho,et al.  Assessment of the heavy metal pollution in a gold ``garimpo'' , 1998 .

[8]  R. R. Turner,et al.  Mercury Contamination of Minamata Bay: Historical Overview and Progress Towards Recovery , 1999 .

[9]  Kathleen S. Smith,et al.  Selectivity and effectiveness of extractants used to release metals associated with organic matter , 1991 .

[10]  J. Thoeming,et al.  Remediation Techniques for Hg-Contaminated Sites , 1999 .

[11]  P Schuhmacher,et al.  Effectiveness of mossy tin filters to remove mercury from aqueous solution by Hg(II) reduction and Hg(0) amalgamation , 2000 .

[12]  Franklin W. Schwartz,et al.  Lead immobilization by hydroxyapatite in aqueous solutions , 1994 .

[13]  J. Thöming,et al.  Electroleaching: a Mobile Cleanup Process for Mercury Contaminated Materials , 1999 .

[14]  Chris D. Cox,et al.  Electrokinetic Remediation of Mercury-Contaminated Soils Using Iodine/Iodide Lixiviant , 1996 .

[15]  David W. Blowes,et al.  Selection of Reactive Mixtures for Use in Permeable Reactive Walls for Treatment of Mine Drainage , 1998 .

[16]  P. Domenico,et al.  Physical and chemical hydrogeology , 1990 .

[17]  Martin A. Wills,et al.  In-Situ Electrokinetic Remediation for Metal Contaminated Soils , 2001 .