Comparison of two- and three-compartment cells for electrodialytic removal of heavy metals from contaminated material suspensions.

Electrodialytic remediation can be applied to remove heavy metals from contaminated particulate materials in suspension. The applied electric current is the cleaning agent and the heavy metals are removed by electromigration. In this study, a two-compartment cell was compared to a three-compartment cell, for several contaminated materials such as soils, sediments, mine tailings and ashes and totally 20 experiments were conducted. The pH decrease was faster in the two-compartment cell, but the metal removal was higher in the three-compartment cell since anionic metal species are removed from the material suspension in this cell set-up. For materials with relatively high chloride content, fly ash and harbour sediments, up to 38% of the metals were found in the filtrate in the two-compartment cell. Up to 9% of the current was used to transport heavy metal ions in the experiments and the current was mainly carried by H+ and Ca2+. Even with the lower pH in the two-compartment cell experiments, there was little difference in the percentage of the current carried by the metal ions between the two set-ups. Multivariate analysis showed that the choice of cell set-up depends on the metals targeted by remediation and the material characteristics.

[1]  Lisbeth M. Ottosen,et al.  Electrodialytic removal of heavy metals and chloride from municipal solid waste incineration fly ash and air pollution control residue in suspension – test of a new two compartment experimental cell , 2015 .

[2]  Anne Juul Pedersen,et al.  Evaluation of assisting agents for electrodialytic removal of Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu and Cr from MSWI fly ash. , 2002, Journal of hazardous materials.

[3]  L. Ottosen,et al.  Comparison of 2-compartment, 3-compartment and stack designs for electrodialytic removal of heavy metals from harbour sediments , 2015 .

[4]  A. Rojo,et al.  Electrodialytic Remediation of Copper Mine Tailings: Sulphuric and Citric Acid Addition , 2005 .

[5]  L. Ottosen,et al.  Comparison of two different electrodialytic cells for separation of phosphorus and heavy metals from sewage sludge ash. , 2015, Chemosphere.

[6]  Lisbeth M. Ottosen,et al.  Water splitting at ion-exchange membranes and potential differences in soil during electrodialytic soil remediation , 2000 .

[7]  L. Ottosen,et al.  The relative influence of electrokinetic remediation design on the removal of As, Cu, Pb and Sb from shooting range soils , 2018 .

[8]  Tore Lejon,et al.  Multivariate methods for evaluating the efficiency of electrodialytic removal of heavy metals from polluted harbour sediments. , 2015, Journal of hazardous materials.

[9]  L. Ottosen,et al.  Ammonium citrate as enhancement for electrodialytic soil remediation and investigation of soil solution during the process. , 2015, Chemosphere.

[10]  Iben V. Kristensen,et al.  Electrodialytic Removal of Heavy Metals from Different Solid Waste Products , 2003 .

[11]  L. Ottosen,et al.  Phosphorous recovery from sewage sludge ash suspended in water in a two-compartment electrodialytic cell. , 2016, Waste management.

[12]  L. Ottosen,et al.  Electrodialytic Remediation of heavy Metal polluted Soil - treatment of water saturated or suspended soil , 2012 .

[13]  L. Ottosen,et al.  Electrodialytic Remediation of an Arsenic and Copper Polluted Soil - Continuous Addition of Ammonia During the Process , 2000 .

[14]  L. Ottosen,et al.  The influence of sediment properties and experimental variables on the efficiency of electrodialytic removal of metals from sediment , 2017 .