Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Laboratory assessment of advanced oxidation processes for treatment of explosives and chlorinated solvents in groundwater from the former Nebraska Ordnance Plant|
United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Kansas City District.
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (U.S.)
Fleming, Elizabeth C.
Zappi, Mark E.
Myers, Karen F.
|Keywords:||Advanced oxidation process|
Nebraska Ordnance Plant
|Publisher:||Environmental Laboratory (U.S.)|
Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)
Abstract: Chemical oxidation processes that result in the generation of the hydroxyl radical (OH•) have been referred to as advanced oxidation processes (AOPS) by the American Water Works Association. The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station under the direction of the U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City, and in conjunction with Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Overland Park, KS, evaluated the comparative performance of four AOPS for removing tichloroethylene, RDX, HMX, trinitrotoluene, and 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene from a representative sample of groundwater from the Nebraska Ordnance Plant using bench-scale reactors. During 1990, this site was placed on the National Priorities List. Candidate AOPS that were evaluated were irradiation of hydrogen peroxide with ultraviolet (UV) light emitted from low-pressure mercury vapor UV lamps (LPUV-HP), irradiation with UV light emitted from a low-pressure mercury vapor UV lamp with ozone sparging (LPUV-OZ), irradiation of hydrogen peroxide with W light emitted horn a medium-pressure mercury vapor UV lamp (MPUV-HP), and peroxone (ozone sparging with hydrogen peroxide dosing). The groundwater influent sample used in this study was a three-way composite (equal parts) of groundwater collected from three site observation wells (Wells MW-11A, MW-40B, and MW-47B). The experiments were pexformed using a 1-l borosilicate reactor configured to sparge ozone into the test solution. This reactor has an inner immersion well that houses the UV lamps. A 200-W MPUV lamp and a 12-W LPUV lamp were used as light sources. Hydrogen peroxide was added according to the specific run conditions. Ozone was added semicontinuously via constant sparging of ozonated air (2-percent ozone). The fate of oxidants and contaminants was monitored by taking samples from the reactor at preset times during each experimental run. The volatile organic compound (VOC) analyses were run on a Hewlett-Packard gas chromatographyhnass spectrometry system with a purge and trap system manufactured by O. I. Analytical using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method No. 8240. Explosives analyses were performed using USEPA Method 8330 using a Waters brand high performance liquid chromatography system operated with solid-phase preconcentration procedures. An HNU brand photoionizer detector was used to analyze the off-gases exiting various AOP systems to quantify the amount of VOCS stripped from the reactor during ozonation. Process effectiveness was evaluated based on the ability of the AOP to meet the preset target treatment goals. For the specific operating conditions evaluated in this study, the LPUV/ozone system was the best performer in terms of rate and extent of contaminant removal. The MPUV/hydrogen peroxide (100 mg/l) was the next best performer, followed by the 100-mg/l hydrogen peroxide-dosed peroxone system. The LPUV system did meet target treatment goals at a much slower and, in some cases, less complete manner.
|Appears in Collections:||Technical Report|