These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Soil washing with biodegradable chelating agents and EDTA: Technological feasibility, remediation efficiency and environmental sustainability.
    Author: Gluhar S, Kaurin A, Lestan D.
    Journal: Chemosphere; 2020 Oct; 257():127226. PubMed ID: 32512332.
    Abstract:
    In washing soils contaminated with toxic metals, the replacement of recalcitrant EDTA with biodegradable chelators has gained high expectations. Herein we investigated the feasibility of using EDTA and biodegradable GLDA, EDDS and IDS under conditions pertinent to operational remediation technology, in a pilot-scale experiment. GLDA and IDS did not precipitate from process solutions, which lessened their recyclability. In other process parameters, chelator supplement, Na-saturation of process solutions and processing time, EDTA outperformed biodegradable chelators. Treatment with EDTA was also the most effective in total Pb and Zn removal and least impacted soil properties. GLDA was slightly better in Cd removal. EDDS and IDS were inefficient. All chelators effectively removed easily-available Pb, Zn and Cd from the exchangeable soil fraction. EDTA was the most efficient chelator in reducing the bioaccessibility of Pb and GLDA in reducing the bioaccessibility of Cd from simulated human gastrointestinal tract. Treatment with GLDA had an edge in reducing plant bioaccessibility of toxic metals, but induced worrying leachability of Pb. This was 8.3-times higher than with the process with EDTA and 3.4-times higher than in original soil. In general, our results demonstrate the advantage of EDTA over tested biodegradable chelators in process and remediation efficiency and environmental safety.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]