Next Article in Journal
Evaluating the Development Levels of Green Urban Transportation Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Biodiversity Characteristics and Carbon Sequestration Potential of Successional Woody Plants versus Tree Plantation under Different Reclamation Treatments on Hard-Coal Mine Heaps––A Case Study from Upper Silesia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ball Mill, Humic Acid, and Rock Phosphate-Modified Conocarpus Biochar for Efficient Removal of Heavy Metals from Contaminated Water
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 11
10.3390/su16114794
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Permeable Reactive Barrier Remediation Technique Using Carbonized Food Waste in Ground Contaminated with Combined Cu and Pb

by
Dong-Nam Kim
1,
Ji-Yoon Kim
1,
Jong-Young Lee
1,
Jung-Geun Han
2,3,* and
Dong-Chan Kim
4,*
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea
2
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Urban Design and Study, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Intelligent Energy and Industry, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea
4
Department of Geotechnical Engineering Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering & Building Technology, Goyang 10223, Republic of Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(11), 4794; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114794
Submission received: 28 March 2024 / Revised: 28 May 2024 / Accepted: 3 June 2024 / Published: 4 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Toxic Effects of Heavy Metals and Microplastics in Soil)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, with the escalation of food waste generation, stringent legal constraints on landfill usage and incineration have necessitated the exploration of alternative disposal methods, augmenting interest in diverse recycling strategies. Notably, carbonized food waste (CFW), a byproduct of food waste carbonization, has emerged as an efficacious adsorbent for pollutant removal. This study focuses on the application of in situ remediation techniques, specifically electrokinetic (EK) remediation combined with enhancers, to decontaminate soil afflicted with single or multiple heavy metals. The utilization of a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) infused with CFW aims to mitigate secondary environmental repercussions, including the propagation of contaminants in soil and groundwater. Experiments were conducted on clay samples contaminated with copper, lead, or a combination thereof. Observations revealed that the current density peaked during the initial 1–2 days of the experiment, experienced a resurgence post-electrode exchange, and subsequently diminished. The efficacy of metal removal was predominantly pronounced for copper, with remediation rates ranging from 85% to 92% in singly contaminated samples and 75% to 89% in dually contaminated samples after a 10-day treatment period, incorporating an electrode exchange on the eighth day. Conversely, the efficacy of lead removal was markedly lower, with rates of 0.6% to 33% in singly contaminated samples and 14% to 25% in combined contamination scenarios, suggesting the necessity for extended treatment durations. The post-experimental moisture content indicated successful enhancer injection. Additionally, pH measurements affirmed that heavy metals migrated effectively within the sample matrix, facilitated by the EK phenomenon after the electrode exchange. This study highlights the potential of CFW within PRBs for the remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils, although the removal efficiencies between different metals is variable, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches in the treatment of lead-contaminated environments.

1. Introduction

The rapid pace of industrial development has considerably contributed to the production of wastes and pollutants, raising grave concerns regarding soil and groundwater contamination by heavy metals [1,2]. This contamination may originate from multiple sources, including industrial wastewater, landfill leachates, pesticides, and abandoned mine waste. Without appropriate pretreatment, the discharge of these pollutants poses severe environmental and health risks [3,4,5]. The complexity of predicting the dispersion of these contaminants in soil and groundwater further exacerbates the challenge of remediation, rendering the restoration of affected areas particularly daunting [6]. The presence of heavy metals such as lead and copper in the soil not only complicates natural remediation efforts but also poses direct and indirect threats to human health and ecosystems [7,8,9,10]. Moreover, the propensity of these metals to migrate to adjacent areas can lead to secondary environmental issues [11,12,13,14,15].
In the context of rising national income and the increasing popularity of dining out, the annual production of food waste has escalated. Despite the potential for recycling, a declining trend in the recycling of food waste is observed, with landfilling and incineration becoming more prevalent [16]. These disposal methods are considerable contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, an issue that was addressed at the 70th UN General Assembly within discussions on the circular economy and food waste reduction strategies, emphasizing its global significance for achieving carbon neutrality and sustainable development [17]. To mitigate the environmental impacts of food waste disposal and heavy metal pollution, CFW has been explored as a potential adsorbent for the removal of heavy metals and organic pollutants.
Restoration techniques for soils contaminated with heavy metals are categorized based on the contamination site, necessity for excavation, and underlying principles of the remediation process. Suitable methods need to be employed for effective remediation. Common practices include soil washing, solidification and stabilization, soil flushing, and phytoremediation [18,19,20,21], with soil washing and solidification/stabilization being particularly prevalent alongside EK remediation. However, soil washing faces limitations regarding cost-efficiency and applicability in extensively contaminated areas, and solidification/stabilization may risk the re-release of contaminants, thereby potentially causing secondary pollution [22,23]. EK remediation, recognized for its efficacy in fine-grained soils, emerges as a viable alternative, overcoming the limitations of other techniques [24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. This method has been applied to soils contaminated with a spectrum of pollutants, including inorganic, organic, radioactive, and anionic contaminants [31,32,33,34,35,36]. Nonetheless, challenges such as hydroxide precipitation and reduced mobility, as well as precipitation of heavy metals at the cathode, have been observed [37,38,39,40,41,42,43].
Therefore, this study introduces the installation of permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) at sites prone to precipitation during EK remediation to foster the precipitation and adsorption of heavy metals. Utilizing CFW as the adsorbent material within PRBs, the thickness of the barriers was tailored to the concentration of each heavy metal [44,45]. To enhance heavy metal removal at the cathode, electrode exchange was employed, facilitating the migration of metals toward the PRBs and inducing electroosmosis from the anode to the cathode. Acetic acid served to augment metal mobility and mitigate the risk of secondary contamination. Mariotte bottles were utilized to ensure consistent water levels throughout the process [46,47,48,49]. The contaminants of interest were copper sulfate and lead nitrate, simulating soil contamination with copper and lead, individually and in combination. The objective of this study was to elucidate the dynamics of EK remediation in soils contaminated singly and with mixed heavy metals, employing CFW as part of in situ remediation strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Soil Sample

EK remediation has shown efficacy in fine-grained soils, with its efficiency being contingent upon the clay type. Notably, low-swelling clays such as illite and kaolinite are particularly suited for EK remediation [50]. Among these, kaolinite is preferred for its ability to minimize the surface chemical properties of clay, thereby offering sample homogeneity and reducing experimental deviations. As an inert clay, kaolinite demonstrates stability against variations in moisture content, and its relatively low cation exchange capacity facilitates the acceleration of ion exchange reactions. This characteristic is crucial for elucidating the remediation process based on varying contamination concentrations [51]. Consequently, this study employs kaolinite (sourced from Southeastern Clay Company, Aiken, SC, USA) to simulate artificially contaminated soil. The soil possesses a specific gravity of 2.65, a liquid limit of 61.21%, a cation exchange capacity of 7.24 cmol/kg, and its principal chemical components are SiO2 and Al2O3, thereby classifying it as CL (clay low compressibility) according to the unified soil classification system.

2.1.2. Carbonized Food Waste (CFW)

In this study, CFW was utilized within PRBs to facilitate the adsorption and precipitation of heavy metals from contaminated samples. To ensure consistency, only CFW that has been sieved through a 100-mesh screen was used. An illustrative image of CFW, obtained through a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM, Philips XI30, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), provided in Figure 1, depicts its irregular surface and porous structure. According to definitions by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), pore sizes are categorized as macropores (>500 Å), mesopores (20–500 Å), and micropores (<20 Å). The CFW used in this study exhibits an average pore size of 132.4 Å, placing it within the mesopore category. Furthermore, its specific surface area, as determined by the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method, was measured at 14.16 m2/g. Table 1 describes the components of the CFW used in the PRB.

2.2. Experiments

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of EK remediation techniques, supplemented by electrode exchange, in the removal of heavy metals such as copper and lead from soil—either when these metals are present individually or in combination. To address the challenges associated with conventional EK remediation methods, particularly the issue of precipitation caused by hydroxide ions, the study incorporated the use of PRBs equipped with CFW as the adsorbent medium.
The experimental setup, depicted in Figure 2, was constructed from acrylic and measured 38 cm in length and 5 cm in breadth, designed to accommodate the simultaneous testing of five samples. Each experimental cell was equipped with anode and cathode electrodes made of carbon, and PRBs were strategically placed within the setup. Acetic acid (CH3COOH, SAMCHUN PURE CHEMICAL Co., Ltd., Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea) served as the chemical enhancer to improve the remediation process. To ensure a consistent water level throughout the experiment, five Mariotte bottles containing acetic acid were positioned at the anodes (+) of the samples. The application of a constant voltage necessary for the EK process was facilitated by a DC Power supply (Digital Electronics DRP-901 DS, Incheon, Republic of Korea). This methodological approach was designed to enhance the removal efficiency of heavy metals from contaminated soils, leveraging the advantages of CFW within PRBs to mitigate the limitations traditionally associated with EK remediation. At the end of the experiment, samples were analyzed in five batches (x/L = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9), and the water baths were analyzed for pH and residual heavy metal amounts.
The EK remediation experiments focused on examining the removal characteristics of heavy metals from soils contaminated with either singular and multiple pollutants. The experimental setup, as delineated in Table 2, commenced with the preparation of kaolinite to a moisture content of 60%, into which heavy metals were incorporated to create a simulated contaminated environment. The concentrations of the pollutants were established at 500 ppm for copper sulfate (CuSO4·5H2O) and 1000 ppm for lead nitrate (Pb(NO3)2), both chemicals being procured from SAMCHUN PURE CHEMICAL Co., Ltd. The PRB was installed at a specific location defined by 0.75 = x/L(x: distance from anode, L: Length of soil sample), corresponding to the juncture where acid–base fronts meet and precipitation is likely to occur, with kaolinite simulating the contaminated ground positioned on either side of the PRB. The length of the soil sample was set at 28 cm. Based on the adsorption capacity of the CFW, the PRB’s thickness was determined to be 1 cm for samples contaminated with a single metal and 2 cm for those contaminated with multiple metals.
The remediation process spanned 10 d, with adjustments in the duration post-electrode exchange to encourage the migration and adsorption of heavy metals toward the PRB. Throughout the experiment, variables such as the volume of effluent, pH fluctuations in the anode water tank, and current density were recorded. Following the conclusion of the experiment, the residual concentration of heavy metals in the soil sample, along with its moisture content and pH, were assessed in accordance with the Korea Standard Testing Method (KSTM).

3. Results

3.1. pH Change

The pH was measured in the anode and cathode reservoirs of the experimental setup in Figure 2. Figure 3 illustrates the pH variations in the water tanks at both ends of the samples contaminated with either copper or lead during the EK remediation experiments. Following the initiation of EK remediation, electrolysis led to an increase in pH at the cathode (−), due to the formation of hydroxide ions, and a decrease in pH at the anode (+) resulting from the generation of hydrogen ions. The cathodic increase in pH was noted after 4 h, whereas the anodic decrease manifested after 24 h for copper and within 4 h for lead. This indicates that the electrolysis process, induced by EK remediation, proceeded more rapidly in soil samples contaminated with lead compared with those with copper. Subsequent to the electrode exchange, an increase in pH was observed at the new cathode (formerly anode) after 2 d, and a decrease at the new anode (formerly cathode) was recorded after 1 d. This suggests the intensification of the impact of hydrogen ion generation at the anode (where electrolysis predominantly occurs). The pH change in the initial bath was rapid, and the pH change after electrode exchange was rapidly in favor of hydrogen. This is thought to be due to the faster movement of hydrogen than hydroxide ions, which may have affected the movement of heavy metals.
Figure 4 depicts the pH changes in samples contaminated with a combination of copper and lead during the EK remediation process. Four hours into the remediation effort, the observed pH changes at both the anode and cathode closely mirrored those seen in samples solely contaminated with lead. Similarly, after the electrode exchange, the pH shifts followed patterns analogous to those noted in experiments involving contamination with a single heavy metal. These observations suggest that, within the context of combined contamination, the pH changes induced by electrolysis are more significantly influenced by the presence of lead than by copper.

3.2. Current Density

Figure 5 illustrates the temporal evolution of current density in samples contaminated with either lead or copper throughout the EK remediation experiments. The data reveal that lead-contaminated samples achieved maximum current density within 24 h, whereas copper-contaminated samples required approximately 48 h to reach a similar peak. This pattern suggests that the processes of mobilization and ionization of heavy metals owing to the initial EK remediation phenomena occur more rapidly for lead than for copper. Following the electrode exchange, both types of metal contaminants exhibited a transient increase in current density within the first 24 h, subsequently leading to a stabilization phase. This indicates that the heavy metals, initially precipitated, underwent ionization, which enhanced electrical conductivity before ultimately declining.
Figure 6 presents the variations in current density over time in samples contaminated with both copper and lead. The current density in these samples reached its maximum within approximately 24 h, akin to the timeline observed for samples contaminated with individual heavy metals. This initial peak was succeeded by a decline and subsequently an increase following the electrode exchange. Notably, samples subjected to combined heavy metal contamination exhibited higher current densities both at the outset and after the electrode exchange. This phenomenon can be attributed to the increased total content of heavy metals present in the samples, which likely facilitated greater ionization and mobilization, thereby enhancing the electrical conductivity. The current density in the composite contaminated sample is increased, which is believed to be due to the active migration of heavy metals in the contaminated sample.

3.3. Electroosmosis Flow

Figure 7 illustrates the cumulative effluent volume of heavy metals at the cathode over the course of the EK remediation process for samples contaminated with individual heavy metals. The effluent volume initially increased and eventually stabilized before experiencing further rise following the electrode exchange. This pattern is attributed to the stabilization of the enhancer injection after its introduction into the samples, which initially possessed low moisture content. The stabilization process facilitated an increased volume of effluent post-electrode exchange.
Figure 8 shows the cumulative effluent of heavy metals at the cathode during the remediation of samples contaminated with a combination of copper and lead. The trend mirrors that observed in samples contaminated with single heavy metals, characterized by an initial increase in effluent volume, followed by stabilization and a subsequent increase after electrode exchange. The notable rise in effluent volume after 72 h is attributed to the enhanced mobility of copper and lead ions, coupled with the occurrence of electroosmosis. In samples subjected to an extended remediation period of 6 d post-electrode exchange, the cumulative effluent reached approximately 300 mL, aligning with results from single heavy metal contamination scenarios. Moreover, after 8 and 10 d of continued operation post-electrode exchange, the cumulative effluent volumes were observed to be around 360 mL and 420 mL, respectively, indicating a consistent increase of approximately 60 mL every two days.

3.4. Water Content

Figure 9 illustrates the water content in samples contaminated with individual heavy metals at the conclusion of the EK remediation experiments. Measurements were taken from five uniformly spaced locations within each sample. Despite the initial moisture content being set at 60%, the results revealed no notable variation across the different locations. This uniformity in moisture distribution suggests that the interstitial water movement within the sample and the enhancer injection at the anode proceeded smoothly, without any evidence of sample settling.
Figure 10 illustrates the water content in samples contaminated with both copper and lead following an EK remediation experiment. Similar to samples contaminated with a single heavy metal, those with an initial water content of 60% exhibited no significant difference, indicating that the enhancer injection proceeded smoothly. The type of contamination—whether single or combined heavy metals—did not notably affect the water content after the injection of the enhancer.

3.5. Residual Heavy Metals and pH

Subsequent to the experiment, kaolinite samples from five distinct locations (as depicted in Figure 1) were uniformly collected and analyzed. These samples were desiccated at 105 °C in accordance with KSTM, and, subsequently, 5 g of each sample was amalgamated with 50 mL of 0.1 M HCl. This mixture was stirred at 30 °C at 100 rpm for 1 h, followed by centrifugation. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.24 μm membrane filter, and the resultant solution was quantitatively assessed using an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer (ICP, JY-Ultima-2, Jobin Yvon, France [52]).
Figure 11 presents the findings related to the residual heavy metal content and pH measurements in samples contaminated with individual heavy metals post-EK remediation experiments. The dotted line represents the initial contaminant soil sample concentration. During these experiments, heavy metals were transported from the anode to the cathode, moving from the x/L = 0 point to the x/L = 0.9 point, primarily owing to electroosmosis and electromigration. The pH level reached its peak at the x/L = 0.1 point and gradually declined toward the x/L = 0.9 point. This trend suggests that, as a result of electrode exchange and EK phenomena, H+ ions migrated more rapidly than OH- ions, thus altering the elevated basicity in the samples to acidity. The observed low pH in the samples further indicates that the heavy metals were efficiently transported without undergoing precipitation.
Figure 12 illustrates the residual heavy metal content and pH measurements in samples contaminated with a combination of copper and lead after the EK remediation experiments. The dotted line represents the initial contaminant soil sample concentration. In the case of copper, the concentration was found to be lower than the initial level, suggesting successful remediation of copper heavy metals. Conversely, for lead, an elevated detection level was noted at the x/L = 0.7 point, and a significant concentration was detected in proximity to the PRB, indicating that a more extended operation period prior to electrode exchange might be necessary. In samples contaminated with a combination of heavy metals, the remediation process for lead required a longer duration compared to copper. The optimal remediation efficiency for copper was achieved after 6 d, whereas, for lead, it was observed after 10 d following electrode exchange. Nonetheless, further investigation is warranted to ascertain more precise remediation durations for lead. The remediation period should be set to accommodate the distinct characteristics of different heavy metals.

3.6. Currnet-Effluent Realtionship

Figure 13 shows the measurements of current density and effluent amount in samples contaminated with copper and lead. The current reached its maximum value within the initial 48 h and subsequently decreased, with the effluent amount exhibiting a similar trend, reaching its maximum within 48 h and eventually converging or decreasing. After electrode exchange, both current value and effluent amount increased. The injection of the enhancer after electrode exchange proceeded without impediments, leading to an increase in effluent as a consequence of the discharge from the saturated samples, facilitated by EK phenomena post-electrode exchange.
Figure 14 shows the measurements of current density and effluent volume in samples contaminated with a combination of copper and lead. The current density recorded for samples contaminated with individual heavy metals was 150 mA for copper and 100 mA for lead. In contrast, for samples subjected to combined contamination, the current density approximated 250 mA, effectively aggregating the values attributed to the individual contaminants. Consistent with the trend observed in samples contaminated with a single heavy metal, the peak current density occurred within the initial 48 h, thereafter exhibiting a gradual decline. Initially, the effluent volume increased along with the rise in current density, mirroring the pattern observed in single heavy metal contamination instances. However, a divergence in trend ensued, with the effluent volume increasing rather than decreasing, a phenomenon attributed to the complex interactions of the heavy metals in samples contaminated with combined pollutants. After electrode exchange, a slight increment in current density was noted, which subsequently diminished, paralleling observations in samples contaminated with a single heavy metal. The effluent volume experienced an augmentation as well. Notably, the effluent volume post-electrode exchange was comparable to that observed in samples solely contaminated with lead, indicating that the influence of lead was more pronounced than that of copper.

3.7. Mass Balance

After the EK remediation experiments, mass balance calculations were conducted via ICP analysis to quantify the heavy metals remaining in the samples, adhering to KSTM. In the case of samples contaminated exclusively with copper, approximately 85–92% of the contaminants were eliminated, with the majority of the residual copper localized within the PRB. The mass balance for the copper and lead contaminated sample is shown in Figure 15 and Table 3 and Table 4. The optimal remediation efficiency for samples contaminated with copper was achieved when the EK remediation technique was employed for a duration of 10 d, supplemented by an electrode exchange period of 8 d. Conversely, for samples contaminated with lead, the removal efficacy was markedly lower, ranging from approximately 1 to 34%. A considerable portion of the lead remained in the samples, with minimal adsorption by the PRB, indicating the necessity for an extended remediation phase for lead-contaminated samples. Consequently, additional investigation is imperative to ascertain the precise duration required for the remediation of samples contaminated with lead. These results confirm the low removal efficiency of the EK remediation method and the difficulty of removing from contaminated samples by lead.
Mass balance calculations were conducted for samples contaminated with a combination of heavy metals, with residual heavy metals quantified in accordance with KSTM. The mass balance for the complex contaminated sample is shown in Figure 16 and Table 5. The observed trend mirrored that of samples contaminated with a single heavy metal. In cases of complex contamination, following a 10 d period of EK remediation and an 8 d electrode exchange, copper exhibited high remediation efficiency, with a substantial portion of the contaminants being removed. In contrast, lead demonstrated high residual levels. Thus, the duration of EK remediation for samples with complex contamination necessitates adjustment based on the specific heavy metal involved [53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60].

4. Results and Conclusions

This study aimed to identify the optimal duration for the removal and remediation of heavy metals, specifically copper and lead, from contaminated soil samples, employing an eco-friendly EK remediation technique, PRBs, and enhancers. The study endeavored to surmount the shortcomings associated with conventional EK remediation methods by integrating PRBs filled with CFW to diminish secondary ground contamination and utilizing acetic acid as an enhancer to further mitigate secondary pollution effects. The conclusions drawn from the study are as follows:
The results were similar for single heavy metals copper and lead and complex contaminants using the EK remediation method. It was confirmed that the copper contaminated soil had better removal efficiency than the lead contaminated sample, and the removal efficiency of lead from the composite contamination was higher. Throughout the EK remediation process, the water content within the samples was sustained at an initial 60%, and due to EK phenomena, the pH levels were observed to be low at the anode and elevated at the cathode. The type of contamination—whether single or combined heavy metals—did not notably affect the water content after the injection of the enhancer. These observations suggest that, within the context of combined contamination, the pH changes induced by electrolysis are more significantly influenced by the presence of lead than by copper. Following electrode exchange, the current density at the cathode increased, prompted by the introduction of precipitated heavy metals and enhancers, subsequently decreasing, which in turn caused the effluent volume to initially rise and thereafter stabilize. The effluent volume’s initial increase was correlated with the enhanced current density and the mobilization of heavy metals within the samples, thereafter reaching a plateau.
The experimental results were similar in terms of pH and outflow due to the EK phenomenon in single and composite contaminated samples. However, differences were found in the amount of heavy metals remaining after the end of the experiment in the complex contaminants. In instances of contamination with a singular heavy metal, the most effective removal was noted when the EK remediation was conducted for 10 d, succeeded by an electrode exchange spanning another 10 d. For samples with complex contamination, the optimal remediation timeframe for copper mirrored that designated for singular heavy metal contamination; however, for lead, an extended period of 10 d post-electrode exchange yielded superior removal efficiency. The mass balance analyses revealed that lead necessitates a more prolonged remediation duration compared with copper in both singularly and complexly contaminated samples. Specifically, copper exhibited a removal efficiency of 92.49% and 89.62% in singularly and complexly contaminated samples, respectively. In contrast, lead demonstrated significantly lower removal efficiencies of 33.81% and 25.64% in singularly and complexly contaminated samples, respectively. The amount of outflow increased over time in the samples contaminated with complex heavy metals differently from single heavy metals, and it is judged that it shows a different trend depending on the effect of heavy metals in the samples contaminated with complex contaminants. After electrode exchange, the current value increased slightly and then decreased, similar to the single heavy metal sample, and the amount of spillage increased. The outflow after electrode exchange was similar to the single heavy metal lead, and it is judged to be more affected by lead than copper. Therefore, a remediation period extending beyond 10 d is determined to be requisite for lead-contaminated samples, inevitably escalating the cost of remediation. The removal of heavy metals from lead-contaminated soil is considered to be more efficient in complex-contaminated samples than in single heavy metals. Further research is imperative to establish the remediation durations requisite for various types of heavy metals in both singularly and complexly contaminated environments.

Author Contributions

D.-N.K.: validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization; J.-Y.K.: validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization; J.-Y.L.: conceptualization, methodology, project administration; J.-G.H.: conceptualization, resources, project administration, supervision, writing of review and editing; D.-C.K.: methodology, investigation, formal analysis, resources, supervision, writing of the original draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

There is no external funding for this work.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean government (Project Number: 22CTAP-C164339-02). This research was supported by the MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP2023–2020–0–01655) supervised by the IITP (Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation). This research was also supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No. 20214000000280).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bo, S.; Luo, J.; An, Q.; Xiao, Z.; Wang, H.; Cai, W.; Zhai, S.; Li, Z. Efficiently selective adsorption of Pb(II) with functionalized alginate-based adsorbent inbatch/column systems: Mechanism and application simulation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. García-Carmona, M.; Romero-Freire, A.; Aragon, M.S.; Garzon, F.J.M.; Peinado, F.J.M. Evaluation of remediation techniques in soils affected by residual contamination with heavy metals and arsenic. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 191, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rehman, K.; Fatima, F.; Waheed, I.; Akash, M.S.H. Prevalence of exposure of heavy metals and their impact on health consequences. J. Cell. Biochem. 2018, 119, 157–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. O’Connor, D.; Hou, D.; Ye, J.; Zhang, Y.; Ok, Y.S.; Song, Y.; Coulon, F.; Peng, T.; Tian, L. Lead-based paint remains a major public health concern: A critical review of global production, trade, use, exposure, health risk, and implications. Environ. Int. 2018, 121, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Manjón, l.; Ramírez-Andreotta, M.D.; Sáez, A.E.; Root, R.A.; Hild, J.; Janes, M.K.; Alexander-Ozinskas, A. Ingestion and inhalation of metal(loid)s through preschool gardening: An exposure and risk assessment in legacy mining communities. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 134639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Han, J.G.; Kim, D.C.; Hong, G. The effects of pH on Microfluidics Flow Characteristics of Heavy Metals. J. Kor. Geosyn. Soc. 2015, 14, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lee, J.Y. The Remediation of Heavy Metal in the Contaminated Soil by Permeable Reactive Barrier with Carbonized Foods Waste (CFW). Ph.D. Thesis, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhagat, S.K.; Tung, T.M.; Yaseen, Z.M. Development of artificial intelligence formodeling wastewater heavy metal removal: State of the art, applicationassessment and possible future research. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 11947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Freitas, E.D.; de Almeida, H.J.; de Almeida Neto, A.F.; Vieira, M.G.A. Continuous adsorption of silver and copper by Verde-lodo bentonite in afixedbedflow-through column. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 613621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nfor, B.; Fai, P.B.A.; Tamungang, S.A.; Fobil, J.N.; Basu, N. Soil contamination and bioaccumulation of heavy metals by a tropical earthworm species (Alma nilotica) at informale-waste recycling sites in Douala, Cameroon. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2022, 41, 356–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Puga, A.P.; Melo, L.C.A.; de Abreu, C.A.; Coscione, A.R.; Paz-Ferreiro, J. Leaching and fractionation of heavy metals in mining soils amended with biochar. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 164, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Min, X.; Wang, Y.; Chai, L.; Yang, Z.; Liao, Q. High-resolution analyses reveal structural diversity patterns of microbial communities in chromite ore processing residue (COPR) contaminated soils. Chemosphere 2017, 183, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Singh, P.K.; Wang, W.; Shrivastava, A.K. Cadmium-mediated morphological, biochemical and physiological tuning in three different anabaena species. Aquat. Toxicol. 2018, 202, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. He, L.; Zhong, H.; Liu, G.; Dai, Z.; Brookes, P.C.; Xu, J. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils by biochar: Mechanisms, potential risks and applications in China. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 252, 846–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lee, J.J.; Cho, W.R.; Chang, J.M.; Lee, J.Y. Evaluation of the potential stabilization of lead-contaminated soil using coal gasification slag and flue gas desulfurization gypsum. J. Kor. Soc. Waste Manag. 2021, 38, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. White Paper of Environmental, Ministry of Environment in Korea, Feb. 2021. Available online: https://www.me.go.kr/home/web/policy_data/read.do?menuId=10260&seq=7856 (accessed on 26 March 2024).
  17. Hong, S.C. Remediation Characteristics of Diesel Contaminated Soil by Electrokinetic. Master’s Thesis, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Park, C.O.; Kim, J.S.; Seo, S.W.; Lee, Y.J.; Lee, J.Y.; Park, M.J.; Kong, S.H. Enhanced separation technique of heavy metal (Pb, Zn) in contaminated agricultural soils near abandoned metal mine. J. Kor. Soc. Soil Ground Environ. 2013, 18, 41–53. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, J.H.; Kim, M.G.; Kim, W.R.; Han, O.H. Study on as removal from mine tailing using MGS gravity separator. J. Kor. Inst. Res. Recycl. 2014, 23, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, H.; Wang, Z.; Liu, C.; Dong, Y. Technologies for removing heavy metal from contaminated soils on farmland: A review. Chemosphere. 2022, 305, 135457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Tran, T.S.; Dinh, V.C.; Nguyen, T.A.H.; Kim, K.W. Soil contamination and health risk assessment from heavy metals exposure near mining area in Bac Kan province, Vietnam. Environ. Geochem. Health. 2022, 44, 1189–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lee, I.H.; Seol, M.S. A study of the remediation of lead contaminated soil in a clay shooting range with soil washing. J. Kor. Soc. Soil Groundwater Environ. 2010, 15, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  23. Park, C.O.; Kim, J.W.; Park, J.H.; Lee, Y.J.; Yang, I.J.; Lee, J.Y. Application of a soil separation system for the remediation of arsenic contaminated soil in a metal mining area. J. Kor. Soc. Soil Groundwater Environ. 2013, 8, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Acar, Y.B.; Alshawabkeh, A.N. Principles of electrokinetic remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1993, 7, 2638–2647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sandia National Laboratories In-Situ Electrokinetic Extraction Technology: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report; EPA/540/R-97/509; EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
  26. Alshawabek, A.N.; Yeung, A.T.; Bricka, M.R. Practical aspects of in situ electrokinetic extraction. J. Environ. Eng. 1999, 125, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Acar, Y.B.; Alshawabkeh, A.N.; Gale, R.J. Fundamentals of extracting species from soils by electrokinetics. Waste Manag. 1993, 3, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Acar, Y.B.; Gale, R.J.; Alshabkeh, A.N.; Marks, R.E.; Puppala, S.; Bricka, M.; Parker, R. Electrokinetic remediation: Basics and technology status. J. Hazard. Mater. 1995, 40, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Probstein, R.F.; Hicks, R.E. Removal of contaminants from soils by electric fields. Science 1993, 260, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Abou-Shady, A.; Ismail, S.; Yossif, T.M.H.; Yassin, S.A.; Ali, M.E.A.; Habib, A.A.M.; Khalil, A.K.A.; Tag-Elden, M.A.; Emam, T.M.; Mahmoud, A.A.; et al. Comprehensive review of progress made in soil electrokinetic research during 1993–2020, Part I: Process design modifications with brief summaries of main output. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 2023, 44, 156–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Peng, G.; Tian, G. Using electrode electrolytes to enhance electrokinetic removal of heavy metals from electroplating sludge. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 165, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kim, B.K.; Baek, K.; Ko, S.H.; Yang, J.W. Research and field experiences on electrokinetic remediation in South Korea. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2011, 19, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ren, L.; Lu, H.; He, L.; Zhang, Y. Enhanced electrokinetic technologies with oxidization–reduction for organically-contaminated soil remediation. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 247, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dizon, A.; Orazem, M.E. Advances and challenges of electrokinetic dewatering of clays and soils. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2020, 22, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wen, D.; Fu, R.; Li, Q. Removal of inorganic contaminants in soil by electrokinetic remediation technologies: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 401, 123345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wang, Y.; Li, A.; Cui, C. Remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils by electrokinetic technology: Mechanisms and applicability. Chemosphere 2021, 165, 129071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Tang, J.; He, J.; Liu, T.; Xin, X.; Hu, H. Removal of heavy metal from sludge by the combined application of a biodegradable biosurfactant and complexing agent in enhanced electrokinetic treatment. Chemosphere 2017, 189, 599–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Tang, J.; He, J.; Xin, X.; Hu, H.; Liu, T. Biosurfactants enhanced heavy metals removal from sludge in the electrokinetic treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 334, 2579–2592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, Y.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, M.; Chen, R.; Chen, X.; Zheng, X.; Jin, Y. Cr(VI) recovery from chromite ore processing residual using an enhanced electrokinetic process by bipolar membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2018, 566, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Falciglia, P.P.; Malarbì, D.; Vagliasindi, F.G.A. Removal of mercury from marine sediments by the combined application of a biodegradable non-ionic surfactant and complexing agent in enhanced-electrokinetic treatment. Electrochim. Acta 2016, 222, 1569–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Falciglia, P.P.; Malarbì, D.; Maddalena, R.; Greco, V.; Vagliasindi, F.G.A. Remediation of Hg-contaminated marine sediments by simultaneous application of enhancing agents and microwave heating (MWH). Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 321, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Falciglia, P.P.; Malarbì, D.; Greco, V.; Vagliasindi, F.G.A. Surfactant and MGDA enhanced-Electrokinetic treatment for the simultaneous removal of mercury and PAHs from marine sediments. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2017, 175, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Qiu, M.; He, C. Efficient removal of heavy metal ions by forward osmosis membrane with a polydopamine modified zeolitic imidazolate framework incorporated selective layer. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 367, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Maldonado, S.; Lopez-Vizcaino, R.; Rodrigo, M.A.; Canizares, P.; Navarro, V.; Roa, G.; Barrera, C.; Saez, C. Scale-up of electrokinetic permeable reactive barriers for the removal of organochlorine herbicide from spiked soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 126078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zhang, Y.; Boparai, H.K.; Wang, J.; Sleep, B.E. Effect of low permeability zone location on remediation of Cr(VI)-contaminated media by electrokinetics combined with a modified-zeolite barrier. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 426, 127785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Abou-Shady, A.; Eissa, D.; Abdelmottaleb, O.; Hegab, R. New approaches to remediate heavy metals containing polluted soil via improved PCPSS. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 1322–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Abou-Shady, A.; Peng, C. New process for ex situ electrokinetic pollutant removal. I:process evaluation. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2012, 18, 2162–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abou-Shady, A. Reclaiming salt-affected soils using electro-remediation technology: PCPSS evaluation. Electrochim. Acta 2016, 190, 511–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Abou-Shady, A.; El-Araby, H. Electro-agric, a novel environmental engineering perspective to overcome the global water crisis via marginal water reuse. Nat. Hazards Res. 2021, 1, 202–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lockhart, N.C. Electro-osmotic dewatering of clay-Ⅲ. Influence of clay type, exchangeable cations and electrode materials. Colloid Surf. 1983, 6, 253–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dalloway, B.J. Heavy Matals in Soils; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1990; Volume 339. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kim, W.S.; Kim, S.O.; Kim, K.W. Enhancement electrokinetic extraction of heavy metals from soils assisted by ion exchange membranes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2005, 118, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Apostolos, G.; Aris, N.; Despina, P.; Evangelos, G. Chelating agent-assisted electrokinetic removal of cadmium, lead and copper from contaminated soils. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 3379–3386. [Google Scholar]
  54. Annamalai, S.; Santhanam, M.; Sundaram, M.; Curras, M.P. Electrokinetic remediation of inorganic and organic pollutants in textile effluent contaminated agricultural soil. Chemosphere 2014, 117, 673–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Cappai, G.; Gioannis, G.D.; Muntoni, A.; Spiga, D.; Zijlstra, J. Combined use of a transformed red mud reactive barrier and electrokinetics for remediation of Cr/As contaminated soil. Chemosphere 2012, 86, 400–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yang, J.S.; Kwon, M.J.; Choi, J.; Baek, K.; O’Loughlin, E.J. The transport behavior of As, Cu, Pb, and Zn during electrokinetic remediation of a contaminated soil using electrolyte conditioning. Chemosphere 2014, 117, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yong, R.N.; Mohamed, A.M.O.; Warkentin, B.P. Principles of Contaminant Transport in Soils; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wen, D.D.; Fu, R.B.; Zhang, W.; Gu, Y.Y. Enhanced electrokinetic remediation of heavy metals contaminated soils by stainless steel electrodes as well as the phenomenon and mechanism of electrode corrosion and crystallization. Huanjing Kexue 2017, 38, 1209–1217. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  59. Wang, J.; Huang, X.; Kao, J.; Stabnikova, O. Removal of heavy metals from kaolin using an upward electrokinetic soil remedial (UESR) technology. J. Hazard Mater. 2006, 136, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Zhang, P.; Jin, C.; Sun, Z.; Huang, G.; She, Z. Assessment of acid enhancement schemes for electrokinetic remediation of Cd/Pb contaminated soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016, 227, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 04794 g001
Figure 1. Image of Pristine CFW, as seen under SEM.
Figure 1. Image of Pristine CFW, as seen under SEM.
Sustainability 16 04794 g001
Sustainability 16 04794 g002
Figure 2. Schematic diagram and dimensional of EK test device.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram and dimensional of EK test device.
Sustainability 16 04794 g002
Sustainability 16 04794 g003
Figure 3. pH change in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) Copper; (b) Lead.
Figure 3. pH change in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) Copper; (b) Lead.
Sustainability 16 04794 g003
Sustainability 16 04794 g004
Figure 4. pH change during EK experiment.
Figure 4. pH change during EK experiment.
Sustainability 16 04794 g004
Sustainability 16 04794 g005
Figure 5. Current density in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) Copper; (b) Lead.
Figure 5. Current density in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) Copper; (b) Lead.
Sustainability 16 04794 g005
Sustainability 16 04794 g006
Figure 6. Current density during EK experiment.
Figure 6. Current density during EK experiment.
Sustainability 16 04794 g006
Sustainability 16 04794 g007
Figure 7. Cumulative electroosmosis in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) copper; (b) lead.
Figure 7. Cumulative electroosmosis in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) copper; (b) lead.
Sustainability 16 04794 g007
Sustainability 16 04794 g008
Figure 8. Cumulative electroosmosis in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil.
Figure 8. Cumulative electroosmosis in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil.
Sustainability 16 04794 g008
Sustainability 16 04794 g009
Figure 9. Water content in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) Copper; (b) Lead.
Figure 9. Water content in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) Copper; (b) Lead.
Sustainability 16 04794 g009
Sustainability 16 04794 g010
Figure 10. Water content in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil.
Figure 10. Water content in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil.
Sustainability 16 04794 g010
Sustainability 16 04794 g011
Figure 11. Residual heavy metals and pH in single heavy metal-contaminated soil (after completion of experiment): (a) copper; (b) lead.
Figure 11. Residual heavy metals and pH in single heavy metal-contaminated soil (after completion of experiment): (a) copper; (b) lead.
Sustainability 16 04794 g011
Sustainability 16 04794 g012
Figure 12. Residual heavy metals and pH in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil (after the completion of experiment).
Figure 12. Residual heavy metals and pH in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil (after the completion of experiment).
Sustainability 16 04794 g012
Sustainability 16 04794 g013
Figure 13. Relationship between current and effluent in single heavy metal-contaminated: (a) copper; (b) lead.
Figure 13. Relationship between current and effluent in single heavy metal-contaminated: (a) copper; (b) lead.
Sustainability 16 04794 g013
Sustainability 16 04794 g014
Figure 14. Relationship between current and effluent in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil.
Figure 14. Relationship between current and effluent in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil.
Sustainability 16 04794 g014
Sustainability 16 04794 g015
Figure 15. Mass balance in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) copper; (b) lead.
Figure 15. Mass balance in single heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) copper; (b) lead.
Sustainability 16 04794 g015
Sustainability 16 04794 g016
Figure 16. Mass balance in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) copper; (b) lead.
Figure 16. Mass balance in complex heavy metal-contaminated soil: (a) copper; (b) lead.
Sustainability 16 04794 g016
Table 1. Chemical composition of CFW.
Table 1. Chemical composition of CFW.
OCaCKClNaPFeSiMgSAlOtherTotal
38.3925.5121.733.23.052.641.51.290.970.710.510.270.23100
Table 2. Test condition.
Table 2. Test condition.
Fixed factor
Electrode
Gradient
(V/cm)		Improver
(M)		PRB
Location
(x/L)		Duration
(Day)
1Acetic acid
0.05		0.7510
Variable factor
Contaminant (ppm)
CopperLeadComplex pollution (Cu/Pb)
5001000500/1000
PRB thickness (cm)
112
Duration after electrode exchange (Day)
681068106810
Exp.
C-6		Exp.
C-8		Exp.
C-10		Exp.
P-6		Exp.
P-8		Exp.
P-10		Exp.
CP-6		Exp.
CP-8		Exp.
CP-10
Table 3. Mass balance in single heavy metal-contaminated (Cu) soil.
Table 3. Mass balance in single heavy metal-contaminated (Cu) soil.
TestInitial Amount of Pollutant (mg)Residual in the Soil (mg)PRB
(mg)		Amount Removed by EOF
(mg)		Water Tanks
(mg)		Mass Balance
(%)		Removal
(%)
Exp. C-618026.2472.840.091.5799.9985.42
Exp. C-818013.5255.060.449.4278.4492.49
Exp. C-1018022.2472.100.382.1596.8787.65
Table 4. Mass balance in single heavy metal-contaminated (Pb) soil.
Table 4. Mass balance in single heavy metal-contaminated (Pb) soil.
TestInitial Amount of Pollutant (mg)Residual in the Soil (mg)PRB
(mg)		Amount Removed by EOF
(mg)		Water Tanks
(mg)		Mass Balance
(%)		Removal
(%)
Exp. P-6360319.1627.170.040.0396.2211.34
Exp. P-8360238.2865.350.070.0584.3733.81
Exp. P-10360355.7951.650.350.02113.840.61
Table 5. Mass balance in single heavy metal-contaminated (Pb) soil.
Table 5. Mass balance in single heavy metal-contaminated (Pb) soil.
TestInitial Amount of Pollutant (mg)Residual in the Soil (mg)PRB
(mg)		Amount Removed by EOF
(mg)		Water Tanks
(mg)		Mass Balance
(%)		Removal
(%)
CuExp. CP-618043.62143.500.260.72104.5075.77
Exp. CP-818018.69131.420.350.3083.7589.62
Exp. CP-1018023.17186.380.240.21116.6787.13
PbExp. CP-6360282.5737.2237.220.7889.1221.51
Exp. CP-8360308.3836.3736.370.0095.8414.34
Exp. CP-10360267.7049.6749.670.0088.2325.64
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, D.-N.; Kim, J.-Y.; Lee, J.-Y.; Han, J.-G.; Kim, D.-C. Permeable Reactive Barrier Remediation Technique Using Carbonized Food Waste in Ground Contaminated with Combined Cu and Pb. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114794

AMA Style

Kim D-N, Kim J-Y, Lee J-Y, Han J-G, Kim D-C. Permeable Reactive Barrier Remediation Technique Using Carbonized Food Waste in Ground Contaminated with Combined Cu and Pb. Sustainability. 2024; 16(11):4794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114794

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Dong-Nam, Ji-Yoon Kim, Jong-Young Lee, Jung-Geun Han, and Dong-Chan Kim. 2024. "Permeable Reactive Barrier Remediation Technique Using Carbonized Food Waste in Ground Contaminated with Combined Cu and Pb" Sustainability 16, no. 11: 4794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114794

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop