Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRisco Manzano, Carolina
dc.contributor.authorLópez-Vizcaíno López, Rubén
dc.contributor.authorSaez, C.
dc.contributor.authorCañizares Cañizares, Pablo
dc.contributor.authorNavarro Gamir, Vicente
dc.contributor.authorRodrigo Rodrigo, Manuel Andrés
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-11T08:35:10Z
dc.date.available2016-05-11T08:35:10Z
dc.date.issued2016-03
dc.identifier.citationScience of The Total Environment. Volumes 545–546, 1 March 2016, Pages 256–265es_ES
dc.identifier.issn0048-9697
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10578/9313
dc.description.abstractThis work aimed to evaluate electrokinetic soil flushing (EKSF) technologies for the removal of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) from spiked soils using an electrode configuration consisting of one cathode surrounded by six anodes (1c6a) and one anode surrounded by 6 cathodes (1a6c). Experiments were conducted for over one month in a bench-scale set-up (175 dm3 of capacity) that was completely automated and operated at a constant electric field (1.0 V cm− 1). The electrical current, temperature, pH, moisture and pollutant concentration in electrolyte wells were monitored daily, and at the end of the experiments, an in-depth sectioned analysis of the complete soil section (post-mortem analysis) was conducted. Despite the geometric similarity, the two strategies led to very different results mainly in terms of water and herbicide mobilization, whereas pH and conductivity do not depend strongly on the electrode configuration. The volume of water extracted from cathodes with 1a6c is seven times higher than that of the 1c6a strategy. Herbicide was transported to the anode wells by electromigration and then dragged toward the cathode wells by electro-osmotic fluxes, with the first process being much more important. The configuration 1c6a was the most efficient and attained a transfer of 70% of the herbicide contained in the soil to flushing water in 35 days. These results outperform those obtained by the configuration 1a6c, for which less than 8% of the herbicide was transferred to flushing fluids in a much longer time (58 days).es_ES
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses_ES
dc.subject2,4-Des_ES
dc.subjectHerbicidees_ES
dc.subjectElectroremediationes_ES
dc.subjectEKSFes_ES
dc.subjectPilot plantes_ES
dc.subjectSurrounding electrode arrangementes_ES
dc.titleElectrokinetic flushing with surrounding electrode arrangements for the remediation of soils that are polluted with 2,4-Des_ES
dc.title.alternativeA case study in a pilot plantes_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.identifier.DOI10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.065
dc.relation.projectIDINNOCAMPUS, CYTEMA E2TP, CTM2013-45612-Res_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record