Subscriber access provided by University Of Miami

Article
Landfill Disposal of CCA-Treated Wood with Construction and Demolition
(C&D) Debris: Arsenic, Chromium, and Copper Concentrations in Leachate
Jenna R. Jambeck, Timothy G. Townsend, and Helena M. Solo-Gabriele
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42 (15), 5740-5745• DOI: 10.1021/es800364n • Publication Date (Web): 26 June 2008
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on March 19, 2009

More About This Article

Additional resources and features associated with this article are available within the HTML version:

• Supporting Information
• Access to high resolution figures
• Links to articles and content related to this article
• Copyright permission to reproduce figures and/or text from this article

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical

Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036
 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5740–5745
Landfill Disposal of CCA-Treated
Wood with Construction and
Demolition (C&D) Debris: Arsenic,
Chromium, and Copper
Concentrations in Leachate
J E N N A R . J A M B E C K , †,‡
T I M O T H Y G . T O W N S E N D , * ,† A N D
HELENA M. SOLO-GABRIELE§
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-6450, and
Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental
Engineering, University of Miami,
P.O. Box 248294, Coral Gables, Florida 33124-0630
Received February 5, 2008. Revised manuscript received
April 29, 2008. Accepted May 8, 2008.
Although phased out of many residential uses in the United
States, the disposal of CCA-treated wood remains a concern
because significant quantities have yet to be taken out of service,
and it is commonly disposed in landfills. Catastrophic events
have also led to the concentrated disposal of CCA-treated wood,
often in unlined landfills. The goal of this research was to
simulate the complex chemical and biological activity of a
construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfill containing a
realistic quantity of CCA-treated wood (10% by mass),
produce leachate, and then evaluate the arsenic, copper, and
chromium concentrations in the leachate as an indication of
what may occur in a landfill setting. Copper concentrations were
not significantly elevated in the control or experimental
simulated landfill setting (R ) 0.05). However, the concentrations
of arsenic and chromium were significantly higher in the
experimental simulated landfill leachate compared to the control
simulated landfill leachate (R ) 0.05, p < 0.001). This indicates
that disposal of CCA-treated wood with C&D debris can
impact leachate quality which, in turn could affect leachate
management practices or aquifers below unlined landfills.
Introduction
Chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood was a
common residential construction material. While CCA-
treated wood is no longer manufactured for residential uses
in the United States, projections forecast annual CCA-treated
wood disposal quantities to vary between 6 and 10 million
m3 in the U.S. through 2030 (1). Even though the CCA-treated
wood may be structurally sound for 25 years, research has
shown that aesthetic reasons play a large role in when CCA-
treated wood structures are removed from service and
disposed of (2, 3). CCA-treated wood is contained in
* Corresponding author phone: 352-392-0846; fax: 352-392-3076;
e-mail: ttown@ufl.edu.
†
University of Florida.
‡
University of Miami.
§
Present address: Environmental Research Group, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH
03824-3534.
5740 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 15, 2008
construction and demolition (C&D) debris, which is primarily
disposed of in landfills in the U.S. C&D debris may also be
targeted for recycling, which typically excludes CCA-treated
wood. CCA-treated wood is sometimes inadvertently mixed
with C&D debris and contaminates recycled wood mulch
(4, 5). On a life-cycle basis, combustion of CCA-treated wood
with energy recovery is favorable with proper air pollution
controls (1); however, the ash contains high metal concen-
trations (6, 7). Although research has progressed on new and
effective air pollution controls and ash stabilization tech-
nologies (8), public and regulatory acceptance of any treated
wood combustion remains low worldwide. Significant events
creating disaster debris, such as hurricanes (e.g., Katrina),
concentrate landfill disposal of CCA-treated wood in one
location with unknown future impacts, especially if the
landfills are unlined (9).
Historically, C&D debris was considered inert, without
putrescible materials like those found in municipal solid
waste (MSW) (e.g., food waste). However, research has shown
that C&D debris goes through active processes of biological
activity that affect both leachate and gas concentrations (10).
These active processes can impact the timing and quantity
of metals released from any metal-containing treated wood.
Twenty-seven states in the United States do not require C&D
debris landfills to have bottom liners (11). When CCA-treated
wood is managed in the C&D debris waste stream and is
disposed in unlined C&D debris landfills, there is concern
for the quantity of arsenic, chromium, and copper that may
be released in leachate, which could subsequently impact
groundwater.
Previous research on CCA-treated wood metal leachability
has focused on terrestrial environments and in-service use
(12–17) and batch leaching studies (18–20). Studies targeting
C&D debris leachate in general have included CCA-treated
wood, and the applicable groundwater limit for arsenic (prior
to 2006 was 50 µg/L) was exceeded by C&D debris with only
0.5% of CCA-treated wood by mass (10, 21). CCA-treated
wood has also been leached in a simulated monofill disposal
setting, illustrating that arsenic, chromium, and copper leach
differently in a simulated landfill setting than batch leaching
studies (22).
In a companion paper, Khan et al. (17) included some
characterization of the leachate collected as part of the study
presented here. However, the Khan et al. work focused
specifically on the speciation of arsenic released from CCA-
treated wood, as well as prediction of arsenic releases from
various landfill scenarios in Florida. Chromium and copper
results were not evaluated, and Khan et al. did not emphasize
other physiochemical measurements that affect metal leach-
ability and solubility in disposal environments. The experi-
ment presented here differs from prior work in that an
emphasis is placed on evaluation of the major ion chemistry,
including the role of sulfate/sulfides, in influencing the
releases of arsenic, chromium, and copper. Specifically, the
objective of this research was to simulate the complex
chemical and biological activity of a C&D debris landfill
containing a realistic quantity of CCA-treated wood (10% by
mass), produce leachate, and then evaluate the arsenic,
copper, and chromium concentrations in the leachate as an
indication of what may occur in a landfill setting.
Materials and Methods
The experiment consisted of the design and construction of
simulated landfill environments (leaching columns) followed
by the operation of these columns. Both leachate and gas
10.1021/es800364n CCC: $40.75  2008 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 06/26/2008
samples were collected and analyzed from the columns. A
description of the columns, sample collection, and analytical
methods are contained in this section.
Leaching Columns. Two 6.7-m high and 0.3-m (1-ft)
diameter leaching columns, also called lysimeters, were
constructed at the Alachua County Solid Waste Landfill,
located in North Central Florida, U.S. The lysimeters were
constructed (from the bottom to the top) with: 15.2 cm of
washed gravel, a stainless steel screen, 15.2 cm of washed
gravel, 6.1 m of simulated C&D debris, a cap with a water
distribution system, and a catchment basin for rainwater.
Details on the construction of the lysimeters are contained
in Jambeck (23). One lysimeter was a control lysimeter
(containing 157 kg of C&D debris and no CCA-treated wood),
and one lysimeter was an experimental lysimeter (containing
150 kg of C&D debris with CCA-treated wood). The simulated
C&D debris was composed of typical components including
wood (33%), concrete (29%), asphalt roofing shingles (14%),
gypsum drywall (12%), and smaller amounts of metals (e.g.,
copper, steel and aluminum) and other materials (e.g.,
insulation) by dry weight. The experimental lysimeter
contained 10% CCA-treated wood by mass (a portion of the
total wood fraction). This 10% was composed of 50% new
CCA-treated wood and 50% CCA-treated wood that had been
in service approximately 10 years. Further details on the
composition and generation of the C&D debris used in this
experiment are provided in the Supporting Information.
Natural precipitation was allowed to infiltrate the lysim-
eters (1 cm of precipitation on the lysimeters is equal to 0.73
L of water addition). The lysimeters were exposed to 212 cm
of natural precipitation and were supplemented with deion-
ized water during the dry season (September 2002 to February
2003) for a total of 321 cm of additional water (234 L) to each
lysimeter over the 786 day experimental time period. The
lysimeters were located outside and exposed to ambient
temperature variations. Thermocouple wires (type T) were
placed at three separate depths (6.1, 4.6, and 1.5 m) within
the lysimeters to obtain temperature readings.
Sample Collection and Analytical Methods. Temperature
readings (Omega Model HH21 Microprocessor thermometer)
were taken weekly. Gas readings were taken with a GEM-500
meter, which characterizes the percentage of methane,
carbon dioxide, and oxygen in the lysimeter air space.
Leachate samples were collected from the lysimeters one to
two times per month (a total of 26 occasions) in 20-L
containers to homogenize the sample before it was split into
proper containers for preservation and analysis. Samples were
analyzed for general water quality parameters and metals
through the end of the experiment. General water quality
parameters were measured in the field each time leachate
was collected. These measurements included pH and oxida-
tion reduction potential (ORP) (Accumet, Model AP62),
dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature (YSI Inc., Model 55/12
FT), and conductivity (Hanna Instruments, Model HI 9033).
Samples were stored at 4 °C prior to analysis. Samples for
dissolved ions (preserved below pH of 2 for cation analysis)
were filtered through 0.45-µm membrane filters and analyzed
using ion chromatography (Dionex DX 500). Chemical oxygen
demand (COD) was analyzed using a spectrometer (Hach,
DR/4000) using method 2720 (24). Analyses for total dissolved
solids and alkalinity were performed using standard methods
(Methods 2540 C and 2320 B) (25).
For metals analysis, leachate samples were not filtered,
preserved below pH of 2 with nitric acid, and digested
following U.S. EPA Method 3010A (26). The digestates were
analyzed by inductively coupled argon plasma (ICP) (Thermo
Jarrell Ash, Model 61E). Arsenic speciation of the leachate
from this study (through day 380 of 786) was completed on
unpreserved samples by high-performance liquid chroma-
tography coupled with inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (HPLC ICP-MS). Arsenic species examined in
the leachate included arsenate (As(V)), arsenite (As(III)),
monomethylarsonic acid (MMAA), and dimethylarsinic acid
(DMAA). Details and methods can be found in Khan et al.
(17). Statistics lysimeters were completed on the metals
results from both of the lysimeters. The t test for independent
samples of unequal variance was used because the total
number of sample results are greater than 30 and the
variances, which are not equal, are taken into account (27).
Raw data for all analyses completed on the leachate may
be found in Jambeck (23). Quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) included the collection and analysis of
lysimeter leachate field blanks, duplicate analyses, and
analysis of matrix spiked blank and leachate samples with
acceptable results. Specific details on QA/QC procedures and
results are contained in Jambeck (23).
Results and Discussion
Gas Composition. The gas in the lysimeters did not contain
methane but did contain carbon dioxide with corresponding
low amounts of oxygen. Hydrogen sulfide was not quantified,
but when leachate was sampled, a rotten egg odor charac-
teristic of hydrogen sulfide was observed. The C&D debris
in the lysimeters contained gypsum drywall (CaSO4 · 2H2O
and paper), which releases sulfate in solution with the
infiltration of water. A sulfate-rich C&D debris landfill
environment promotes the growth of sulfate-reducing bac-
teria (28). Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) convert sulfate to
sulfide (which in the lower pH range exists as hydrogen
sulfide) by utilizing sulfate as an electron acceptor and in the
process create carbon dioxide. The rate at which sulfide is
generated by SRBs depends on the amount of organic matter
(which in this case could come from paper, cardboard, and
wood), the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the leaching
solution, the temperature, and the pH. The maximum carbon
dioxide percentage observed was 22% (with oxygen at 1%)
in July (the balance gas is likely primarily nitrogen with
hydrogen sulfide). In the cooler winter months, the carbon
dioxide gas percentage decreased to approximately 8%, while
the oxygen increased to approximately 11%, indicating the
SRBs were less active during the winter because of cooler
temperatures. Air intrusion also likely occurred although the
columns were completely sealed and a water trap was
designed to keep gases in while still allowing precipitation
to infiltrate. Further discussion of the temperature effects on
the microbial activity in the lysimeters follows in the next
section.
Physiochemical Parameters. Physiochemical parameters
were monitored throughout the experiment to evaluate
whether typical C&D landfill conditions were simulated. The
results obtained were consistent with C&D landfill conditions
and degradation processes. A discussion of the most relevant
physiochemical parameters is provided here, with additional
data and a detailed comparison of the results to other studies
provided in the Supporting Information.
The pH, specific conductance, and ORP versus cumulative
volume of leachate drained from the lysimeters followed
similar patterns for both the control and experimental
lysimeter (Figure 1). The pH of the lysimeter leachate
remained consistent throughout the experiment in the range
of 6.5-7, which is typical for C&D debris (10, 21, 29, 30). The
specific conductance for the experimental lysimeter was
greater at the start of the experiment than that measured for
the control lysimeter (5.5 mS/cm versus 3.5 mS/cm). Because
CCA-treated wood is impregnated with salts, it contributes
more ions to solution than untreated wood; a similar
observation was noted by Gifford et al. (31) in lysimeters
containing soil with untreated wood and soil with CCA-
treated wood. The specific conductance of both lysimeters
VOL. 42, NO. 15, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 5741
FIGURE 1. pH, specific conductance, and ORP in the lysimeter
leachate.
decreased over time as the cumulative volume increased, a
common observation in dynamic leaching studies (10, 30).
Both lysimeters exhibited reducing conditions throughout
the experiment with an ORP in the range of -300 to -600
mV (Figure 1). Dissolved oxygen (DO), sulfides, COD, and
alkalinity were all affected by the ambient seasonal tem-
perature changes. DO concentrations were initially 3-5 mg/L
in both lysimeters, decreasing to near zero in the warmer
summer months, coinciding with the increase in carbon
dioxide in the gas. The DO and ORP levels are indicative of
the anaerobic/sulfate reducing phase of activity in a C&D
debris landfill (10). During cooler months (affecting microbial
activity), DO increased to 2 mg/L and then decreased again
to near zero during the subsequent warmer months (Figure
2).
Because of its effect on microbial activity, temperature
and the concentration of sulfides in the leachate had similar
trends (not a direct correlation as there is lag time in microbial
activity adjustments). Initially both sulfide and sulfate
concentrations increased (sulfate from dissolution of the
drywall and sulfide from the SRB activity) and then sulfides
decreased during the cooler time period, while sulfate
remained high. After microbial activity returned in the warmer
months, sulfides again increased while the sulfate concen-
tration remained variable (Figure 2).
5742 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 15, 2008
FIGURE 2. Temperature/DO, sulfate/sulfide, and COD/alkalinity
concentrations in the lysimeter leachate.
COD can result from both organic and inorganic com-
pounds. Because sulfide can exhibit an oxygen demand, COD
also had a similar trend with sulfide production in both
lysimeters. In addition, in the neutral pH range, sulfide exists
as HS-, which can also exhibit alkalinity by accepting a proton.
The alkalinity trend in both the control and experimental
lysimeter were similar to each other and remained between
500 and 2500 mg/L as CaCO3. Alkalinity decreased during
cooler temperatures, potentially because of less hydrogen
sulfide and carbon dioxide from microbial activity produced
during this time, and it rebounded quickly when temperatures
increased. The overall trend for alkalinity did not decrease
significantly over time, an indication that the source of
bicarbonate (e.g., CO2) was not depleted (Figure 2). Overall
the ORP, sulfide, COD, and alkalinity concentration trends
indicate that microbial activity was still occurring at the
termination of the experiment.
Arsenic, Copper, and Chromium Concentrations. The
physiochemical environment inside the lsyimeters impacted
the leached concentrations of arsenic, chromium and copper
in variety of ways. The total arsenic, copper and chromium
content of the CCA-treated wood and the fraction of these
TABLE 1. Metal Content and Leachability of 10% CCA-Treated
Wood by Mass in C&D Debris (leaching column)
arsenic chromium copper
metal content in 1390 ( 20.0 814 ( 52.4 1450 ( 68.3
new CCA-treated
wooda (mg/kg)
metal content in 1960 ( 27.7 1340 ( 54.0 2550 ( 48.0
used CCA-treated
wooda (mg/kg)
minimum 1.09 0.3 <0.004
concentration
(mg/L)
maximum 4.25 2.1 0.07
concentration
(mg/L)
overall 2.26 1.34 0.007
concentrationb
(mg/L)
percent 1.14% 0.57% 0.006%
leached
a
Jambeck et al. (20). b An overall leachate concentration
(Coverall) was calculated by dividing the total mass of each
metal leached (mg) minus the total amount leached from
the control (mg) by the total volume of leachate produced
from the experimental lysimeter (L).

elements that leached during the course of the experiment

are listed in Table 1 (further details on wood characterization
is provided in the Supporting Information and in Jambeck
et al. (22)). Copper solubility was impacted over time (Figure
3). Copper was initially detected in the experimental lysimeter
only, and then was not detected (nondetects shown at the
detection limit of 0.004 mg/L) until it began to leach at very
low concentrations (around 0.05 mg/L) in both of the
lysimeters when the microbial activity was low. The copper
concentration then decreased again to below the detection
limit once microbial activity increased. Copper forms the
cupric ion in solution (Cu2+), and is generally known to be
less soluble under reducing conditions precipitating easily
with sulfide in landfill environments. According to Eh-pH
diagrams based on thermodynamic data and calculations of
interactions between metals and sulfides by Brookins (32),
in the landfill system with -400 to -600 mV Eh and 6.8 to
6.9 pH values, the stable insoluble compound Cu2S would
dominate. Erses and Onay (33) found that 56% to 62% of the
copper added to a simulated anaerobic landfill was attenuated
in this manner. Overall the copper concentrations in the
leachate from both lysimeters remained low and in the range
of copper concentrations observed in typical C&D leachate
(see Supporting Information). Additionally, no significant
difference between the experimental and the control lysim-
eter leachate concentrations for copper (R)0.05) was ob-
served (nondetects were used in the calculation as one-half
the detection limit).
While copper concentrations in the leachate varied on
the basis of the sulfide-rich environment, chromium con-
centrations were relatively consistent. In addition, unlike
copper, the experimental lysimeter concentrations were
significantly elevated over the control lysimeter (R ) 0.05, p
< 0.001) (Figure 3). Chromium concentrations in the
experimental lysimeter ranged from 1 to 2 mg/L and, because
of the neutral pH and -400 to -600 Eh values, thermody-
namically favor the Cr (III) species. Cr(VI) was not analyzed
in this experiment because Cr(VI) is not thermodynamically
favored to form until +600 mV at this pH. Cooper (12) did
not detect Cr(VI) in leachate generated from fixed CCA-
treated wood (detection limit 0.05 mg/L), and Gifford et al.
(31) did not detect Cr(VI) in various lysimeters with CCA-
treated wood and CCA-treated wood and soil (detection limit
0.005 mg/L).
FIGURE 3. Arsenic, chromium, and copper concentrations in the
lysimeter leachate.
Arsenic concentrations in the experimental lysimeter
leachate ranged from 1 to 4 mg/L and were significantly
elevated over the control (R ) 0.05, p < 0.001) (Figure 3).
Because of various influencing factors, including microbial-
mediated pathways, arsenic species do not always appear to
follow thermodynamic predictions; there are well-docu-
mented cases of microbial-mediated pathways of arsenic
transformation and interactions of arsenic with parameters
or compounds contained in the leachate (e.g., sulfides,
copper, and iron) (34–36). Because of the complex trans-
formations affecting arsenic speciation, a companion study
speciated the arsenic in the leachate (17). In the control
lysimeter (no CCA-treated wood), the methylated arsenic
species, DMAA predominated (17). The most prevalent
arsenic species in the experimental lysimeter (contained CCA-
treated wood) was As(V) through 340 days of the experiment,
followed by both methylated species and then As (III). After
day 340 days, the methylated species MMAA increased over
As(V), and As (III) remained the lowest species in concentra-
tion (17).
The experimental lysimeter had reduced conditions and
a sulfide-rich environment, a condition where arsenic has
been shown to precipitate as As2S3; however, this occurs after
reduction to As(III) (34, 37). In this experiment, arsenic
remained soluble enough to result in 1-4 mg/L in solution,
and the predominant arsenic species remained As(V) (the
species that is found in CCA-treated wood (18)) until near

VOL. 42, NO. 15, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 5743
the end of the experiment, when As(III) as MMAA increased.
If As(V) did transform to As(III), at the pH, arsenic, and HS-
concentrations observed in this experiment, it is expected
that the As(III) would remain soluble as illustrated by the
increased solubility of As2S3 illustrated in Inskeep (34), but
little As(III) was actually found in solution. Several hypotheses
for As(V) predominating can be made. First, sulfide-rich
environments have been found to very slowly reduce As(V)
to As(III) (35, 37). Rochette et al. (37) found that this
transformation occurs 300 times faster at a pH of 4 than at
a pH of 7. Newman et al. (35) found that As(V) was reduced
faster by the bacterium Desulfotomaculum auripigmentum
than by dissolved sulfide (abiotic reduction by sulfide
occurred very slowly). While sulfides and reducing conditions
may not have had time to transform the As(V) to As(III), they
might have had other effects that contributed to arsenic
solubility.
Both copper and iron can also form sulfide compounds
(37). Although iron sulfide compounds may also offer sorption
sites for arsenic (36, 39), it has been found that if precipitation
occurs too quickly without incorporation of arsenic into iron
sulfides, arsenic will remain in solution (36). Further com-
plicating the issue is that at sulfide concentrations greater
than 10-4.3 M at neutral pH (which occurred when SRB activity
was high in this experiment), various forms of thioarsenites
(up to seven) have been observed (40, 41). In addition,
thioarsenates have been found to exist in sulfur-rich reducing
conditions as well (42). Both thioarsenites and thioarsenates
are soluble (as compared with a sulfur-arsenic precipitate)
(42). Because there were only small discrepancies between
the total arsenic concentration found by ICP-AES and the
sum of the arsenic species examined by HPLC (17) and
the thioarsenates and thioarsenites were not examined in
the arsenic speciation complimentary study, it is not known
to what extent, if any, these compounds played a role in the
solubility of the arsenic. It does appear, however, that the
microbial activity contributed to the transformation of As(V)
to As(III) as DMAA because the concentrations of DMAA
increased over time (17). Although microbial activity creating
hydrogen sulfide occurred in the simulated landfill environ-
ment, there is likely a complex combination of factors
influencing the solubility and leaching trend of arsenic beside
the microbial activity alone: pH, redox conditions, sulfide,
copper, and iron concentrations, as well as overall depletion
of total arsenic from the CCA-treated wood.
Implications for Management. The leachate concentra-
tions of arsenic and chromium were significantly higher in
the experimental simulated landfill (lysimeter) compared to
the control simulated landfill (lysimeter) in this experiment
(R ) 0.05, p < 0.001). This indicates that co-disposal of CCA-
treated wood with C&D debris at 10% by mass can impact
leachate chromium and arsenic concentrations. The con-
centrations of arsenic and chromium were greater than those
previously observed in other studies that had less or unknown
quantities of untreated wood. Copper concentrations were
not significantly elevated in the experimental lysimeter (R )
0.05) and remained within those previously observed in other
studies. Copper primarily remained insoluble, likley as a
sulfide precipitate in the sulfide-rich environment produced
by SRB. Chromium and arsenic, however, remained relatively
soluble throughout the experiment in the lysimeters that
contained CCA-treated wood.
If a C&D debris landfill is lined (23 states require liners)
and required to collect and treat the leachate, the concen-
trations of arsenic and chromium as observed in this
experiment may affect the management of the C&D debris
landfill leachate. For example, if leachate is transported to
a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for treatment, the
WWTP incoming limits may require the leachate to be
pretreated before acceptance. If a C&D debris landfill is
5744 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 15, 2008
unlined, the concentrations of arsenic and chromium
observed in this experiment may impact the groundwater
(27 states do not require liners for C&D debris landfills). In
Florida, C&D debris landfills are unlined, and the concentra-
tions of arsenic and chromium observed in this experiment
exceed the Florida Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels
(GCTL) of 0.01 mg/L for arsenic and 0.1 mg/L for chromium.
The preferred option for the management of CCA-treated
wood is to separate out treated wood at the source, so that
it does not mix with other C&D debris, whether that C&D
debris is targeted for recycling or disposed in a landfill. The
CCA-treated wood could then be managed in a more
controlled fashion: potentially incinerated at a facility with
proper air pollution controls and ash management or
disposed of in a lined landfill facility. If CCA-treated wood
remains mixed in the C&D debris waste stream it could
influence waste management policy and evolving regulations.
States currently not requiring liners for C&D debris landfills
may consider more stringent regulations (e.g., liners, ground-
water monitoring, or both) if CCA-treated wood is to continue
to be disposed in C&D debris landfills.
This research confirms that C&D debris landfills are not
inert as once thought, but biologically and chemically active
environments. This research also illustrates that the behavior
of metal leachability and solubility can be affected by any
number of biological and chemical reactions. Any landfill
disposal environment changes over time as constituents are
released, biological activity varies, and reduction/oxidation
occurs. Metals that are insoluble in some degradation stages
may become soluble in others. Furthermore, metals released
in leachate may change species/solubility when exposed to
oxidizing conditions or conditions of the soil environment
(if released into aquifer systems). It is clear that long-term
abiotic and biotic reactions should be taken into account
when metal releases from landfills are examined.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management, Gainesville, Florida. The
authors would also like to thank Alachua County Public Works
for their support and the space provided for this experiment.
Supporting Information Available
Composition of C&D debris, comparison with other studies,
tables showing the lysimeter drainage volumes and a
comparison of control and experimental C&D leachate, a
figure showing the composition of waste in the lysimeters.
This information is available free of charge via the Internet
at http://pubs.acs.org.
Literature Cited
(1) Jambeck, J.; Weitz, K.; Townsend, T.; Solo-Gabriele, H. CCA-
treated wood disposed in landfills and life-cycle trade-offs with
waste-to-energy and MSW landfill disposal in the U.S. Waste
Manage. 2007, 27, S21-S28.
(2) McQueen, J.; Stevens, J. Disposal of CCA-treated wood. Forest
Prod. J. 1998, 48 (11/12), 86–90.
(3) Smith R.; Alderman, D.; Araman, P. A. What’s stopping the
recycling of recovered CCA-treated lumber. Presented at
Enhancing the Durability of Lumber and Engineered Wood
Products, Forest Products Society Conference, Kissimmee,
Florida, February 11-13, 2002.
(4) Townsend, T.; Solo-Gabriele, H.; Tolaymat, T.; Stook, K. Impact
of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) in wood mulch. Sci. Total
Environ. 2003, 309, 173–185.
(5) Solo-Gabriele, H.; Townsend, T.; Hahn, D.; Moskal, T.; Nosein,
N.; Jambeck, J.; Jacobi, G. Evaluation of XRF and LIBS
technologies for on-line sorting of CCA-treated wood waste.
Waste Manage. 2004, 24, 413–424.
(6) Solo-Gabriele, H.; Townsend, T.; Messick, B.; Calitu, V. Char-
acteristics of chromated copper arsenate-treated wood ash. J.
Hazard. Mat. 2002, 89, 213–232.
 (7) Iida, K.; Pierman, J.; Tolaymat, T.; Townsend, T.; Wu, C. Control
of heavy metal emissions and leaching from incineration of
CCA-treated wood using mineral sorbents. J. Environ.
Eng.sASCE 2004, 1302, 184–192.
(8) Wu, C. ; Mishra, A. :Townsend, T. ; Dubey, B. ; Solo-Gabriele,
H. Evaluation of thermal processes for CCA wood disposal in
existing facilities. Project Report; Hinkley Center for Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management: Gainesville, FL, 2006.
(9) Dubey, B.; Townsend, T.; Solo-Gabriele, H. Quantities of arsenic-
treated wood in demolition debris generated by Hurricane
Katrina. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41 (5), 1533–1536.
(10) Jang, Y.; Townsend, T. Effect of waste depth on leachate quality
from laboratory construction and demolition debris landfills.
Environ. Eng. Sci. 2003, 20, 183–196.
(11) Clark, C.; Jambeck, J.; Townsend, T. A review of construction
and demolition debris regulations in the U.S. Crit. Rev. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2006, 36, 141–186.
(12) CooperP. Leaching of CCA: Is it a problem? In Environmental
Considerations in the Manufacture, Use and Disposal of Pre-
servative-Treated Wood; Forest Products Society: 1994; p 45-
57.
(13) Stilwell, D.; Gorny, K. Contamination of soil with copper,
chromium and arsenic under decks built from pressure treated
wood. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1997, 58, 22–29.
(14) Lebow, S. ; Halverson, S. ; Morrell, J. ; Simonsen, J. Role of
Construction Debris in Release of Copper, Chromium, and Arsenic
from Treated Wood Structures; Research Paper FPL-RP-584; U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory: Madison, WI, 2000.
(15) Kennedy, M. ; Collins, P. Leaching of preservative components
from pine decking treated with CCA and copper azole, and
interactions with soils. Presented at IRG 32, Nara, Japan, May
20-25, 2001; IRG/WP 01-50171.
(16) Hingston, J.; Collins, C.; Murphy, R.; Lester, J. Leaching of
chromated copper arsenate wood preservatives: A review.
Environ. Pollut. 2001, 111, 53–66.
(17) Khan, B.; Jambeck, J.; Solo-Gabriele, H.; Townsend, T.; Cai, Y.
Release of arsenic to the environment from CCA-treated wood:
Part IIsLeaching and speciation during disposal. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2006, 40 (3), 994–999.
(18) Khan, B.; Solo-Gabriele, H.; Dubey, B.; Townsend, T.; Cai, Y.
Arsenic speciation of solvent-extracted leachate from new and
weathered CCA-treated wood. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38
(17), 4527–4534.
(19) Townsend, T.; Tolaymat, T.; Solo-Gabriele, H.; Dubey, B.; Stook,
K.; Wadanambi, L. Leaching of CCA treated wood: Implications
for waste disposal. J. Hazard. Mat. 2004, 114, 75–91.
(20) Townsend, T.; Dubey, B.; Tolaymat, T.; Solo-Gabriele, H.
Preservative leaching from weathered CCA-treated wood. J.
Environ. Manage. 2005, 75, 105–113.
(21) Weber, W.; Jang, Y.; Townsend, T.; Laux, S. Leachate from land
disposed residential construction waste. J. Environ. Eng.sASCE.
2002, 128, 237–245.
(22) Jambeck, J.; Townsend, T.; Solo-Gabriele, H. Leaching of
chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood in a simulated
monofill and potential impacts to landfill leachate. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2006, A135, 21–31.
(23) Jambeck, J. The disposal of CCA-treated wood in simulated
landfills: Potential impacts. PhD Dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2004.
(24) Hach Company. Hach DR/4000 Procedure, Chemical Oxygen
Demand, Reactor Digestion Method, 2003.
(25) Clescerl, L. ; Greenberg, A. ; Eaton, A. Standard Methods for
Examining Water and Wastewater; American Public Health
Association (APHA), the American Water Works Association
(AWWA), and the Water Environment Federation (WEF):
Washington, D.C., 1999.
(26) United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,
3rd ed.; SW-846; Office of Solid Waste: Washington, DC, 2003.
(27) Ott, R. an Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis;
Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA, 1993.
(28) Yang, K. Hydrogen sulfide generation in simulated construction
and demolition (C&D) debris landfill laboratory columns.
Master’s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2000.
(29) Ferguson, D.; Male, J. The water pollution potential from
demolition waste disposal. J. Environ. Sci. Health 1980, 15, 545–
559.
(30) Townsend, T.; Jang, Y.; Thurn, L. Simulation of construction
and demolition waste leachate. J. Environ. Eng. 1999, 125, 1071–
1081.
(31) Gifford, J.; Marvin, N.; Dare, P. Composition of leachate from
field lysimeters containing CCA treated wood. In Proceedings
of the 93rd Annual Meeting; New Zealand Forest Research
Institute, American Wood Preservers’ Association (AWPA): 1997.
(32) Brookins, D. Eh-pH Diagrams for Geochemistry; Springer-Verlag:
New York, 1988.
(33) Erses, A. S.; Onay, T. T. In situ heavy metal attenuation in landfills
under methanogenic conditions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2003, 99 (2),
159–175.
(34) Inskeep, W.; McDermott, T.; Fendorf, S. Arsenic (V)/(III) cycling
in soils and natural waters: chemical and microbiological
processes. In Environmental Chemistry of Arsenic; Franken-
berger, W. T., Jr., Ed.; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, 2002.
(35) Newman, D.; Kennedy, E.; Coates, J.; Ahmann, D.; Ellis, D. J.;
Lovley, D. R.; Morel, F. M. M. Dissimilatory arsenate and sulfate
reduction in Desulfotomaculum auripigmentum sp. nov. Arch.
Microbiol. 1997, 168, 380–388.
(36) O’Day, P.; Vlassopoulos, D.; Root, R.; Rivera, N. The influence
of sulfur and iron on dissolved arsenic concentrations in the
shallow subsurface under changing redox conditions. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 2004, 101 (38), 13703–13708.
(37) Rochette, E.; Bostick, B.; Li, G.; Fendorf, S. Kinetics of arsenate
reduction by dissolved sulfide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34
(22), 4714–4720.
(38) Stumm, W.; Morgan, J. Aquatic Chemistry, 3rd ed., John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1996.
(39) Hering, J. G.; Kneebone, P. E. Biogeochemical controls on arsenic
occurrence and mobility in water supplies. In Environmental
Chemistry of Arsenic; Frankenberger, W. T., Jr.; Marcel Dekker,
Inc.: New York, 2002.
(40) Wood., S.; Tait, D.; Janecky, D. A Raman spectroscopic study
or arsenite and thioarsenite species in aqueous solution at 25°C.
Geochem Trans. 2002, 3 (4), 31–39.
(41) Wilkin, R.; Wallsclager, D.; Ford, R. Speciation of arsenic in
sulfidic waters. Geochem Trans. 2003, 4 (1), 1–7.
(42) Stauder, S.; Raue, B.; Sacher, F. Thioarsenates in sulfidic waters.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (16), 5933–5939.
ES800364N
VOL. 42, NO. 15, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 5745