SOIL REMEDIATION:

COMPARAISON OF
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL
AND BIOLOGICAL
REACTICITY
20/09/2021

Group C3
Bénédicte Scillia (1044658)
Sofia van Setten (1048917)
Soil remediation Bénédicte Scillia
ETE10806 Sofia van Setten

1. Summary

The main aims of this experiment was to compare three methods to remove acetic acid from
contaminated soil. Those methods were chemical oxidation, biodegradation, and adsorption.
During the experiment, we saw that biodegradation was the most efficient one. However,
whilst discussing the results we realized that adsorption also took place in the biodegradation
experiment, so we concluded that the most efficient removal technology is a combination of
two different technologies. We also found out that the chemical oxidation was not completed
by measuring a remaining concentration of H2O2 after the experiment. Our main
recommendation was to do the experiment again but with different type of soil in order to
know which technology is the best one depending on the local conditions.

Word count: 121 words

2. Introduction

A large part of our drinking water comes from the groundwater. However, the soil is quite
often contaminated with different compound, which ultimately end up in the groundwater. It is
thus important to acknowledge and analyze those pollutants. That way, it becomes possible
to remove them with chemical, physical or biological remediation technologies. It is
significant to use the most efficient method. Therefore, in a 2-day experiment we have
compared three different removal techniques (adsorption, chemical oxidation and
bioremediation) in order to determine which one is the most efficient.
Our goal was thus to measure the removal efficiency for each technique.
To do so, we have performed 7 bottle-scale experiments (two bottles per removal techniques
and a control bottle) with soil extracted from wetland. We have contaminated the soil with
acetic acid, with the same amount for each bottle; except for the control bottle where no
acetic acid was added. We took samples from every bottle before and after the treatment,
then measured the organic acid content for each sample. That way, we were able to
compare the start and end concentrations for every removal method, and eventually the
removal efficiencies.

Word count: 191 words

3. Materials and methods

The very first step was to determine the content of the bottles used for the removal-
experiments. To do so, calculations have been made:
Volume of acetic acid stock solution:
C 0=10 g/ L, C f =1.5 g /L , V f =0.06 L,

0.09
thus, we need m=1.5∗0.06=0.09 g of CH3COOH, so V = =0.009 L=9 mL
10
Volume of medium:

1
Soil remediation Bénédicte Scillia
ETE10806 Sofia van Setten
Because we have 30g of sediment, we want 60mL of liquid medium (ratio 1:2). Knowing that
we have 9mL of acetic acid, we need 51 mL of medium.

Volume of H 2 O 2:

We calculated that we needed to add 0.68 g of a 30% H 2 O 2 concentration, but we want to

add an excess of H 2 O 2, so we added 1mL of H 2 O 2.

Word count: 104 words

Table 1: Content of bottles used for adsorption, biodegradation, and chemical oxidation experiment

Sediment (g) Medium (mL) Acetic acid Fenton’s H202 (mL) Medium as
stock solution reagent (mL) compensation for
(mL) H202 (mL)

Control
30 60 2

Adsorption
experiment
30 51 9 2

Biodegradation
experiment 30 51 9 2

Chemical oxidation
30 51 9 1 1
experiment

Figure 1: Schematic overview of the experiment

We labelled the 7 bottles with important information. We have filled the bottles according to
Table 1. An extra step was needed for the bottles “Adsorption” : autoclave was proceeded for
about 1.5h. Next, we have added acetic acid in each bottle (except for the control bottle). We
took a sample from each solution, that we have then centrifuged. We took a sample from the
centrifuged sample. The bottles for biodegradation and the ones for adsorption were stored
on a shaking device. The next day, we took samples the same way we did the previous day.
We determined the start and end concentrations of acetic acid for each bottle. To do so we
used the Hach-Lange kit for Volatile Fatty Acid (VFA). We first added Solution A to the test

2
 Soil remediation Bénédicte Scillia
ETE10806 Sofia van Setten
vial, then the sample. We inverted the vial 2-3 times, then heated it at 100 °C for 10 minutes.
We let the vial cool down, and added Solution B, Solution C and Solution D. In between each
addition of solutions, we inverted the vial 2-3 times. We waited for 3 minutes, cleaned the
vial, inserted it into the cell holder, and read the concentration of acetic acid.
Word count: 197 words

4. Results

Table 2: initial and final organic acids concentrations

theoretical Acetic acid Acetic acid H2O2 residual

removal
concentration day concentration day concentration day concentration
efficiency (%)
1 (mg/L) 1 (mg/L) 2 (mg/L) (mg/L)
Adsorption1 1500 1696 1379 8.07 na
Adsorption2 1500 1076 1104 26.40 na
Biodegradation1 1500 1980 615 59.00 na
Biodegradation2 1500 1199 713 52.47 na
Chemical oxidation1 1500 1771 1293 13.80 100.00
Chemical oxidation2 1500 1757 1041 30.60 100.00

70.00 a c e ti c a c i d r e m o v a l e ffi c i e n c y
60.00
50.00
removal efficiency (%)

40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
n1 n2 ... ... 1 2
tio tio at at on on
rp rp rad rad ati ati
so so g g id id
Ab Ab od
e
od
e Ox Ox
Bi Bi

Figure 2: efficiency of different technologies

We can see in Figure 2 that biodegradation has the highest removal efficiency. This is the
formula we used to compute the removal efficiency:
theoretical initial concentration−concentrationday 2
removal efficiency=
theoretical initial concentration
We used theoretical concentrations for day 1 because some of the measured concentrations
were too low (see table 2). We also added the H 2O2 residual concentration in table 2,
although this data was only relevant for the chemical oxidation. We measured the H2O2
concentration and found out that there was 100 mg/L of H 2O2 residual on day 2. This result
will be interpreted later in the report.
We also noticed that the concentrations measured in the bottles with the same technology
differ. For example, the concentration of acetic acid in the two adsorption bottles on day 1

3
Soil remediation Bénédicte Scillia
ETE10806 Sofia van Setten
differs by 600 mg/L. This shows the importance of duplicating the experiment to reduce
potential errors.
Word count: 145 words

5. Discussion
It is considered that in general, acetic acid is readily biodegradable and has low potential for
bioaccumulation and adsorption to soil.1 The factors which influence the fate of acetic acid
are its physio-chemical characteristics, but also the chemical, physical and biological
properties of the environment it is in.2
When choosing a remediation technology to remove acetic acid from the soil, it is then
important to take into consideration the characteristics of the soil.
It is possible to use biodegradation, adsorption, or chemical oxidation. We have seen (see
4.Results) that every method was relatively successful, yet, biodegradation in combination
with adsorption was the most efficient.

For the chemical oxidation experiment, the residual H 2O2 concentration shows that we used
and excess of H2O2. Thus, it is not a limiting factor. This means that there was another
limiting factor that caused the chemical oxidation not to be completed.

Indeed, each method can be influenced by many factors, and we need to acknowledge that
there will be many more in the field.

Table 3. Factors that could influence the removal mechanisms in the field

Biodegradation Adsorption Chemical oxidation

- Chemical environment - Soil properties,

(pH, enzymes…)3,
- Water activity3,
- Availability of inorganic
Factors that could nutrients2,
potentially influence - Presence of substrates
efficiency in the field and their concentrations2,
- Redox environment2,
- Temperature2,
- Adaptive response of
the MO2.
- Properties of the
adsorbent, - Oxidant doses,4
- Properties of the - Solution pH,4
adsorbed, - Presence of other
- Specific area of chemicals that could also
adsorbent, react with the chemical
- Temperature, we are adding.
- Pressure.

In our experiment, we have only measured the removal efficiency for each remediation
methods. What’s more, each removal technique was more or less combined with another
one (except for adsorption). According to the measured removal efficiencies, a combination
of biodegradation and adsorption would be our recommendation. However, more factors are

1
Registration Dossier - ECHA. (2021). ECHA.
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15549/5/1
2
Factors affecting the biodegradation of toluene in soil. (1996, July 1). ScienceDirect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004565359600152X
3
Biodegradation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (2010). ScienceDirect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/biodegradation
4
An overview of bromate formation in chemical oxidation processes: Occurrence, mechanism, influencing
factors, risk assessment, and control strategies. (2019, December 1). ScienceDirect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565351931745X

4
Soil remediation Bénédicte Scillia
ETE10806 Sofia van Setten
important to consider as well. We believe that biodegradation would be a good
recommendation when it comes to sustainability, since in we give enough nutrients to our
micro-organisms, they can survive a long time. On the other hand, the installation of this
removal mechanism might take more space and cost more time and energy to maintain.
When looking for the “best” remediation technology, it is important to consider thoroughly the
properties of the soil that will be treated.

Word count: 316 words

6. Conclusions and recommendations

The first thing that we can conclude is that the chemical oxidation is not completed. Indeed,
there is some H2O2 remaining in the bottle on day 2. We can also argue that, in the field,
conditions are difficult to control, which means that we would probably reach a lower removal
efficiency. Overall, biodegradation is the most efficient, but we should remember that
adsorption was also taking place in the biodegradation bottles. Thus, the most efficient
removal method is a combination of two different methods.
Considering all these statements, we conclude that a combination of different technologies
according to the conditions of the field is the best way to remove pollutants from
contaminated soil.
A recommendation would be to do this experiment again but with different soils. Indeed, we
only worked with one type of soil and thus our conclusions are valid only for this specific soil
type.