某Cr(Ⅵ)污染场地修复的PRB反应材料及结构设计研究

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2021.2.3

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

渗透反应格栅(permeable reactive barrier,PRB)在国外被广泛应用于场地尺度的地下水污染修复,因其无须外源动力、不占地面空间、运行成本低等优势在国内受到广泛关注。不同场地水文地质条件、污染物类型、污染羽分布具有差异性,前期场地调查、反应材料的筛选、反应墙尺寸结构的设计对于PRB的有效运行至关重要。本文以PRB修复河南某Cr(Ⅵ)污染场地为例,详细阐述场地调查、材料筛选、材料反应参数确定、PRB结构优化等方面的研究过程及成果,可为后续PRB修复技术的应用提供参考。研究结果表明:PRB修复技术适用于该场地,铸铁与活性炭混合材料为最佳修复材料;反应门长40 m(反应材料厚2 m,上下游分别为2 m厚砾石层),东西两侧隔水墙长为60 m的U型漏斗-门系统型PRB,可有效捕获并修复污染羽,工程成本远低于连续反应墙式PRB,为该场地修复最优PRB结构类型。

关键词: PRB, 地下水污染, Cr(Ⅵ), 场地调查评价, 反应墙设计

Abstract:

Permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is widely used overseas in large scale groundwater remediation. It has attracted much interest in China because of the advantages of using no external power, occupying little surface space, and low operating cost. Since hydrogeological conditions, pollutant types, and distribution of pollution plume vary in different sites, early site investigation, reactive material selection, and reaction wall structural design are highly significant for the effective operation of PRB. This paper, taking the example of PRB application in remediation of a Cr(Ⅵ) contaminated site in Henan Province, describes in detail the research process and the results of site investigation, material screening, reaction parameter determination, and PRB structural optimization in preparation for PRB application. It shows that the PRB remediation technology is applicable to this site, and material containing cast iron and activated carbon is the best remediation material. The U-shaped funnel-gate PRB has a 40 m long reaction gate and two 60 m long water barriers. It can effectively capture and rehabilitate the contaminated plume at a much less engineering cost than continuous reaction wall PRB. So the U-shaped funnel-gate PRB is thought to be the optimal PRB structure for this site.

Key words: PRB, groundwater pollution, Cr(Ⅵ), site survey and evaluation, design of PRB

中图分类号:

X523
X505

李志红, 王广才, 蔡五田, 刘菲, 黄丹丹. 某Cr(Ⅵ)污染场地修复的PRB反应材料及结构设计研究[J]. 地学前缘, 2021, 28(5): 186-196.

LI Zhihong, WANG Guangcai, CAI Wutian, LIU Fei, HUANG Dandan. Reactive materials and structural design of PRB for remediation of a Cr(Ⅵ) contaminated sit[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2021, 28(5): 186-196.

图/表 13

图1 取样点矿化度(a)与Cr(Ⅵ)浓度(b)的空间分布

Fig.1 Spatial distribution of TDS for sampling sites (a) and Cr(Ⅵ) concentrations (b)

图2 污染场地水文地质柱状图

Fig.2 Hydrogeological column of contaminated site

表1 材料信息表

Table 1 Material information

材料类型	材料编号	粒径/目	原产地	材料价格/ (元·t^-1)
还原铁粉	IA IB IC	20~40	河南巩义河北石家庄山西晋城	2 400
铸铁	CID CIE CIG	20~40 10~24 20~40	河南安阳河北灵寿河北灵寿	2 400
沸石	ZA ZB ZC	20~40	河北承德河北灵寿河北灵寿	320
活性炭	YCA YCB GCA	20~40 10~24 20~40	河北承德河北灵寿河北灵寿	8 800

图3 不同材料(a)、材料用量(b)、反应时间(c)、铸铁与活性炭配比(d)下的Cr(VI)去除批试验结果

Fig.3 Results of batch experiments for Cr(Ⅵ) removal efficiency variation with material (a), material dosage (b), reaction time (c), and cast iron to active carbon ratio (d)

表2 柱试验进水化学组分含量测试结果

Table 2 Results of column testing of chemical composition of inlet water

常量离子	平均浓度ρ_B/(mg·L^-1)
Cr(Ⅵ)	161.31
总Cr	345.02
K⁺	2.53
Ca²⁺	189.49
Mg²⁺	161.23
Na⁺	390.33
Cl^-	235.79
$NO 3 -$	173.90
$SO 4 2 -$	981.44
$HCO 3 -$	590.56

表2 柱试验进水化学组分含量测试结果

Table 2 Results of column testing of chemical composition of inlet water

常量离子	平均浓度ρ_B/(mg·L^-1)
Cr(Ⅵ)	161.31
总Cr	345.02
K⁺	2.53
Ca²⁺	189.49
Mg²⁺	161.23
Na⁺	390.33
Cl^-	235.79
$NO 3 -$	173.90
$SO 4 2 -$	981.44
$HCO 3 -$	590.56

图4 柱试验装置图

Fig.4 Device of column test experiments

图5 试验柱侧孔及出水口Cr(Ⅵ)浓度随着出水PV数的变化

Fig.5 Variation of Cr(Ⅵ) concentration with PV value in effluent water at the side hole and outlet of test column

图6 Cr(Ⅵ)浓度C与进水初始浓度C0比的对数ln(C/C0)与反应时间的关系

Fig.6 Relationship between ln(CCr(VI)/C0) and reaction time, where C0is the initial Cr(VI) concentration in inlet water

图7 试验柱出水口阳离子(a)和阴离子(b)含量的变化

Fig.7 Variation of cation (a) and anion (b) contents in column effluent

图8 模拟得到污染羽的分布图

Fig.8 Simulated distribution map of pollution plume

图9 120 m长PRB运行1年(a)和5年后(b)对污染羽的修复效果

Fig.9 Remediation effect of 120 m long PRB on contaminated plume after one (a) and five-year (b) operations

图10 漏斗-门系统型PRB运行1年(a)和5年(b)后对污染羽的修复效果

Fig.10 Remediation effect of funnel-gate PRB on contaminated plume after one (a) and five-year (b) operations

图11 上下游各加一层砾石(a)和U型(b)漏斗-门系统型PRB对污染羽的修复效果

Fig.11 Remediation effects of funnel-gate PRB on contaminated plume by adding a layer of gravel to the upstream and downstream (a) or using U-shaped PRB (b)

参考文献 28

[1]	李圣品, 刘菲, 黄国鑫, 等. 傍河型水源井氨氮阻断与去除工程设计案例分析[J]. 环境科学学报, 2015, 35(8):2471-2480.
[2]	田雷. 复合介质PRB去除地下水中氯代烃和苯系物混合污染研究[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学(北京), 2014.
[3]	PHILLIPS D H. Permeable reactive barriers: a sustainable technology for cleaning contaminated groundwater in developing countries[J]. Desalination, 2009, 248(1/2/3):352-359. DOI URL
[4]	陆泗进, 王红旗. 地下水污染修复的可渗透性反应墙技术[J]. 上海环境科学, 2005, 24(6):231-236.
[5]	O’HANNESIN S F, GILLHAM R W. Long-term performance of an in-situ “iron wall” for remediation of VOCs[J]. Groundwater, 1998, 36(1):164-170. DOI URL
[6]	YABUSAKI S, CANTRELL K, SASS B, et al. Multicomponent reactive transport in an in-situ zero-valent iron cell[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2001, 35(7):1493-1503. DOI URL
[7]	MORRISON S. Performance evaluation of a permeable reactive barrier using reaction products as tracers[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2003, 37(10):2302-2309. DOI URL
[8]	黄园英, 刘菲, 鲁雅梅. 零价铁去除Cr(Ⅵ)的批试验研究[J]. 岩石矿物学杂志, 2003, 22(4):349-351.
[9]	李雅, 张增强, 唐次来, 等. Fe⁰去除地下水中六价铬的研究[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2011, 16(2):160-164.
[10]	曾云嵘. PRB技术处理铀尾矿库渗漏地下水中锰的效果研究[D]. 抚州: 东华理工大学, 2017.
[11]	高阳阳, 刘国, 陈春梅, 等. 改性纳米铁/炭填充PRB去除地下水硝态氮研究[J]. 中国环境科学, 2016, 36(10):3019-3025.
[12]	董桂花. 零价铁PRB复合二氧化锰去除四环素的性能研究[D]. 济南: 山东大学, 2018.
[13]	钱程. PRB修复地下水中铀污染物的模拟试验研究[D]. 抚州: 东华理工大学, 2019.
[14]	何叶. 黄铁矿作为PRB填充材料吸附水中U(Ⅵ)的试验研究[D]. 衡阳: 南华大学, 2019.
[15]	HOU G H, LIU F, LIU M Z, et al. Performance of a permeable reactive barrier for in-situ removal of ammonium in groundwater[J]. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 2014, 14(4):585-592.
[16]	滕应, 陈梦舫. 稀土尾矿区地下水污染风险评估与防控修复研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2016.
[17]	中国科学院南京土壤研究所宋昕团队. 原长沙铬盐厂可渗透反应墙(PRB)原位修复铬污染地下水[EB/OL].(2019-04-04)[2019-07-14]. http://www.rem-tech.cn/news/html/?526.html.
[18]	BLOWES D W, GILLHAM R W, PTACEK C J, et al. An in situ permeable reactive barrier for the treatment of hexavalent chromium and trichloroethylene in ground water: Volume 1 design and installation[M]. Washington D C: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.
[19]	GAVASKAR A R. Design and construction techniques for permeable reactive barriers[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 1999, 68(1/2):41-71. DOI URL
[20]	HUANG D D, WANG G C, LI Z H, et al. Investigation of the removal mechanism of Cr(VI) in groundwater using activated carbon and cast iron combined system[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017, 24(22):18341-18354. DOI URL
[21]	李思琪. Cr(Ⅵ)污染地下水修复的复合Fe⁰-PRB填料试验研究[D]. 福州: 福州大学, 2018.
[22]	WANNER C, ZINK S, EGGENBERGER U, et al. Assessing the Cr(VI) reduction efficiency of a permeable reactive barrier using Cr isotope measurements and 2D reactive transport modeling[J]. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2012, 131(1/2/3/4):54-63. DOI URL
[23]	BLOWES D W, PTACEK C J, BENNER S G, et al. Treatment of dissolved metals using permeable reactive barriers[J]. Groundwater Quality: Remediation and Protection, 1998, 250:483-490.
[24]	COURCELLES B, MODARESSI-FARAHMAND-RAZAVI A, GOUVENOT D, et al. Influence of precipitates on hydraulic performance of permeable reactive barrier filters[J]. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2011, 11(2):142-151. DOI URL
[25]	LI Z H, JONES H K, BOWMAN R S, et al. Enhanced reduction of chromate and PCE by pelletized surfactant-modified zeolite/zerovalent iron[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 1999, 33(23):4326-4330. DOI URL
[26]	SCHNEIDER R M, CAVALIN C F, BARROS M A S D, et al. Adsorption of chromium ions in activated carbon[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2007, 132(1/2/3):355-362. DOI URL
[27]	POWELL R M, PULS R W, HIGHTOWER S K, et al. Coupled iron corrosion and chromate reduction: mechanisms for subsurface remediation[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 1995, 29(8):1913-1922. DOI URL
[28]	TURNER M, DAVE N M, MODENA T, et al. Permeable reactive barriers: lessons learned/new directions[M]. Washington D C: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2005: 2-3.