ReviewSurfactant–soil interactions during surfactant-amended remediation of contaminated soils by hydrophobic organic compounds: A review
Introduction
Surfactants are surface-active agents that alter the properties of fluid interfaces. The amphiphilic nature of surfactant molecules arises from their possession of both a strongly hydrophilic group and a strongly hydrophobic group (Rosen, 1989). In aqueous solution, surfactant molecules aggregate at the air–water interface resulting in reduced solution surface tension. As the concentration of surfactant increases, there is a critical concentration beyond which surfactant monomers start aggregating to form self-assemblies called micelles. The minimum surfactant concentration at which micelles start to form is called the “critical micelle concentration” (CMC). CMC is a function of surfactant structure, the composition, temperature, ionic strength, and the presence and types of organic additives in the solution (Rosen, 1989, Edwards et al., 1994b). At supra-CMC surfactant concentrations, any further surfactant addition contributes to the formation of additional micelles. The micelle in aqueous solution consists of surfactant molecules oriented so that their hydrophobic non-polar regions are in maximum contact with one another forming a hydrocarbon-like core, and their hydrophilic polar regions are in maximum contact with water (Yalkowsky, 1999).
Hydrophobic organic compounds (HOCs) tend to partition into the hydrocarbon-like micellar core, giving micelles the capacity to solubilize HOCs. This characteristic has resulted in significant interest in the use of surfactants for the treatment of recalcitrant organic contaminants in the soil–water environment by facilitating HOC desorption from soil and increasing apparent aqueous phase HOC concentrations. Several studies have looked into the use of surfactant-enhanced remediation for HOC-contaminated soils including soil washing applications and bioremediation (Fountain et al., 1991, Fountain et al., 1995, Liu et al., 1991, Laha and Luthy, 1992, West and Harwell, 1992, Guha and Jaffé, 1996, Bramwell and Laha, 2000, Grasso et al., 2001, Ussawarujikulchai et al., 2008). Mechanisms for promoting HOC remediation in soil–water systems include the reduction in interfacial tension, micellar solubilization, and phase transfer from soil to the pseudo-aqueous phase.
In the presence of soil, the surfactant dose required for micelle formation is greater owing to surfactant partitioning onto soil – a consequence of their amphiphilic nature. This results in a higher measured CMC for soil–water systems compared to the CMC in aqueous solutions; and this higher surfactant dose in soil–water systems is referred to as the elevated CMC or effective CMC (CMCeff). Losses of surfactant due to sorption need to be considered when selecting surfactant doses for soil/aquifer cleanup operations. The degree of surfactant sorption onto soil depends primarily on the organic carbon fraction of soil and the chemical nature of the surfactant (Harwell et al., 1999, Brownawell et al., 1997). The partitioning of an HOC on soil is almost exclusively into the organic carbon fraction of the soil (foc) if organic carbon constitutes at least 1% of the soil on a weight basis (Karickhoff et al., 1979). This suggests that the higher the organic content of soil, the greater the surfactant dose required for contaminant solubilization. Furthermore, in addition to reducing micelle formation, surfactant sorption also increases soil organic carbon content with implications on the partitioning behavior of target HOC contaminants.
Section snippets
Micellar solubilization of organic compounds
The molar solubilization ratio (MSR), which is defined as the ratio of the moles of solute solubilized to the moles of surfactant present as micelles, measures the effectiveness of a particular surfactant in solubilizing a contaminant. The MSR can be calculated as:where Cmic is the total apparent solubility of the HOC (in moles per liter) in micellar solution at a particular surfactant concentration greater than the CMC, CCMC is the apparent solubility of the HOC (in moles
Studies on surfactant sorption by soils
Liu et al. (1992) studied sorption of nonionic surfactants onto soil using surface tension measurements, spectrophotometry and chemical oxygen demand methods. They observed that whereas nonionic surfactant molecules sorbed onto soil, micelles did not adsorb onto soil, and surfactant sorption attained a maximum value as the surfactant dose approached that required for micelle formation. As the soil/water weight-to-volume ratio increased, higher amounts of surfactant had to be added to decrease
Surfactant sorption theory
The number of moles of surfactant sorbed per gram soil, Qsurf, may be estimated by the following relationship (Zheng and Obbard, 2002, Liu et al., 1992):where Va is the volume of aqueous solution (L), Wsoil is the mass of soil (kg), Csurf,soil is the bulk surfactant dose in the soil/aqueous system that produces a surface tension value of σ in the supernatant (mol/L), Csurf,a is the corresponding surfactant
Conclusions
The ability of surfactants to promote contaminant mobilization by interfacial tension reduction, micellar solubilization, and phase transfer from soil-sorbed to the aqueous pseudo-phase has led to a range of studies with different organic contaminants both in the laboratory and the field. This paper attempts to summarize much of the work reported on the use of surfactants in the treatment of soils or aquifers contaminated by organic pollutants particularly as it relates to the fate of the added
References (51)
- et al.
Modeling the two stages of surfactant-aided soil washing
Water Res.
(2001) - et al.
DOWFAX surfactant components for enhancing contaminant solubilization
Water Res.
(2000) - et al.
The use of surfactants for in situ extraction of organic pollutants from a contaminated aquifer
J. Hazard. Mater.
(1991) - et al.
Micellar desorption of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons from contaminated soil
Colloids Surf. A
(2001) - et al.
Surfactants for ground water remediation
Colloids Surf. A
(1999) - et al.
Solubilization of non-polar compounds by non-ionic surfactant micelles
Water Res.
(1994) - et al.
Impact of surfactants for aquifer remediation on physical properties of the aqueous phase
J. Contam. Hydrol.
(1999) - et al.
Sorption of hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments
Water Res.
(1979) - et al.
A predictive numerical thermodynamic model of mixed nonionic surfactant sorption in natural systems – 1. Model formulation and sensitivity analysis
J. Colloid Interf. Sci.
(1998) - et al.
A predictive numerical thermodynamic model of mixed nonionic surfactant sorption in natural systems – 2. Application to broadly distributed mixtures
J. Colloid Interf. Sci.
(1998)
Organic compound distribution between nonionic surfactant solution and natural solids: applicability of a solution property parameter
J. Hazard. Mater.
Surface configuration of sorbed hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium on kaolinite as indicated by surfactant and counterion sorption, cation desorption, and FTIR
Colloids Surf. A
Sorption of non-ionic surfactants onto soil
Water Res.
Non-ionic surfactant flushing of pentachlorophenol from NAPL-contaminated soil
Water Res.
Examination of the adsorption of ethylene oxide-propylene oxide triblock copolymers to soil
J. Contam. Hydrol.
Surfactant enhanced recovery of tetrachloroethylene from a porous medium containing low permeability lenses. 2. Numerical simulation
J. Contam. Hydrol.
A comparative study of adsorption of an anionic and a non-ionic surfactant by soils based on physicochemical and mineralogical properties of soils
Chemosphere
Effect of nonionic surfactant partitioning on the dissolution kinetics of residual perchloroethylene in a model porous medium
J. Contam. Hydrol.
Sorption of non-ionic surfactants to soil: the role of soil mineral composition
Chemosphere
Surfactant enhanced recovery of tetrachloroethylene from a porous medium containing low permeability lenses. 1. Experimental studies
J. Contam. Hydrol.
Evaluation of an elevated non-ionic surfactant critical micelle concentration in a soil/aqueous system
Water Res.
Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil–water system containing a nonionic surfactant
Chemosphere
Surfactant-enhanced solubilization of residual dodecane in soil columns. 2. Mathematical modeling
Environ. Sci. Technol.
Sorption and transport kinetics of a nonionic surfactant through an aquifer sediment
Environ. Sci. Technol.
Sorption of low levels of nonionic and anionic surfactants on soil: effects on sorption of triticonazole fungicide
Pestic. Sci.
Cited by (198)
Enhancing hexachlorocyclohexane solubility with surfactants and ionic liquids
2024, Journal of Molecular LiquidsThe wetting behavior of a nonionic surfactant on hydrophobized quartz sand
2024, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering AspectsRemediation of heavily PAHs-contaminated soil with high mineral content from a coking plant using surfactant-enhanced soil washing
2024, Science of the Total EnvironmentEmulsion-based recovery of a multicomponent petroleum hydrocarbon NAPL using nonionic surfactant formulations
2023, Journal of Contaminant HydrologySurfactant-enhanced mobilization of persistent organic pollutants: Potential for soil and sediment remediation and unintended consequences
2023, Journal of Hazardous MaterialsCitation Excerpt :Thus, the primary goal for surfactant-enhanced remediation is achieving high POP removal without causing adverse impacts on the soils, sediments, and the associated ecosystem (Saint-Fort, 2021a, 2021b). Surfactants’ adverse impacts on environmental, human, and soil health have been well documented in the literature (Rathankumar et al., 2022; Laha et al., 2009). Surfactant toxicity refers to toxicity towards microorganisms, animals, and plants.
Patent mining on soil pollution remediation technology from the perspective of technological trajectory
2023, Environmental PollutionCitation Excerpt :Moreover, certain surfactants can be enriched and eventually affect human beings. Therefore, the safe use and improvement of surfactants may become an important direction in the future (Laha et al., 2009). After that, the trajectory continued to differentiate.