Selection of materials for joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil
Table 1 shows the results of the orthogonal test. Range analysis was performed according to the results of Table 1. The range-analysis results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that, from the perspective of unconfined compressive strength, the primary and secondary order of the 28 day strength, factors affecting the combined repair of chromium-contaminated soil were cement content → fly-ash synthetic zeolite content → CaS5 content. The best test ratio was: CaS5 content 3 times, synthetic zeolite content 15%, and cement content 20%. The unconfined compressive strength of the contaminated soil after remediation increased with the increase in cement content, but the relationship between the content of CaS5 and synthetic zeolite, and the unconfined compressive strength of the specimen was not very obvious. From the perspective of toxicity leaching, the primary and secondary order of factors affecting the total chromium leaching concentration of the combined remediation of chromium-contaminated soil were cement content → fly-ash synthetic zeolite content → CaS5 content. The primary and secondary order of factors affecting the leaching concentration of Cr(VI) in the combined remediation of contaminated soil were CaS5 content → cement content → fly-ash synthetic zeolite content. The best test ratios of the total chromium and Cr(VI) toxicity leaching test were: CaS5 content is 4 times, synthetic zeolite content 15%, and cement content 20%. Total chromium and Cr(VI) leaching concentration of the chromium-contaminated soil after joint remediation was negatively correlated with the content of CaS5, synthetic zeolite, and cement content. The change of total chromium leaching concentration was most significantly affected by cement content and synthetic zeolite. Second, the change of Cr(VI) leaching concentration was most significantly affected by CaS5 content. From the perspective of leaching concentration, when reducing agent CaS5, adsorbent synthetic zeolite, and curing agent cement were all at maximum, the leaching effect of total chromium and Cr(VI) was best. However, considering the actual engineering cost and dosage of the preparation should be reduced as much as possible for meeting the requirements. Therefore, comprehensive balance analysis determined the optimal ratio for joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil to be 3 times the dosage of CaS5, 15% synthetic zeolite, and cement amount 20%.
Strength change of combined repair of chromium-contaminated soil under action of dry–wet cycle
The test compared the variation of unconfined compressive strength with the number of dry and wet cycles under different conditions of chromium content, combined to repair standard specimens of chromium-contaminated soil, and test results are shown in Fig. 1.
The relationship between unconfined compressive strength and the number of dry wet cycles.
Figure 1 shows that, in the beginning, the unconfined compressive strength of the combined repair of chromium-contaminated soil increased with the increase in the number of wet and dry cycles. After reaching the maximal value, it gradually decreased as the number of dry–wet cycles continued to increase. In the initial stage of the dry–wet cycle, the unconfined compressive strength of the combined repair of chromium-contaminated soil increased to varying degrees. For 1000 and 3000 mg/kg of chromium-contaminated soil, the peak of the unconfined compressive strength appeared at 2 times during the dry–wet cycle, and the peak of the unconfined compressive strength of 5000 mg/kg chromium-contaminated soil appeared at 4 dry–wet cycles. After that, unconfined compressive strength gradually decreased with the progress of dry–wet cycles, and the decrease rate became slower. From strength-loss analysis, the higher the chromium content was, the greater the change in strength loss. After 16 wet and dry cycles, the strength-loss rates of 1000, 3000, and 5000 mg/kg chromium-contaminated soil were 17.95%, 22.27%, and 28.73%, respectively, and strength loss was within 30%, showing better water stability21,22.
From analysis of the strength-change process, after 28 days of curing for the joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil, the physical and chemical interaction between cement hydrate and soil in the repair preparation was still occurring, as was the strength increase and dry–wet cycle caused by its hydration products. The weakening effect on strength is a dynamic equilibrium process of mutual decline and growth, and the equilibrium state of the two reaction degrees directly affected the strength of solidified chromium-contaminated soil23. In the initial stage of the dry–wet cycle, the strength increase caused by the interaction between remediation agent and chromium-contaminated soil continued. At that time, the destructive effect of the dry–wet cycle on the joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil was not significant in comparison. As the number of dry–wet cycles increased, hydration products formed and became stable. Dry shrinkage and wet expansion cause internal stress in the joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil, and the soil has cracks due to internal stress changes. A dry–wet cycle has a relatively destructive effect that is gradually noticeable and resulting in a decrease in strength. After many instances of drying and wetting, the strength of repairing chromium-contaminated soil was decreased and stabilized.
Figure 1 also shows that, compared with low-content chromium-contaminated soil, the high-content chromium-contaminated-soil solidified body strength peak appeared later, and the peak value was low. This is because the higher the chromium ion content was, the more serious the delay of the hydration reaction of the repair agent was, and the more obvious the weakening effect on the strength of the cured body was, which is not conducive to strength growth. The weakening effect of the dry–wet cycle on strength continued to exist, which led to the repaired contaminated soil with a high content of chromium having lower strength.
Toxic-leaching changes of combined remediation of chromium-contaminated soil under dry–wet cycle
The experiment compared the variation of hexavalent chromium and total chromium leaching concentration with the number of dry–wet cycles in standard specimens of the combined repair of chromium-contaminated soil under different chromium-content conditions of the contaminated soil. Test results are shown in Fig. 2.
Effect of drying–wetting cycle timeson leaching concentration of Cr.
Figure 2 shows that the leaching concentration of Cr(VI) and total chromium decreased in the initial stage of the dry–wet cycle of the remediation of chromium-contaminated soil. After that, as the number of dry–wet cycles increased, leaching concentration also increased, but the content was low (1000 mg/kg). The medium content (3000 mg/kg) of chromium-contaminated soil Cr(VI) and total chromium leaching concentration fluctuated slightly, and the change was relatively stable, while the high content of chromium-contaminated soil (5000 mg/kg) Cr(VI) leaching the concentration fluctuated greatly, and total chromium increased significantly. Compared with the low-content chromium-contaminated soil, the leaching concentration of the solidified body of high-content chromium-contaminated soil was higher.
In the beginning of the dry–wet cycle, the physical and chemical interaction between the cement hydrate and the soil in the repair preparation was still happening. The fly-ash synthetic zeolite had the adsorption effect of metal chromium ions and hydroxide precipitation in the alkaline environment. The formation of chromium ions could meet the requirements of curing/stabilizing chromium ions, and heavy-metal chromium ions are not easy to leach. With the increase in the number of dry–wet cycles, a series of evolutionary processes occurred, such as the expansion of local microcracks, the increase in macropores, the appearance of internal cracks in the contaminated soil, and the appearance of cracks and peeling phenomena on the outside of the contaminated-soil damage. At this time, the contact area between the heavy-metal ions in the contaminated soil and the external environment, especially water, increased, which reduced the ability of the repair agent to adsorb and wrap chromium ions, so that chromium ions were easily leached. In the leaching test, the use of the acidic leaching solution also destroyed the pH balance of the repaired chromium-contaminated soil, the hydrated gel was dissolved and desorbed, and the heavy metals changed, thereby accelerating the leaching of heavy-metal ions24.
From analysis of the leaching law shown by the contaminated soil with different chromium content levels, when chromium content in the contaminated soil was low, the remediation agent could effectively solidify/stabilize most of the chromium ions in the soil Cr(VI) and low total chromium leaching. When the chromium content in the contaminated soil was high, the limited content of the repair agent showed an insufficient solidification/stabilization effect of the heavy-metal chromium ions. Because a higher concentration of chromium ions hindered the formation of hydration products of the repair agent, it weakened the adsorption and binding capacity of the hydrated gel. The heavy-metal chromium ions existed in the pores of the contaminated soil in a free state, making the repair agent solidify the chromium ions, the stabilization effect decreased, and the leaching of Cr(VI) and total chromium increased.
Overall, the effect of the dry–wet cycle on the joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil was limited, and the joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil had strong resistance to dry–wet cycles, especially the low- and medium-content chromium-polluted soil.
Combined repair of quality loss of chromium-contaminated soil under action of dry–wet cycles
The cumulative mass-loss rate of the sample was calculated from Formula (1), and the result is shown in Fig. 3. With the increase in the number of wet and dry cycles, the cumulative mass-loss rate of the composite preparation to repair chromium-contaminated soil gradually increased; and the higher the chromium content of the contaminated soil was, the greater the cumulative mass-loss rate was. The cumulative mass-loss rate of 16 wet and dry cycles was less than 1%, which shows that the joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil had strong resistance to dry and wet cycles.
Change of cumulative mass loss rate during dry wet cycle.
Figure 4 is a photograph of the appearance change of a solidified 5000 mg/kg chromium-contaminated-soil sample after a dry–wet cycle. The soundness-evaluation results of the sample after each dry–wet cycle are shown in Fig. 5.
Appearance changes of cured chromium contaminated soil samples with dry and wet cycles at (a) 0 times; (b) 2 times; (c) 4 times; (d) 8 times; and (e) 16 times.
Soundness evaluation results of cured chromium contaminated soil samples.
Figures 4 and 5 show that, after two dry–wet cycles of the joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil, the appearance of the sample did not significantly change, compared with 0 cycles, the surface changed from smooth to rough. Slight cracks appeared from the fourth cycle. Obvious cracks appeared in the sample at the end of the eighth cycle, and a small part of the sample fell off. The sample began to show obvious cracks from the end of the 15th dry–wet cycle, and large pieces of slack simultaneously appeared. The sample was subjected to 16 wet and dry cycles, and soundness was still not at e–h level, indicating that the joint repair of chromium-contaminated soil had strong resistance to dry and wet cycles.
Combined repair of chromium-contaminated-soil microstructure changes under action of dry–wet cycles
After the joint repair of chromium-contaminated-soil specimens underwent a certain number of wet and dry cycles, the strength, leaching characteristics, and appearance of the specimens significantly changed. From the microstructure, there had to be corresponding changes. Therefore, scanning electron microscope (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) were used to further analyze the microstructure changes of specimens with different chromium content levels under the action of different wet and dry cycles, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
SEM images of 5000 mg/kg chromium contaminated soil specimens after different dry wet cycles at (a) 0 times; (b) 2 times; (c) 8 times; and (d) 16 times.
XRD pattern of 5000 mg/kg chromium contaminated soil specimen after different dry wet cycles.
Figure 6 shows that the combined repair of chromium-contaminated soil after 28 days of curing had many pores in the specimen at 0 dry–wet cycles (standard sample), the physical and chemical interaction between the cement hydrate and the soil in the repair preparation still continued, and there were platelike calcium hydroxide crystals on the surface. After two dry–wet cycles, the contaminated soil was denser, and the overall structure was more complete than that in the samples without dry–wet cycles. The plate-shaped calcium hydroxide crystals were reduced, and a large number of fibrous and flocculent hydrated gels could be seen on the surface of the structure. This shows that the reaction between remediation agent and chromium-contaminated soil continued, which is consistent with the law that strength did not drop but rose during the two dry and wet cycles in the unconfined-compressive-strength test. After the test piece had undergone 8 dry–wet cycles, the surface of the test piece not only had a large increase in pores, but also had local cracks, indicating that the structure of the test piece was damaged under the action of the dry–wet cycle, which is consistent with the unconfined compressive strength found in the experiment, coinciding with a sharp drop. After 16 wet and dry cycles, the surface of the specimen not only showed a large number of pores and cracks, but also had obvious roughness. It showed that the dry–wet cycle effect caused the hydration products and cement materials in the soil to be destroyed and dissolved out, and the coupling and supporting forces between soil particles are weakened, and the strength of the soil is reduced accordingly, which was consistent with the macroscopic test results.
Figure 7 shows that the main crystal phases of the chromium-contaminated soil were SiO2 and Al2O3 for the samples that did not undergo a dry–wet cycle. A small number of CSH, CAH, Ca(OH)2, and CaCO3 crystals could also be detected from the diffraction peaks. Cr3+ and Cr6+ formed hydroxide precipitates in a highly alkaline environment and wrapped them on the surface of cement, hindering their contact reaction with water. Compared with 0 cycles, SiO2 and Al2O3 in the second cycle were decreased, while the contents of CSH, CAH, Ca(OH)2, and CaCO3 significantly increased. This is because in the process of dry and wet cycles, the sample is fully exposed to moisture and air, so the hydration, depolymerization-cementation, pozzolanic, and carbonation reactions between composite preparation and chromium-contaminated soil continued. After two dry–wet cycles, more hydration products were generated than in the specimens without dry–wet cycles, which filled the pores between the particles of the solidified body, effectively blocking the permeability of the pores, and making the contaminated soil denser, and more structured and complete. At the same time, the full progress of the hydration reaction also delayed the damage rate of the water body to the soil in the dry–wet cycle, so that the soil could maintain a certain strength in the harsh environment, which is consistent with the above-mentioned growth trend of the soil strength. At the same time, the extension of a large amount of fibrous calcium silicate hydrate greatly increased the internal specific surface area of the soil. Free-state Cr3+ and Cr6+ were adsorbed or produced hydroxide precipitation and filled in the pores of the soil, and free ion concentration was also greatly reduced, which is consistent with the above ion-leaching test results. For the specimens with 8 dry and wet cycles, the content of hydration products such as CAH and CSH was reduced. This is due to a series of evolutionary processes such as the expansion of local microcracks, the increase in macropores, the appearance of internal cracks in the contaminated soil, and the appearance of cracks and peeling on the outside of the contaminated soil. Structural integrity was destroyed, and strength was accordingly reduced. By 16 wet and dry cycles, a large amount of fibrous CSH disappeared, which weakened the cementation between soil particles. At this time, the heavy-metal ions originally wrapped in the contaminated soil solidified the body and the external environment, the contact area with the water was increased, the pH value of the environment was decreased, hydrate CSH was decalcified, and Ca/Si ratio was decreased. This reduced the adsorption capacity of the compound formulation to chromium ions, so that chromium ions were dissolved out of the soil.
Source: Ecology - nature.com
