화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Clean Technology, Vol.18, No.4, 390-397, December, 2012
Export Citation
토양세척공정을 이용한 군사격장 납 오염토양의 제거특성
Removal Characteristics of Lead-contaminated Soil at Military Shooting Range by Using Soil Washing Process
안성균, 김철, 이정만1, 이강춘2, 손장호3, 정병길3, 윤태경3, †
  • (주)금송이엔지, 613-813 부산광역시 수영구 남천 2동 6-4
  • 1동의과학대학교 환경분석센터, 614-715 부산광역시 부산진구 양지로 54
  • 2동의대학교 화학공학과, 614-714 부산광역시 부산진구 엄광로 176
  • 3동의대학교 환경공학과, 614-714 부산광역시 부산진구 엄광로 176
Sung-Kyun Ahn, Chul Kim, Joung-Man Lee1, Gang-Choon Lee2, Zang-Ho Shon3, Byung-Gil Jung3, and Tae-Kyung Yoon3, †
  • Kumsong Engineering Co., Ltd, 6-4 Namcheon 2-dong, Suyeong-gu, Busan 613-813, Korea
  • 1Environmental Analysis Center, Dong-eui Institute of Technology, 54 Yangji-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan 614-715, Korea
  • 2Department of Chemical Engineering, Dong-eui University, 176 Eomguang-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan 614-714, Korea
  • 3Department of Environmental Engineering, Dong-eui University, 176 Eomguang-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan 614-714, Korea
E-mail:
초록
토양 세척공정을 이용한 창원시 군사격장 내 납(Pb) 오염토양의 물리.화학적 특성을 분석하였으며, 토양 세척인자(세척제(HCl) 농도(0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 0.2 N), 진탕비(1 : 2, 1 : 3, 1 : 4, 1 : 5), 오염토양 입경 4~0.075 mm, 세척시간(5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 60, 120분) 등)에 따른 오염토양 중 납의 제거특성을 평가하였다. 세척제 농도에 따른 제거효율은 세척제의 농도가 증가할수록 높게 나타났다. 이 중 세척시간 15분에서 납(Pb)제거효율은 56.3%로 0.1 N 염산(HCl)이 실제 토양 세척공정에 적용 가능한 최적의 농도로 나타났으며, 토양과 세척제의 진탕비가 1 : 2에서 1 : 5로 증가할수록 제거효율은 높아지는 경향을 보였지만, 진탕비가 높아질수록 토양 세척설비의 규모 증대로 인한 경제적 측면을 고려해 볼 때 최적의 진탕비는 1 : 3으로 생각된다. 세척시간 20분까지 납 제거효율은 75.3%까지 증가하다가 이후 유사한 경향을 보여 최적의 세척시간은 20분으로 판단된다. 토양 입경 0.075 mm 이상의 입경에서 납 제거효율은 77.0~82.0%의 범위를 나타내었으나, 입경 0.075 mm 이하의 경우 52.8%로 감소하였다. 오염토양의 입경별 제거효율은 0.075 mm 이상의 입경에서는 높은 제거효율을 나타낸 반면에 0.075 mm 이하의 입경에서는 제거효율이 현저히 감소되어 컷오프(cut-off) 크기는 0.075 mm가 적절할 것으로 기대된다. 토양 세척공정에 초음파 발생장치를 적용한 제거효율 평가 결과, 입경 0.075 mm 이상에서 물세척 및 염산의 단독세척보다 염산과 초음파의 동시 세척방법이 가장 높은 납 추출율을 나타내었다.
Removal characteristics of lead-contaminated soil at the military shooting range located in the Changwon city were studied experimentally using soil washing process. As a washing solution, hydrogen chloride (HCl) concentrations of 0.001, 0.01, 0.1 and 0.2 N were used, and soil : solution ratios were 1 : 2, 1 : 3, 1 : 4, and 1 : 5. Particle diameter of contaminated soil of 4- 0.075 mm, and washing period of 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 60, and 120 min were used as operating parameters. The optimum concentration of HCl solution was 0.1 N (56.3% of Pb removal efficiency) with 15 minutes operation period in views of economics, and the optimum soil : solution ratio was determined as 1 g : 3 mL for 69.7% of Pb removal efficiency with 0.1 N HCl and 15 minutes washing period. As washing period increased, removal efficiency was increased until 20 min of the removal efficiency of 75.3%, and then almost stable. Pb removal efficiency in soil particle diameters of 0.075 mm or more was ranged from 77.0% to 82.0%, but it was decreased to 52.8% in diameter of less than 0.075 mm. Therefore, the optimum cut-off size of the soil particle diameter was found less than 0.075 mm. Combined HCl solution and ultrasonic washing method showed better removal efficiency compared to only water or HCl washing method for particle sizes above 0.075 mm.
Keywords:Pb contaminated soil;Military shooting range;Soil washing;HCl solution;Ultrasonic washing
  1. Moon DH, Cheong KH, Kim TS, Kim JH, Choi SB, Ok YS, J.Korean Soc. Environ. Eng., 32(2), 185 (2010)
  2. Park SH, Bae BH, Kim MK, Chang YY, J.Korean Soc. Water Qual., 24(5), 523 (2008)
  3. Johnson CA, Moench H, Wersin P, Kugler P, Wenger C, J. Environ. Qual., 34(1), 248 (2005)
  4. Hardison DW, Ma LQ, Luongo T, Harris WG, Sci. Total Environ., 328, 175 (2004)
  5. Ackermann S, Giere R, Newville M, Majzlan J, Sci. Total Environ., 407(5), 1669 (2009)
  6. Fayiga AO, Saha U, Cao X, Ma LQ, Chem. Speciation and Bioavailability., 23(3), 148 (2011)
  7. Sorvari J, Antikainen R, Pyy Q, Sci. Total Environ., 366, 21 (2006)
  8. Oh BT, J. Environ. Hi-Technol., 7, 1 (2010)
  9. Korea Environment Institute, “Environmental Impact Assessment Schemes Considering Fate and Transport of Soil Contaminants," Report No. 20, December (2003)
  10. Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF, J. Hazard. Mater., 85(1-2), 145 (2001)
  11. U.S. EPA, “A Citizen’ Guide to Soil Washing,” Report No.542-F-96-002, 1-4 (1996)
  12. Abumaizar R, Khan LI, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 46(8), 765 (1996)
  13. Korea Environment Corporation, “Remedation Technique of the Pollution Soil,” 151-158, December (2001)
  14. Park SH, “A Study on the Remediation Strategy for the Contaminated Soil in the Military Shooting Range,” Master's Dissertation, Kwangwoon University, Seoul (2007)
  15. Ministry of Environment (Korea), “Korean Standard Test Method for Soils,” Notice No. 2009-255, October (2009)
  16. Tapan A, Singh MV, Geoderma., 114, 81 (2003)
  17. Lin Z, Comet B, Qvarfort U, Herbert R, Environ. Pollut., 89(3), 303 (1995)
  18. Cao X, Ma LQ, Chen M, Hardison DW, Harris WG, Sci. Total Environ., 307(1-3), 179 (2003)
  19. Eweis JB, Ergas SJ, Chang DPY, Schroeder ED, Bioremediation Principles, McGraw-Hill Co., Malaysia, 26 (1998)
  20. Astrup T, Boddum JK, Christensen TH, J. Soil Contam., 8, 653 (1999)
  21. Rooney CP, Mclaren RG, Cresswell RJ, Water, Air, & Soil Pollut., 116, 534 (1999)
  22. Kim HS, Choi SI, J. Soil and Groundwater Environ., 13(1), 60 (2008)
  23. Paek CS, Hyun JH, Cho MY, Kim SJ, J. Soil and Groundwater Environ., 5(1), 45 (2000)
  24. Hwang SS, Park SS, Nam KW, J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng., 26(11), 1181 (2001)
  25. Hwang SS, Lee NS, Nam KW, J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng., 27(10), 1072 (2005)
  26. Ko IW, Lee CH, Lee KP, Kim KW, J. Soil and Groundwater Environ., 9(4), 52 (2004)
  27. Choi SI, Kim KH, Han SK, J. Soil and Groundwater Environ., 10(6), 68 (2005)
  28. Baek KT, Kim DH, Seo CI, Yang JS, Lee JY, J. Soil and Groundwater Environ., 12(3), 17 (2007)
  29. Kim JD, J. Korean Ind. Eng. Chem., 19(1), 98 (2008)
  30. Hwang SS, “Removal of Heavy Metals from Contaminated Soil by Soil Washing and Sonication,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Konkuk University, Seoul (2008)