Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan;29(5):7639-7651.
doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15876-1. Epub 2021 Sep 3.

Guidelines for surfactant selection to treat petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soils

Affiliations

Guidelines for surfactant selection to treat petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soils

Emilio Ritoré et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Jan.

Abstract

The present study determined the most effective surfactants to remediate gasoline and diesel-contaminated soil integrating information from soil texture and soil organic matter. Different ranges for aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons (> C6-C8, > C8-C10, > C10-C12, > C12-C16, > C16-C21, and > C21-C35) in gasoline and diesel fuel were analyzed. This type of analysis has been investigated infrequently. Three types of soils (silty clay, silt loam, and loamy sand) and four surfactants (non-ionic: Brij 35 and Tween 80; anionic: SDBS and SDS) were used. The results indicated that the largest hydrocarbon desorption was 56% for silty clay soil (SDS), 59% for silt loam soil (SDBS), and 69% for loamy sand soil (SDS). Soils with large amounts of small particles showed the worst desorption efficiencies. Anionic surfactants removed more hydrocarbons than non-ionic surfactants. It was notable that preferential desorption on different hydrocarbon ranges was observed since aliphatic hydrocarbons and large ranges were the most recalcitrant compounds of gasoline and diesel fuel components. Unlike soil texture, natural organic matter concentration caused minor changes in the hydrocarbon removal rates. Based on these results, this study might be useful as a tool to select the most cost-effective surfactant knowing the soil texture and the size and chemical structure of the hydrocarbons present in a contaminated site.

Keywords: Aliphatic hydrocarbon; Aromatic hydrocarbon; Petroleum-contaminated soil; Soil organic matter; Soil remediation; Soil texture; Surfactant.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Desorption efficiencies of surfactants for petroleum hydrocarbons adsorbed by different soils. PR = La Puebla del Río (silty clay), LM = Los Marines (silt loam), AL = Almonte (loamy sand)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Desorption rates for hydrocarbon ranges in the three tested soils. a La Puebla del Rio soil, b Los Marines soil, and c Almonte soil
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
al Desorption efficiencies for different hydrocarbon fractions
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Influence of soil organic matter on the total petroleum hydrocarbons (> C6–C35) removal rate

References

    1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological profile for total petroleum hydrocarbons. Atlanta: GA U.S. Dep. Heal. Hum. Serv. Public Heal. Serv; 1999. - PubMed
    1. Alaska Statement of Cooperation Working Group (2006) Hydrocarbon characterization for use in the hydrocarbon risk calculator and example characterizations of selected Alaskan fuels. Tech. Backgr. Doc. Recomm
    1. Atteia O, Jousse F, Cohen G, Höhener P. Comparison of residual NAPL source removal techniques in 3D metric scale experiments. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2017;202:23–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2017.04.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baziar M, Mehrasebi MR, Assadi A, Fazli MM, Maroosi M, Rahimi F. Efficiency of non-ionic surfactants - EDTA for treating TPH and heavy metals from contaminated soil. J. Environ. Heal. Sci. Eng. 2013;11:2–7. doi: 10.1186/2052-336X-11-41. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brownawell BJ, Chen H, Zhang W, Westall JC. Sorption of nonionic surfactants on sediment materials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997;31:1735–1741. doi: 10.1021/es960692k. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources