REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

13
REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James

Transcript of REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Page 1: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

REU Final Report

Jeff Kyle

Dr. David Sabatini

Gavin James

Page 2: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Research Question

What are the sorptive properties of a specific soil based on the amount and

type of organic matter contained within that soil?

Page 3: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Objectives

• Investigate sorption properties of Canadian River Alluvium (CRA) & powdered activated charcoal (PAC)

• Simulate Cheshire and Florida Peat

• Compare results

Page 4: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Hypothesis

Do opaque particles tend to govern sorption behavior?

Page 5: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Materials Used

• CRA• PAC• Simulated Cheshire• Simulated Florida Peat

• Organic Contaminant (Phenanthrene, C14H10)

• Synthetic GW

Page 6: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Methods Used

• Develop initial equilibrium sorption study

• Develop initial kinetic sorption study

• Determine synthetic soil makeup

• Develop new equilibrium and kinetic sorption studies

• Make comparisons

Page 7: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Anticipated Results

• Large Kfr and Koc values for PAC (why?)

• Kfr and Koc values for simulated soils will differ (why and how?)

• Kfr increases as foc increases

Page 8: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Actual Results

Soil Opaque (%) foc (%) Kfr

CRA 0.04 0.40 357.27

PAC 100 100 400,000.00

Cheshire 0.08 1.40 2789.80

Sim. Chesh. 0.08 0.48 2209.10

Fl. Peat 3.99 49.30 234,159.00

Sim. Fl. Peat 3.99 4.39 56,760.00

Page 9: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Actual Results (cont)

• CRA Equilibrium Isotherm

• % Opaque = 0.04• % foc = 0.40• Kfr = 357.27

y = 357.27x0.6554

R2 = 0.96670

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150

Ce (ug/L)q

e (

ug

/kg

)

Page 10: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Actual Results (cont)

• Cheshire Equilibrium Isotherm (top)

• % Opaque = 0.08

• % foc = 1.40

• Kfr = 2789.80

• Sim. Cheshire (bottom)

• % Opaque = 0.08

• % foc = 0.48

• Kfr = 2209.10

y = 2789.8x0.8728

R2 = 0.98280

50000

100000

150000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ce (ug/L)

qe (u

g/Kg

)y = 2209.1x0.5781

R2 = 0.8580

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

0 50 100 150

Ce (ug/L)

qe (u

g/kg

)

Page 11: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Actual Results (cont)

• Fl. Peat Equilibrium Isotherm (top)

• % Opaque = 3.99

• % foc = 49.30

• Kfr = 70,574

• Sim. Fl. Peat (bottom)

• % Opaque = 3.99

• % foc = 4.39

• Kfr = 56,760

y = 70574x0.6269

R2 = 0.99810

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

0 50 100 150 200 250

Ce (mg/L)

qe

(m

g/K

g)

y = 56760x0.379

R2 = 0.96760100000200000300000400000500000

0 50 100 150 200Ce (ug/L)

qe

(ug

/kg

)

Page 12: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Actual Results (cont)

Sim. Florida Peat Kinetic

0

500

1000

1500

0 5 10 15

Time (days)

Kd

Page 13: REU Final Report Jeff Kyle Dr. David Sabatini Gavin James.

Conclusions

• CRA displays expected Kfr and Koc values

• PAC displays large Kfr and Koc values, as expected

• Soil comparisons follow general trends; opaque important, but must consider all OC