Effects of mineral species and petroleum components on thermal desorption behavior of petroleum-contaminated soil.

ABSTRACT

Thermal desorption (TD) behavior of high-concentration petroleum-contaminated soil (PCS) is affected by soil composition, especially inorganic minerals. In this study, the TD behavior of petroleum-contaminated quartz (original mineral) and kaoline (clay mineral) were compared with those of pure petroleum (Petro-free); their "saturate, aromatic, resin, and asphaltenes" (SARA) fractions were investigated using thermogravimetry and differential thermogravimetry (TG-DTG). The modelling of the petroleum removal kinetics was also analyzed to provide insights into the mechanism. The results revealed that the limiting factor controlling the desorption of petroleum from quartz (Petro-Qtz) and kaoline (Petro-Kln) is the minerals, which increased the effective TD temperature by 200 °C and decreased TD efficiency by 2%. Compared to Petro-Qtz, Petro-Kln showed a lower desorption efficiency of 5% and the process was accomplished at a higher temperature of 100 °C. The investigation on SARA fractions indicated that polar fractions (i.e., aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes) were strongly captured by the minerals. The increment of the TD temperature of petroleum (resins-160 °C > aromatics-20 °C > saturates-5 °C) increased with the polarity of petroleum components. These results could be validated by thermogravimetry-gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (TG-GC/MS) through the delayed desorption of naphthalene and acenaphthene. Furthermore, the increment of the TD temperature of SARA fractions on kaoline was higher than those on quartz. This makes sense because the kaoline decreased the diffusion of hydrocarbons due to its porosity features and higher specific surface area (kaoline 5.3300 m2 g-1, quartz 0.1153 m2 g-1). In addition, the analysis of the desorption kinetic models showed that the observed hysteresis was related to the diffusion barrier caused by chemisorption (n＜1). In consequence, the Petro-Kln showed a lower desorption efficiency, a slower desorption, and as a result, a higher energy consumption (0.476 kW h) for thermal remediation than Petro-Qtz (0.238 kW h).