Removal of Heavy Metals from Automotive Wastewater by Sulfide Precipitation
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 128, Issue 7
Abstract
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new categorical pretreatment effluent standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry, which are more stringent than current discharge limits in the automotive industry. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate metal-sulfide precipitation chemistry as an alternative to metal-hydroxide precipitation chemistry for removing Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn. There were three aspects of this study: (1) theoretical analysis of both metal–hydroxide and metal–sulfide chemistry; (2) experimental evaluation of commercially available sulfur-containing precipitants using deionized water; and (3) experimental evaluation of the precipitants using wastewater samples from three automotive manufacturing plants (transmission, engine, and assembly plants). The primary findings are: (1) In theory, metal–hydroxide chemistry can achieve the proposed standards when no chelating agents are present. This is not true when as small as 1 mg/L of ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid (EDTA) is present. (2) Metal–sulfide precipitation chemistry could achieve solubility limits lower than those of metal–hydroxide chemistry over a wide range of pH. However, EDTA could still inhibit precipitation of Ni, Pb, and Zn to concentrations above the proposed standards. (3) The experiments with wastewater samples showed all precipitants removed Cu well while Ni and Zn were not well removed. The sample from transmission and engine plants were more difficult to treat than from an assembly plant, suggesting that it might have had more chelating agents. The commercially available precipitants did not perform any better than sodium sulfide. (4) Costs for using the precipitants were estimated to range from <$1/1,000 gal to >$5/1,000 gal depending on the precipitant.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Environmental Protection Agency (1991). “MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2, a geochemical assessment model for environmental systems: Version 3.0 user’s manual.” EPA/600/3-91/021, EPA, Cincinatti.
Environmental Protection Agency (1995). “Effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards: Metal products and machinery; proposed rule.” Federal Register 60, No. 103), 40 CFR Parts 433, 438, and 464, EPA, Cincinatti.
Hildebrand, F. B. (1974). Introduction to numerical analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Peters, R. W., Ku, Y., and Bhattacharya, D. (1984). “The effect of cheat-ing agents on the removal of heavy metals by sulfide precipitation.” Proc., 16th Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conf., Bethlehem, Pa, 289–317.
Sillén, L. G., and Martell, A. E. (1964). Stability constants, Special Publ. No. 17, The Chemical Society, London.
Smith, R. M., and Martell, A. E. (1976). Critical stability constants; Inorganic complexes, Plenum, New York, 4.
Snoeyink, V. L., and Jenkins, D. J. (1980). Water chemistry, Wiley, New York.
Tate, C. H., and Fox, K. F. (1990). “Health and aesthetic aspects of water quality.” Water quality and treatment, A handbook of community water supplies, 4th Ed., F. W. Pontices, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 83.
Yatsimirskii, K. B., and Vasil’ev, V. P. (1960). Instability constants of complex compounds, Consultants Bureau, New York.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 128 • Issue 7 • July 2002
Pages: 612 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 15, 2001
Accepted: Oct 22, 2001
Published online: Jun 14, 2002
Published in print: Jul 2002
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.