The performance of blended conventional and novel binders in the in-situ stabilisation/solidification of a contaminated site soil
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents an investigation of the effects of novel binders and pH values on the effectiveness of the in-situ stabilisation/solidification technique in treating heavy metals and organic contaminated soils after 1.5-year treatment. To evaluate the performance of different binders, made ground soils of SMiRT site, upto 5 m depth, were stabilised/solidified with the triple auger system and cores were taken for laboratory testing after treatment. Twenty four different binders were used including Portland cement (PC), ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS), pulverised fuel ash (PFA), MgO and zeolite. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS), leachate pH and the leachability of heavy metals and total organics were applied to study the behaviours of binders in treating site soils. Under various contaminant level and binder level, the results show that UCS values were 22-3476 kPa, the leachability of the total organics was in the range of 22-241 mg/l and the heavy metals was in the range of 0.002-0.225 mg/l. In addition, the combination of GGBS and MgO at a ratio of 9:1 shows better immobilisation efficiency in treating heavy metals and organic contaminated soils after 1.5-year treatment, and the binding mechanisms under different binders were also discussed in this paper.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
After S/S treatment, the heavy metal leaching of highly contaminated samples ranged from 0.002 to 0.225 mg/L.
“After S/S treatment, the heavy metal (lead, zinc, arsenic, chromium, copper, and nickel) leaching of highly contaminated samples ranged from 0.002 to 0.225 mg/L.”
From Pyrolysis of Chromated Copper Arsenate-Treated Wood: Investigation of Temperature, Granulometry, Biochar Yield, and Metal Pathways (2022) · cites this paper as [44]
Section 3.1 (page unavailable) reports metal leaching from S/S-treated samples, including Pb, Zn, Cu and Ni. It does not give the claimed 0.002–0.225 mg/L range or report leaching results for arsenic and chromium; its stated highest Ni concentration is 0.09 mg/L. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- M.D. La Grega, P.L. Buckingham, J.C. Evans, Stabilization and Solidification, in: Hazardous waste management, Mc Graw-Hill Inc., New York, 1994, pp. 641-704.
- R.B. Kogbara, Y. Yi, A. Al-Tabbaa, Process envelopes for stabilisation/solidification of contaminated soil using lime-slag blend, Environ Sci Pollut Res. 18 (2011) 1286-1296, DOI 10.1007/s11356-011-0480-x. · DOI
- S. Jegandan, M. Liska, A. A-M. Osman, A. Al-Tabbaa, Sustainable binders for soil stabilisation, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 163 (1) (2010) 53 -61.
- M. Allagoa, Solidification/stabilisation of contaminated site soil: field versus laboratory results, Mphil Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK, 2011.
- A.S.R. Perera, The role of accelerated carbonation in the ageing of cement-based stabilised/solidified contaminated materials, PHD Thesis, Cambridge University, UK, 2005.
- A. Al-Tabbaa, M. Liska, S. Jegandan, P. Barker, Overview of project SMiRT for integrated remediation and ground improvement, International Symposium on Soil Mixing and Admixture Stabilisation, Okinawa, Japan, 2009.
- A. Al-Tabbaa, C.W. Evans, Pilot in situ auger mixing treatment of a contaminated site: Part 1. Treatability study, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng. 131 (1998) 52-59.
- ASTM. Standard Test Methods for Compressive Strength of Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2007, D1633 -00 (2007), DOI: 10.1520/D1633-00R07. · DOI
- C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon, Characterisation and performance of innovative aluminosilicates for soil mix technology permeable reactive barriers, PHD Thesis, Cambridge University, UK, 2011.
- F. Jin, K. Gu, A. Abdollahzadeh, A. Al-Tabbaa, Effect of different reactive MgOs on the hydration of MgO-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag paste, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2013), 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001009 (Dec. 21, 2013). · DOI
- S.A. Stronach, and F.P. Glasser, Modelling the impact of abundant geochemical components on phase stability and solubility of the CaO-SiO 2 -H 2 O system at 25°C: Na+, K+, SO 4 2-, C1 -and CO 3 2-, Adv. Cem. Res. 9(36) (1997) 167-181. doi: 10. 1680 /adcr.1997.9.36.167. · DOI
- G.P Gillman, Hydrotalcite: leaching-retarded fertilizers for sandy soils, in: Management of tropical sandy soils for sustainable agriculture, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 2005, pp. 107-111.
- F. Jin, Characterisation and performance of reactive MgO-based cements with supplementary cementitious materials, PHD Thesis, Cambridge University, UK, 2014.
- R. B. Kogbara, Process Envelopes for and Biodegradation within Stabilised/Solidified Contaminated Soils, PHD Thesis, Cambridge University, UK, 2011.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gmar, M., Bouafif, H., Bouslimi, B., Braghiroli, F. L., & Koubaa, A. (2022) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en15145071 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wang, F., Wang, H., Jin, F., & Al-Tabbaa, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Nanjing Tech University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Fei
- Venue
- Journal of Hazardous Materials
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 285
- Pages
- 46-52
- ISSN
- 0304-3894 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996872003
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 10.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of Hazardous Materials (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Schlumberger Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies
- Keywords
- soil solidification, soil remediation, heavy metal immobilization, ground granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash, Portland cement binder, unconfined compressive strength, leachate pH
- MeSH terms
- Arsenic, Construction Materials, Industrial Waste, Magnesium Oxide, Organic Chemicals, Soil Pollutants, Zeolites, Incineration, Metals, Heavy, Compressive Strength, Environmental Restoration and Remediation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
