the following ranges: granular activated carbon adsorption,
$0.03-$3.00 per m3; UV oxidation, $0.32-$1.70 per m3;
composting/ bioslurry, $21-$32 per m3; and incineration,
$82 m-3 (34). Ignoring infrastructure requirements and
considering only electricity costs, at 6¢ per kWh and a
potential difference of 8 V across the cell, we can estimate
$3.60 per mol of nitro groups treated, equivalent to $0.65 for
treating 1 m3 of a 1 mM solution. This outperforms HRP, for
which Taylor et al. (35) calculated the cost for 1 mM solutions
of chlorophenols between $2 and 60 per m3, depending on
the congener.
TABLE 3. Removal Efficiencies of Aminotoluene Congeners
with Type 1 HRP Peroxidase
substrate
removal, %
substrate
removal, %
2,4-DAT
2,6-DAT
2,6-DANT
65
99.6
74.1
2,4-DANT
4-ADNT
2-ADNT
55.8
32.5
17.1
hydrogen peroxide with catalysis by horseradish peroxidase
(HRP), and electrochemical oxidation. The first two of these
methods were ex situ, to form any precipitates outside the
electrochemical cell and thus to minimize fouling of the
electrodes.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada for financial support and Dr. J. Hawari of
the National Research Council of Canada for the gift of a
sample of triaminotoluene.
Air sparging was of limited success; it led to a similar
coloration of the solution as was observed during long-tem
electrolysis, but only ∼30% of 2,6-DAT was removed.
Enzymatic polymerization involved treatment of diamino-
toluene congeners with two different horseradish peroxi-
dases. These enzymes are stable from 5-55 °C and at pH
6-9 (28). Table 3 shows the results from a series of 10 min
incubations with HRP/ H2O2: as soon as the hydrogen
peroxide was added, the solutions developed a similar color
to that observed in the air oxidation, and a noticeable
precipitate formed. Although the removal of 2,6-DAT oxida-
tion products from solution was efficient, neither 2,4-DAT
nor 2,4-DANT nor 2,6-DANT (partial reduction products from
TNT) were removed efficiently. Parallel results have been
obtained in the chlorophenol series, where the 2,4-dichlo-
rophenol is rather unreactive (29) compared with other
chlorophenol congeners. In that case, coprecipitation of 2,4-
dichlorophenol with other chlorophenols improved its
removal efficiency, but we did not have a similar success
when 2,6-DAT was used to coprecipitate 2,4-DAT. Likewise,
the mixed diaminomononitrotoluenes obtained as major
products from TNT were not oxidized efficiently by HRP/
H2O2, perhaps because of deactivation by the remaining nitro
group.
In approaching electrochemical oxidation of the polyami-
notoluenes, the prospective advantage was to couple the
anodic oxidation of the aminotoluenes to the cathodic
reduction of the nitrotoluenes, thereby taking advantage of
the inherent oxidation/ reduction properties of an electro-
chemical cell. The concern was that precipitation within the
cell might cause electrode fouling, a problem that is well-
known in the electrochemical oxidation of chlorophenols
(30-32). In previous work (33), we found that anode fouling
was most prominent under conditions that water oxidation
occurred concurrently with chlorophenol oxidation; by
keeping the anode potential to low positive values, electrode
fouling and inactivation could be minimized.
Linear sweep voltammagrams of 2,6-DAT using a platinum
bulb anode showed a peak at +0.62 V vs SCE (not shown)
and loss of anode activity unless the anode was regenerated
by heating in a flame. Although the latter observation
indicates fouling at the Pt anode, we were able to oxidize
2,6-DAT with 70% efficiency at a Ti/ IrO2 anode at pH 2, by
keeping the anodic potential low (0.8 V vs SCE; flow rate
through the cell was 7 mL/ min). At this potential repeated
trials showed no loss of anode activity, consistent with
electrode fouling not being a severe problem. This result
suggests electrolytic reduction, followed by partial reoxidation
of the spent catholyte in the anode compartment of the same
electrochemical cell, as a complete treatment for the nitro-
toluenes. The advantage of anodic reoxidation is that no
additional electrical costs are incurred, because oxidation of
anilines occurs at less positive potentials than the oxidation
of water, which would otherwise occur at the anode.
We briefly considered the cost of electrolytic remediation
of nitrotoluene explosives. Literature data suggest costs in
Literature Cited
(1) Levsen, K.; Mussmann, E.; Berger-Preiss, E.; Preiss, A.; Volmer,
D.; Wunsch, G. Acta Hydrochim. Hydrobiol. 1993, 21, 153-156.
(2) Crockett, A. B.; Craig, H. D.; Jenkins, T. F.; Sisk, W. E. Field
sampling and selecting on-site analytical methods for explosives
in soil; EPA/ 540/ S-97/ 501; 1995; pp 1-9.
(3) Deneer, J. W.; Sinnige, T. L.; Seinen, W.; Hermens, J. L. M. Aquat.
Toxicol. 1998, 12, 33-38. EIFAC (European Inland Fisheries
Advisory Commission) Working Party on Water Quality Criteria
for European Freshwater Fish.
(4) Toxicological Profile For 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, 1995; pp 7-86.
(5) Achtnich, C.; Pfortner, P.; Wellar, G.; Niessner, R.; Lenke, H.;
Knackmuss, H. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 3421-3428.
(6) Schmelling, D. C.; Gray, K. A.; Kamat, P. V. Environ. Sci. Technol.
1996, 30, 2547-2583.
(7) Scott, K. Proc. Electrochem. Soc. 1995, 19, 51-59.
(8) Hofseth, C. S.; Chapman, T. W. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1999, 146,
199-207.
(9) Abdo, M. S. E.; Al-Enezi, G. A.; Al-Haddad, A. J. Environ. Sci.
Health. A 1986, 21, 487-497.
(10) Pakalapati, S.; Popav, B. N.; White, R. E. J. Electrochem. Soc.
1996, 143, 1636-1643.
(11) Naumczyk, J.; Szpyrkowicz, L. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 11, 17-
25.
(12) Al-Enezi, G. A. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 1990, 25, 67-79.
(13) Polcaro, A. M.; Palmas, S. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1997, 36, 1791-
1798.
(15) Abel, E. V. Zeit. Elecktroch. Bd. 1906, 36, 681-692.
(16) Pearson, J. Trans. Faraday Soc. 1948, 44, 683-697.
(17) Hetman, J. S. Anal. Chem. 1960, 32, 1699-1701.
(18) Laviron, J.; Roullier, R. J. Electroanal. Chem. 1990, 288, 165-
175.
(19) Velin-Prikidanovics, A.; Lessard, J. J. Appl. Electrochem. 1990,
20, 527-534.
(20) Louch, D.; Motlagh, S.; Pawliszyn, J. Anal. Chem. 1992, 64, 1187-
1191.
(21) Merica, S. G.; Jedral, W.; Banceu, C. E.; Lipkowski, J.; Bunce, N.
J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998, 32, 1509.
(22) Chapuzet, J. M.; Lasia, A.; Lessard, J. Electrocatalysis; Lipkowski,
J., Ross, P., Eds.; 1998; Wiley-VCH: New York, pp 155-196.
(24) Kosak, R. Catalysis of Organic Reactions; Rylander, P. N.,
Greenfield, H., Augustine, R. L., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York,
1988; pp 177.
(25) Musolino, N. G.; Bonaccorsi, M. G.; Donato, L.; Mercadante, L.
Ind. Eng Chem. Res. 1997, 36, 3619-3621.
(26) Musolino, M. G.; Neri, G.; Milone, C.; Minico, S.; Galvagno, S.
J. Chromatogr. A 1998, 818, 123-126.
(27) Josephy, P. D. Molecular Toxicology; Oxford University Press:
New York, 1997; pp 187-197.
(28) Nicell, J. A.; Bewtra, J. K.; Biswas, N.; Taylor, K. E. Water Res.
1993, 27, 1629-1639.
(29) Al-Kassim, L.; Taylor, K. E.; Bewtra, J. K.; Biswas, N. Plant
Peroxidases: Biochemistry and Physiology; Welinder, K. G.,
Rasmussen, S. K., Penel, C., Eds.; University of Geneva: 1993;
pp 197-200.
9
VOL. 35, NO. 2, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 4 0 9