Author(s)

Leonard U. Mgbeahuruike¹, Judith Barrett¹, Herman J. Potgieter^1,2, Lizelle van Dyk², Sanja S. Potgieter-Vermaak^1,3

¹Chemistry and Environmental Science Division, School of Science and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
²School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
³Molecular Science Institute, School of Chemistry, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

This paper shows the effect of three different leaching processes and 4 different leaching agents on the extraction of five metals of interest from an artificially contaminated simulated soil (SS). For the first time, it is shown that these processes and extractants could be compared directly, as the soil was a constant variable. The interest of this study is that the recovery of metals that are of importance in the circular economy, have been demonstrated from an unusual resource, soil. Metal reserves are constantly decreasing worldwide and alternative resources becoming topical. Urban mining of contaminated land and/or waste sites, therefore, becomes an attractive choice for metal extraction/recovery. This study has shown that metal extraction of up to 50% efficiency could be achieved. Furthermore, EDTA proved to be the best overall extractant when used in batch leaching processes. However, different metals showed preferential recoveries with specific processes and extractants. Therefore the results suggest that the design of a contaminant-specific leaching process performed in a sequential manner could not only leach the metals, but also achieve reasonable separation of the metals.

Metals, Leaching, Chelants, Depletion, Extraction, Contaminants, Resource

Mgbeahuruike, L. , Barrett, J. , Potgieter, H. , van Dyk, L. and Potgieter-Vermaak, S. (2019) A Comparison of Batch, Column and Heap Leaching Efficiencies for the Recovery of Heavy Metals from Artificially Contaminated Simulated Soil. Journal of Environmental Protection, 10, 632-650. doi: 10.4236/jep.2019.105038.