Upload
dodiep
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Leaching Characteristics of Recycled Asphalt Pavement Used as
Unbound Road Base
May 2012
Student Investigators: Ryan F. Shedivy & Amara Meier
Advisors: Tuncer B. Edil, James M. Tinjum, & Craig H. Benson
University of Wisconsin-Madison
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM SOLID WASTE RESEARCH PROGRAM Student Project Report
2
Leaching Characteristics of Recycled Asphalt Pavement Used
as Unbound Road Base
Ryan Shedivy1, Amara Meier
1, Junwei Ma
1,2, James M. Tinjum
1, Tuncer B. Edil
1, Craig H. Benson
1,
Jiannan Chen1, Sabrina Bradshaw
1
1Department of Geological Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
2School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
1. Introduction
The use of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) as road base material is an increasing trend in the road
construction business. Use of RAP will reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills and
provide more sustainable construction due to the use of in-situ materials and the lower transportation
cost.
RAP contains natural aggregate and bituminous asphalt, a material that contains heavy metals and
poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Heavy metals and PAHs are pollutants that have been identified
as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic. When subjected to rain water, these heavy metals and
PAHs have the ability to leach out of the road base and infiltrate into the water table, potentially
impacting the quality of drinking water. Although its use in road construction projects as an unbound
base is increasing, environmental impacts of its use have not been thoroughly investigated.
In this project, the leaching characteristics of PAHs and heavy metals from five different sources of
RAPs will be investigated.
2. Background
Heavy metals are encountered in various emission sources related to automobiles. Zinc and cadmium
are deposited mainly through tire wear and corrosion of galvanized steel crash barriers, and brake line
wearing constitutes a source of copper (Muschack, 1990; Hewitt and Rashed, 1990). The heavy metal
contamination of highway runoff water and roadside soils has been reported (Warren and Birtch, 1987;
Strecker et al., 1990; Pagotto et al., 2000; Han et al., 2009).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a group of chemicals derived primarily from the incomplete
burning of organics. Some researchers consider sources of PAHs are traffic-related such as vehicle
3
exhaust, lubricating oils, gasoline, diesel fuel and tire particles (Takada et al., 1990; Baek et al., 1991;
Sadler et al., 1999; Brandt et al., 2001; Kriech et al., 2002). Brantley and Townsend (1999) reported
the leaching of pollutant in six samples of RAP collected from asphalt plants throughout Florida.
Results from batch tests and column experiments indicated that the RAP samples investigated did not
leach chemicals with greater quantities than typical groundwater standards. None of the 16 EPA PAHs
were found to lie above the detection limit that ranged between 0.25 and 5 mg/L. Leachate collected
during column studies did not contain levels of PAHs, VOCs, or selected heavy metals greater than
typical groundwater concentration, except for lead in a RAP sample from an older roadway. This lead
concentration was slightly above the drinking water standards, but this concentration diminished over
time.
Legreta and Odieb (2005) presented the possible leaching of pollutants from RAP procured from a
reconstruction road site located on France’s RN76 highway. Samples were tested in both static batch
tests and column leaching tests. They considered the leaching of pollutants to be rather weak for most
of the parameters studied. Concentrations in solutions from batch leaching tests were generally below
the European community limit values for drinking water. Pollutant concentrations from column
experiments were higher in solutions from the initial leaching stages, but then decreased rapidly and
were at values below the detection limits.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Sampling
Leaching test for five sources of RAP: Ohio, Wisconsin, California, New Jersey, Colorado, and one
new asphalt material were performed. The new RAP material was acquired from Wingra Stone
Company in Madison, WI. The new material had been crushed to 1.25 inches and picked up at random
from a stockpile using a shovel. The new RAP is termed WG RAP.
For comparative purposes to real RAP, new conventional asphalt material was sampled from an asphalt
lab for batch leaching test and column leaching test. This material consisted of a mixture of natural
aggregates (95%) and bitumen (5%) and was compressed similar to road asphalt (Figure 1).
For batch leaching tests and column leaching tests, each sample was homogenized respectively and
screened at 19.1 mm. New conventional asphalt material were crushed and then sieved through a
19.1mm stainless steel sieve.
4
Figure 1: New asphalt material was crushed
3.2. Leaching Test
Batch leaching tests and column leaching tests were performed for this project.
3.2.1. Batch leaching experiments
Batch leaching tests were performed to assess chemical leaching potential from RAP according to
existing regulatory protocols. The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and a deionized
(DI) water leaching procedure were performed. The TCLP test was performed to find out the quantity of
pollutant generated should the material be exposed to extreme conditions. TCLP fluid #1 was used as
leaching fluid. The DI water leaching procedure was conducted in the same manner as the TCLP, but DI
water was used as the leaching fluid.
In accordance with EPA Method-1311, a 140-g specimen of material, preliminarily crushed to a grain
size below 19.1 mm, was exposed to a 24 hour extraction test. These extractions were performed using
deionized water or TCLP solution (fluid #1) under continuous stirring and with a liquid/solid (L/S) ratio
of 20. For NJ RAP, different L/S ratios were performed. 2.5 liter amber glass jars with Teflon lids were
used.
5
Figure 2: Batch leaching test
3.2.2. Column leaching experiments
Due to time constraints, this test has not been performed yet. Column leaching experiments will be
performed on RAP samples to simulate more realistic environmental conditions in the field. Column
leaching tests are planned to be performed in stainless steel columns. The samples, sieved at a grain size
below 19.1 mm and adjusted to optimal water content according to compaction tests, will be loaded into
columns 15.5 cm in diameter and 12.5 cm high. DI water will be pumped by a multi-channel peristaltic
pump from the storage tank to the columns at a constant flow rate of 301 cm3/day. The columns will be
percolated from the bottom to the top in order to minimize trapping of air bubbles. Synthetic rain water
will be used for some RAPs and the results will be contrasted with DI water. The leachate will be
analyzed for PAHs and heavy metals.
6
Figure 3: Sketch map of leaching column
Figure 4: Column leaching test apparatus
Filter screen:
S.S. or
fiberglass, 300 µm
Teflon
RAP
Teflon bag:
prevents
exposure to
atmosphere
Teflon bag
7
3.2. Extraction and clean-up of PAHs
After agitated continuously for 24 hours, the leachate was cloudy. All the leachate (about 2.7L) was
flowed through a filter and the bulk of the aqueous phase from the solid phase was separated.
Filtration was performed through a borosilicate glass funnel with a flat, fritted base and coarse filter
paper. Then two liters of water samples were chosen to be extracted.
Dissolved PAHs in leachate were extracted using solid phase extraction eisks based on Sigma-Aldrich
Corporation application method (Extract Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons). The sample’s pH
was adjusted to less than two with 6N hydrochloric acid. To avoid adsorption of PAHs upon
glassware, 5% (v/v) methanol or 5% (v/v) isopropanol was added to 2 L of leachate and the solution
was mixed thoroughly. The solution was spiked with 5ml chrysene-d12 (concentration 20ppb) and
aceneph-d10 (concentration 20ppb) separately as surrogate. 90mm glassware was used (flask,
vacuum line, and filtration support). A 90mm ENVITM-18 DSK disk was placed on the apparatus
for support. The disk was cleaned with 10mL methylene chloride and the liquid was drawn through
the disk under moderate vacuum. This process was repeated twice to increase the recovery of PAH.
The SPE disk was conditioned with 15mL of methanol followed by 15mL distilled water. 15mL
methanol was poured and a low vacuum was applied. The vacuum was then released when the
methanol is just above the top surface of the disk. The same procedure was performed with DI
water.
Figure 5 Extraction Test
The 2L sample was percolated through the SPE disk at a flow rate of 100 ml/min. After the entire
sample had been processed, the disk was dried under vacuum. Then the sample collection tube was
inserted and the analyte was eluted with 10 milliliters of acetonitrile twice. This elution procedure
was repeated with methylene chloride and all eluates were then combined in the sample collection
tube. The remaining water was removed from the eluate by passing it through approximately 5g
8
anhydrous sodium sulfate. The extract was concentrated by a rotary evaporator to 5ml volume for
analysis.
Figure 6 Rotary Evaporation
3.3. Analysis
The leachates collected from the batch tests and column tests were analyzed for a number of chemical
parameters, including heavy metals and PAHs. Heavy metal determinations in leachate were
performed by Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES). PAH
concentrations were measured after filter and SPE extraction. Experimental procedures for the
extraction, purification and determination of PAHs were adapted from application of extraction of
PAHs from water, using solid phase extraction disk by SUPELCO Company with minor
modifications.
The PAHs were analyzed using high performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC) (Shimadzu) with a
fluorescence (Shimadzu) detector. A 3.2mm x 150mm symmetric C18 column (RESTEK) was used
as the stationary phase. The mobile phase was a mixture of acetonitrile and water. Linear gradient
elution was adapted, mixture of acetonitrile (A)/water (B) at 1 ml/min; the initial composition (40%
(A)) was held for 5 min and then increased to 100% over a period of 27.5 min. The injection volume
was 20 µl. The detection wavelength program (excitation/emission (nm)) and the retention time for
PAH are shown in Table 1.
9
Table 1: The detection wavelength program (excitation/emission (nm))
and the retention time for PAH
Retention Time
225/340
Naphthalene 8.395
1-Methylnaphthalene 12.29
2-Methylnaphthalene 12.92
Acenaphthene 13.475
Fluorene 14.09
246/368 14.5
Phenanthrene 15.275
Anthracene ? 16.245
280/462 16.6
Fluoranthene 17.45
236/396 17.6
Pyrene 18.075
261/384 19.1
Benzo(a)anthracene 20.465
Chrysene 20.67
280/462 21.8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 22.35
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 22.905
Benzo(a)pyrene 23.605
290/401 24.4
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 24.775
Benzo(ghi)perylene 25.445
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 26.21
The QA/QC included:
(a) Laboratory quality control procedures include analyses of sample blanks, reference
material and spiked samples. The EPA Method 8310 PAH Mixture standard solution
was supplied by RESTEK. To affirm the recovery of SPE extraction, chrysene-d12 and
aceneph-d10 were chosen as surrogates. They were bought from Sopelco.
(b) The correlation coefficients for calibration curves of PAHs were all higher than 0.999.
One example (Acenaphthalene) is shown in Figure.6.
(c) The recovery of PAH were between 76% and 100% of the certified values.
10
Figure 6: PAH calibration curve of Acenaphthalene (Goodness of fit: 0.9992588)
4. Results and Discussion
The results reported include the physical characterization and the results from the TCLP and DI batch
leaching tests.
4.1 Physical characterization result
The RAP samples collected from each site were physically characterized at our lab. The analytical
tests include moisture content, asphalt content, specific gravity, compaction characterization
(modified compaction test), and hydraulic conductivity.
Table 2: Basic properties of RAP
Material Source Asphalt
content
%
Specific
gravity
%
Compaction Void
Ratio, q
(Bulk)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec) Wopt (%) γdmax(kN/m3)
Colorado RAP 5.93 2.23 5.7 20.65 0.06 3.82E-03
Ohio RAP 6.20 2.43 8.8 19.82 0.20 8.32E-03
California RAP 5.70 2.57 6.2 21.16 0.19 2.19E-03
Wisconsin RAP 4.78 2.41 6.1 20.26
New Jersey RAP 5.20 2.37 6.5 20.39 0.14 3.69E-02
11
4.2 Metal leaching in batching leaching experiments
Batch test experiments were carried out on both the RAP and new conventional asphalt material. pH,
Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP) of batch leaching test are shown
in Table 3. Minimum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Method Detection Limit (MDL) of metal with
ICP-OES are shown in Table 4. The metal leaching results are shown in Table 5.
Table 3: pH, EC and ORPof batch leaching test
pH EC (µs/cm) ORD (mV)
OH DI 9.48 541 294.9
CA DI 8.59 229 259.9
CO DI 8.77 236 279
NJ DI 8.98 186 396.1
WI DI 9.58 235 104.4
New Asphlat DI 9.57 263 312.9
OH TCLP 7.35 16,000 313.5
CA TCLP 5.16 11,400 353
CO TCLP 7.35 16,000 313.5
NJ TCLP 5.2 12,000 225.4
WI TCLP 6.82 14,200 303.2
New Asphalt TCLP 5.02 12,000 267.7
*DI: DI water as leaching solution
*TCLP: TCLP leaching test
12
Table 4: MCL and MDL of metal with ICP-OES
Element
MCL(ug/L) in drinking
water MDL(ug/L)
AL 50-200** 2
Fe 0.3** 2
Mg - 1
K - <1000
Si - <1000
Sr 4000*** <1
Ba 2 0.08
Be 4 0.11
Cd 5 0.53
Cr 100 0.3
Cu 1000** 2.7
Pb 15 3.8
Mn 50 0.13
Mo 40*** 3.3
Ni 100*** 1.8
Zn 5000 0.5
As 10 28.6
13
Table 5: Metal result of batch test carried out on RAP sample
Concentrations (ug/L)
Ag As Cr Cd Cu Pb Ni Zn Mn Mo Al Ba Fe K Mg Sb Si
OH DI 0.30 9.32 Uv Uv 4.93 Uv Uv 30.73 1.50 6.25 22.95 28.31 uv 1679.20 11.00
CA DI 0.25 11.69 Uv Uv 2.43 Uv Uv 10.04 5.01 5.99 100.08 30.49 72.47 2461.15 x 10.92 5233.30
CO DI 0.30 32.40 Uv Uv 4.06 Uv Uv 3.52 6.00 108.43 30.48 71.22 3326.04 877.77 14.05 4121.00
NJ DI 0.29 uv Uv Uv 2.12 Uv Uv 31.30 3.26 5.56 149.69 40.12 85.33 3226.80 965.65 7.48 3317.33
WI DI 0.10 32.17 Uv Uv 0.40 Uv Uv 16.24 0.65 5.28 21.65 21.19 uv 1497.16 x 17.24 x
New Asphalt
DI 0.28 10.47 Uv Uv 2.79 Uv Uv 50.84 3.24 6.15 469.58 16.36 33.61 2950.99 185.06 10.54 2576.21
OH TCLP 0.44 82.79 Uv Uv 6.91 Uv 7.24 12.93 217.75 7.22 8.26 217.43 uv x x 14.97 x
CA TCLP 0.92 73.47 1.61 Uv 14.33 2.53 25.70 107.30 X 6.15 364.55 664.81 52.08 x x 13.78 3884.48
CO TCLP 0.20 12.34 Uv Uv 9.52 0.33 Uv 83.39 0.90 5.50 110.85 25.38 74.78 3607.58 981.30 5.55 3859.60
NJ TCLP 0.30 75.12 0.43 Uv 14.78 11.43 6.56 123.53 756.42 6.12 325.77 558.69 x x x 14.05 2359.76
WI TCLP 0.34 95.66 Uv Uv 5.94 3.83 14.38 38.22 1042.09 5.90 6.36 127.48 uv x x 10.75 x
New Asphalt
TCLP 0.28 82.64 4.15 Uv 29.14 5.25 41.78 48.19 653.75 7.01 471.43 151.19 x x 1056.44 uv 1296.01
*DI: DI water as leaching solution
*TCLP: TCLP leaching test
*x: over top the detection standard concentration
14
The initial pH for TCLP fluid #1 was 4.93 and approximately 6.0 for DI water. After agitating 24
hours, the leachate pH from the TCLP fluid #1 batch was approximately 5.02 - 7.35. The DI
water leaching solution had a pH between 8.77 and 9.58. Electrical conductivity of the batch
leachate with TCLP fluid #1 was higher than the batch leachate with DI water. The low
conductivity indicated low mineralization of leachates. Coating of mineral particles by bitumen is
capable of preventing these particles from coming into contact with water and is the most likely
reason for such a low conductivity. The concentrations of mostly heavy metals such as silver,
arsenic, copper, nickel, zinc, manganese, barium, aluminum, magnesium leaching from TCLP fluid
were higher than in leachate using DI water. This difference could be due to proton exchange and
solid phase dissolution under more acidic conditions. The concentration of molybdenum and
silicon leaching from the TCLP fluid was the same concentration for the DI water leachate. All
concentrations were below MCL concentration in drinking water, except for manganese and arsenic
whose concentration were significantly higher (manganese = 1042.09 ug/L and arsenic = 95.66
ug/L from WG RAP). The concentration of chromium and cadmium were under detection limits for
leachate from both the TCLP fluid and DI water.
4.3 PAH in batch leaching experiments
Figure 7 presents 16 PAH waves by HPLC of PAH standard solution (with fluorescence
detector). Table 6 presents the groundwater intervention value of PAH. The PAH leaching results
using DI water are shown in Table 7 and using TCLP Fluid #1 are shown in Table 8. The results
show most PAHs concentrations were found to lie close to or below the detection limit, and even
below the groundwater intervention value. PAH leaching using the TCLP fluid was not higher than
leaching from DI water, unlike heavy metal leaching where the TCLP fluid leachate had higher
concentrations than the DI water leachate.
Figure 7: 16 PAHs peaks by HPLC of PAH standard solution (fluorescence detector)
Minutes
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10
.0
12
.5
15
.0
17
.5
20
.0
22
.5
25
.0
27
.5
30
.0
32
.5
35
.0
37
.5
mV
olt
s
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
mV
olt
s
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
0
.15
0
0.0
00
0
.21
0
0.0
00
0
.30
0
0.0
00
0
.42
5
0.0
00
0
.50
0
0.0
00
0
.86
0
0.0
00
1
.45
5
0.0
00
Na
ph
tha
len
e
6.9
20
0.0
00
8
.07
5
0.0
00
8
.71
0
0.0
00
(1-M
eth
yln
ap
hth
ale
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
(2-M
eth
yln
ap
hth
ale
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
Ace
na
ph
tha
len
e
12
.03
0
2.0
93
Flu
ore
ne
12
.70
5
41
.89
7
1
3.3
05
0.0
00 1
3.9
70
0.0
00
(Ph
en
an
thre
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
An
thra
ce
ne
15
.26
5
21
.43
6
1
6.3
45
0.0
00
(Flu
ora
nth
en
e)
0
.00
0 B
DL
1
7.7
00
0.0
00
(Pyre
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
1
8.3
95
0.0
00
1
8.9
80
0.0
00
(Be
nzo
(a)a
nth
race
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
(Ch
ryse
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
2
0.8
40
0.0
00
2
1.1
15
0.0
00
2
1.3
40
0.0
00(B
en
zo
(b)f
luo
ran
the
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
(Be
nzo
(k)f
luo
ran
the
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
2
3.3
40
0.0
00
Be
nzo
(a)p
yre
ne
23
.96
0
18
.54
9
2
4.7
10
0.0
00
(Dib
en
zo
(a,h
)an
thra
ce
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
Be
nzo
(gh
i)p
ery
len
e
26
.03
5
5.6
44
(In
de
no
(1,2
,3-c
d)p
yre
ne
) 0
.00
0 B
DL
2
6.7
30
0.0
00
2
7.0
00
0.0
00
3
0.2
00
0.0
00
Fluorescence
Std_5ppb_20111025Name
Retention Time
ESTD concentration
15
Table 6: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons analyzed
PAH Groundwater intervention value* (µg/L)
Anthracene -
Benzo(a)anthracene -
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2
Benzo(ghi)perylene -
Benzo(k)fluoranthene -
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene -
Fluoranthene 400
Indeno(123cd)pyrene -
Naphthalene 100
Phenanthrene -
Pyrene 250
Chrysene 0.2
Acenaphthylene --
Acenaphthene -
Fluorene 400
*Wisconsin groundwater quality
16
Table 7: Results of batch leaching tests carried out on RAP samples (DI water) (µg/L)
OHIO
RAP
California
RAP
NJ RAP WI RAP New asphalt
Material
Naphthalene BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
1-Methylnaphthalene BDL 0.2555 0.1159 0.1527 0.0857
2-Methylnaphthalene BDL BDL 0.1919 BDL 0.1249
Acenaphthalene BDL 0.1321 0.1342 BDL BDL
Fluorene BDL BDL BDL 0.0615 BDL
Naphthalene 0.0115 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Phenanthrene 0.0894 0.5723 0.9697 BDL 0.0647
Anthracene 0.2200 BDL 3.8343 BDL BDL
Fluoranthene 0.2021 1.5497 2.9548 BDL 0.2893
Pyrene 0.0816 0.6551 1.1956 0.1488 0.1255
Chrysene BDL 0.1938 BDL BDL BDL
Benzo(a)anthracene BDL BDL BDL 0.0831 BDL
Benzo(b)fluoranthene BDL 0.0670 0.0677 BDL 0.1059
Benzo(k)fluoranthene BDL 0.0555 0.0287 BDL 0.0784
Benzo(a)pyrene BDL 0.0338 0.0544 0.0519 0.0300
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene BDL 0.0952 0.0358 BDL 0.1083
Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.0001 0.0615 0.0926 0.0323 0.2028
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.0126
17
Table 8: Results of batch leaching tests carried out on RAP samples (TCLP) (µg/L)
OH
TCLP
CA
TCLP
CO
TCLP
NJ
TCLP
WI
TCLP
New asphalt
material
TCLP
Naphthalene BDL BDL BDL 0.1366 BDL 0.1716
1-Methylnaphthalene BDL BDL BDL 0.0274 0.0676 0.1354
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.1117 0.1562 0.1527 0.0921 0.0939 0.2147
Acenaphthalene BDL 0.0362 BDL BDL BDL 0.0273
Fluorene 0 0.0288 0.0461 0.0061 0.0167 0.021
Phenanthrene 0.0614 BDL BDL 0.0253 BDL 0.1254
Anthracene 0.0668 0.1092 BDL 0.0239 0.1182 BDL
Fluoranthene 0.095 0.0726 BDL 0.0194 0.116 0.2549
Pyrene 0.0459 0.0286 0.0595 0.0279 0.068 0.102
Chrysene 0.0104 0.0021 0.0029 0.0028 0.0162 0.0311
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0045 BDL 0.0051 0.0002 0.0122 0.0309
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0018 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Benzo(k)fluoranthene BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.012
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0013 BDL 0.0141 0.0019 0.0104 0.0207
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0043 BDL 0.0273 BDL 0.0051 0.0011
Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.0014 BDL 0.0363 BDL 0.003 BDL
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
BDL: below detection limit.
4.4 Influence of Liquid-solid ratio to PAH leaching
Influence of L/S ratio to PAH leaching was performed with NJ RAP. The results (Table 9) show that
more PAHs (Acenaphthalene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(ghi)perylene) leach out as the L/S ratio increases. Even though the L/S ratio increases the
PAH leaching, the concentration of PAHs was always below the detection limit and groundwater
intervention value.
18
Table 9: PAH leaching result with different Solid-Liquid ratio (µg/L)
NJ_1:5 NJ_1:10 NJ_1:15 NJ_1:20
Naphthalene 0.003 BDL BDL BDL
1-Methylnaphthalene BDL BDL 0.137 0.079
2-Methylnaphthalene BDL BDL BDL BDL
Acenaphthalene 0.062 0.034 0.051 0.030
Fluorene BDL 0.029 BDL 0.025
Naphthalene BDL BDL BDL BDL
Phenanthrene BDL BDL BDL 0.054
Anthracene BDL 0.201 BDL 0.172
Fluoranthene BDL BDL BDL BDL
Pyrene 0.009 BDL BDL BDL
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.074 0.008 0.037 0.005
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.191 0.027 0.039 BDL
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.102 BDL BDL BDL
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.298 0.037 0.040 0.001
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene BDL 0.002 0.014 BDL
Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.396 0.078 0.045 0.007
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene BDL BDL BDL BDL
Totals 12.877 2.828 10.344 2.601
5. Conclusion
Within a sustainable development context, the emphasis on recycling will be increasing over time. RAP
can be directly recycled into unbound road base course, decreasing the use of natural aggregates.
Although use of RAP as unbound base course in road construction is an increasing trend, the possibility
of heavy metal and PAH leaching has not been investigated. This study has investigated these
potential problems.
Batch leaching experiments with TCLP fluid and DI water as leaching solution have been performed to
evaluate potential pollutant release from the RAP. The results from this study show that pollutant
leaching concentrations were low for many heavy metals and PAHs studied. The pH and EC were
lower when using TCLP fluid than when using DI water as the leaching solution after agitated 24
hours. The low conductivity indicated low mineralization of leachates. The concentrations of mostly
heavy metals such as silver, arsenic, copper, nickel, zinc, manganese, barium, aluminum, and
magnesium leaching from TCLP fluid were higher than in leachate from DI water, while the
concentration of molybdenum and silicon leaching from TCLP fluid was the same to DI water. This
19
discrepancy could be due to protonic exchange and solid phase dissolution under more acidic
conditions. All concentrations were below MCL concentration in drinking water, except for Mn and
As whose concentration was significantly higher (Mn 1042.09 ug/L and As 95.66 ug/L from WG
RAP). The concentration of chromium and cadmium were under the detection limit both in leachate
from TCLP fluid and DI water.
PAH leaching tests show most PAH concentrations were found to lie close to or below the detection
limit and below groundwater intervention values. PAH leaching concentrations using the TCLP fluid
was similar to PAH leaching concentration using the DI water.
Influence of L/S ratio to PAH leaching with NJ RAP showed that PAH leaching increased with
increased L/S ratio. The concentrations of PAHs were always below the detection limit or groundwater
intervention value. Column leaching tests still need to be completed along with field experiments so
that both real hydrologic conditions and the scaling effect on leaching can be evaluated.
20
References
Baek, S.O., Field, R.A., Goldstone, M.E., Kirk, P.W., Lester, J.N., Perry, R., 1991. A review of
atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: sources, fate and behaviour. Water Air Soil Pollut.
60, 279–300.
Brandt, H. C. A., Groot, P. C. DE, 2001. Aqueous leaching of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
from bitumen and asphalt. Water Research. 35 (17), 4200–4207.
Brantley, A.S., Townsend, T.G., 1999. Leaching of pollutants from reclaimed asphalt pavement.
Environ. Eng. Sci. 16 (2), 105–116.
Han Y., Kang J., Kayhanian M., Stenstrom M. K., 2009. Characteristics of Highway Storm water
Runoff in Los Angeles: Metals and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Water Environment
Research. 81, 3: 308-318.
Hewitt, C.N., Rashed, M.B., 1990. An integrated budget for selected pollutants for a major rural
highway. Sci. Total. Environ. 93, 375–384.
Kriech A. J., Kurek J. T., Osborn L. V., Sweeney B. J., 2002. Determination of polycyclic
aromatic compounds in asphalt and in corresponding leachate water. Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds, 22:517–535.
Legret M., Odie L., Demare D., Jullien A. 2005. Leaching of heavy metals and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons from reclaimed asphalt pavement. Water Research. 39, 3675–3685.
Muschack, W., 1990. Pollution of street runoff by traffic and local conditions. Sci. Total
Environ. 93, 419–431.
Pagotto, C., Legret, M., Le Cloirec, P., 2000. Comparison of the hydraulic behaviour and the
quality of highway runoff water according to the type of pavement. Water Res. 34 (18), 4446–
4454.
Sadler, R., Delamont, C., White, P., Connell, D., 1999. Contaminants in soils as a result of
leaching from asphalt. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 68, 71–81.
Strecker, E.W., Driscoll, E.D., Shelley, P.E., Gaboury, D.R., Sartor, J.D., 1990. The US Federal
Highway Administration receiving water impact methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 93, 489–498.
Takada, H., Tomodo, O., Ogura, N., 1990. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
urban street dusts and their source material by capillary gas chromatography. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 11, 1179–1186.
Warren, R.S., Birtch, P., 1987. Heavy metal levels in atmospheric particulates, roadside dust and
soil along a major urban highway. Environ. Technol. 59, 253–256.