Effect of contact time and the use of hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin in the removal of fluorene and fluoranthene from contaminated soils

Sorption–desorption experiments of fluorene (FLU) and fluoranthene (FLT) in soils were carried out and correlated to their removal from aged contaminated soils using aqueous solutions in the absence and in the presence of hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPBCD) as the extraction agent. FLU became more resistant to extraction in aged contaminated soils due to its initial adsorption onto the mineral and amorphous soil organic matter (SOM) domains, sites of lower binding energy from which, due to its small size, it could spread towards the condensed SOM as the contact time increased. Therefore, FLU will not be easily desorbed from aged contaminated soils due to physical entrapment mechanisms, even when using HPBCD as extractant, presenting FLU low risks to the environment. On the contrary, FLT was extracted from aged soils in the presence of HPBCD in solutions to a much greater extent than in its absence. Due to its more hydrophobic character FLT sorption in soils was relatively quicker, remaining more or less fixed on hydrophobic sites of the organic matter (OM) with different energies, and therefore the amount of FLT extracted was almost constant for different ageing times. During extraction experiments, the influence of the OM quality of the soils was also highlighted because an inverse proportionality between OM content of soil and extractability of sorbed FLT was observed. It was concluded that soils with lower OM content that had more diagenetically processed OM could block the extraction of FLT more effectively than soils with higher OM content that are less humified. This indicates the need to use not only adsorption–desorption data in contaminant fate and transport models, but also extraction studies in aged contaminated soils and other complementary analytical approaches when assessing soil contamination-related risks. •FLU and FLT were removed from aged contaminated soils by HPBCD as extractant;•FLU more resistant to extraction with time. Diffusion towards condensed OM domains;•FLT adsorption more quickly. Extraction almost constant for different ageing times;•SOM humification and hydrophobicity influenced % FLT extraction, but not FLU.