Jiu-hao Song; Wang Yu; Wei Zhou; Jia-yi An; Feng Xiong; Jin-hui Cao; Qi Gao; Yu-ping Zhang; Jian-hui Ma; Jie Ma

doi:10.26599/JGSE.2026.9280087

doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2026.9280087

^{1, 2},
^{1, 2},
^{1, 2},
^{1, 2},
^{1, 2},
^{1, 2},
³,
³,
³,
^{1, 2, ,}

计量
- 文章访问数: 142
- HTML全文浏览量: 63
- PDF下载量: 1
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2025-07-15
- 录用日期: 2026-04-10
- 网络出版日期: 2026-07-30
- 刊出日期: 2026-09-15

Groundwater contamination risk from refinery-derived water-soluble fractions: A comprehensive assessment of organic carbon, hydrocarbons, and oxygenated organic compounds

Jiu-hao Song^{1, 2},
Wang Yu^{1, 2},
Wei Zhou^{1, 2},
Jia-yi An^{1, 2},
Feng Xiong^{1, 2},
Jin-hui Cao^{1, 2},
Qi Gao³,
Yu-ping Zhang³,
Jian-hui Ma³,
Jie Ma^{1, 2
, ,}

1.
State Key Laboratory of Heavy Oil Processing, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing 102249, China
2.
College of Chemical Engineering and Environment, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing 102249, China
3.
Qingyang Petrochemical Branch, PetroChina Company Limited, Qingyang 745000, Gansu, China

More Information

Corresponding author: rubpmj@sina.com

S1Concentration of OCOCs in some oil samples.

Oil WSFs samples	MTBE (mg/g-oil)	TAME (mg/g-oil)
Note: "ND" indicates not detected (below the method detection limit).
Etherified gasoline	ND	312.6
Raffinate oil-2	18.9	0.2
Alkylated oil	0.1	ND
Refined naphtha	0.3	0.1
Reformulated gasoline	7.1	0.8
Refined heavy gasoline	6.0	114.2

S2NPOC recovery from standard aqueous solutions of MTBE and TAME.

MTBE			TAME
Nominal concentration (mg/L)	Measured concentration (mg/L)	\begin{document}$ \dfrac{\bf{Measured}~\bf{concentration}}{\bf{Nominal}~\bf{concentration}} $\end{document}	Nominal concentration (mg/L)	Measured concentration (mg/L)	\begin{document}$ \dfrac{\bf{Measured}~\bf{concentration}}{\bf{Nominal}~\bf{concentration}} $\end{document}
5	3.66	73.2%	5	2.01
10	6.24	62.4%	10	4.11	41.1%
20	15.93	79.7%	20	6.76	33.8%
50	32.28	64.6%	50	17.71	35.4%
100	66.32	66.3%	100	34.32	34.3%

S1Schematic diagram of the slow-stirring experimental setup.S2The carbon number distribution 25 oil samples.S3The groups distribution of VPH within 25 oil samples.

摘要

关键词:

Abstract: Petroleum products can contaminate groundwater through dissolution of their Water-Soluble Fractions (WSFs), yet the composition and dissolution behavior of WSFs from different refined products remain insufficiently understood. In this study, oil-water equilibrium WSFs of 25 refined petroleum products from the same refinery were generated using a slow-stirring method and analyzed for Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH), Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH), and Ooxygen-Containing Organic Compounds (OCOCs). The results showed that the dissolved organic concentrations of WSFs varied by 1–2 orders of magnitude among different product types. Gasoline, naphtha, and atmospheric residues produced WSFs with relatively high TOC and TPH concentrations, dominated by C6-C9 aromatic hydrocarbons. In contrast, kerosene, diesel, and most gasoline blending components exhibited much lower dissolved hydrocarbon concentrations. In several gasoline-related products, oxygenated additives such as Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) were detected at high levels and dominated the dissolved organic composition, resulting in elevated OCOCs/TPH ratios. In addition, butane was identified as a characteristic dissolved compound in the WSF of alkylated oil. These results demonstrate pronounced differences in the chemical composition and distribution patterns of dissolved constituents among refined petroleum products.

Key words:

Concentration of OCOCs in some oil samples.

Oil WSFs samples	MTBE (mg/g-oil)	TAME (mg/g-oil)
Note: "ND" indicates not detected (below the method detection limit).
Etherified gasoline	ND	312.6
Raffinate oil-2	18.9	0.2
Alkylated oil	0.1	ND
Refined naphtha	0.3	0.1
Reformulated gasoline	7.1	0.8
Refined heavy gasoline	6.0	114.2

NPOC recovery from standard aqueous solutions of MTBE and TAME.

MTBE			TAME
Nominal concentration (mg/L)	Measured concentration (mg/L)	$ \dfrac{\bf{Measured}~\bf{concentration}}{\bf{Nominal}~\bf{concentration}} $	Nominal concentration (mg/L)	Measured concentration (mg/L)	$ \dfrac{\bf{Measured}~\bf{concentration}}{\bf{Nominal}~\bf{concentration}} $
5	3.66	73.2%	5	2.01
10	6.24	62.4%	10	4.11	41.1%
20	15.93	79.7%	20	6.76	33.8%
50	32.28	64.6%	50	17.71	35.4%
100	66.32	66.3%	100	34.32	34.3%

Schematic diagram of the slow-stirring experimental setup.The carbon number distribution 25 oil samples.The groups distribution of VPH within 25 oil samples.

注释:

1) Appendix 1. Numerical method for calculating the surface area of the Ellipsoidal model:

HTML全文

Figure 1. POC and NPOC of 25 oil WSFs

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 2. The carbon number distribution of VPH within 25 oil WSFs

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 3. The groups distribution of VPH within 25 oil WSFs

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 4. VPH/POC, (VPH+OCOCs)/POC and EPH/NPOC

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Table 1. TOC, TPH, OCOCs values and comparative ratios of oil WSFs

Oil WSFs samples	Oil types	TOC/(mg/L)				TPH/(mg/L)				OCOCs/(mg/L)				Comparative ratios
		POC		NPOC		VPH		EPH		MTBE		TAME		VPH/ POC	EPH/ NPOC	TPH/ TOC	(VPH+ OCOCs)/ POC	(TPH+ OCOCs)/ TOC	OCOCs/ (VPH+ OCOCs)
		Conc.	RSD	Conc.	RSD	Conc.	RSD	Conc.	RSD	Conc.	RSD	Conc.	RSD	VPH/ POC	EPH/ NPOC	TPH/ TOC	(VPH+ OCOCs)/ POC	(TPH+ OCOCs)/ TOC	OCOCs/ (VPH+ OCOCs)
Reforming topped oil	Gasoline blending components	6.14	0.89	3.53	0.42	5.78	0.76	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	0.94	0.00	0.60	0.94	0.60	-
Pentane oil	Gasoline blending components	6.03	0.72	2.24	0.31	6.27	0.91	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	1.04	0.00	0.76	1.04	0.76	-
Light gasoline (etherification feedstock)	Gasoline blending components	10.68	1.52	1.98	0.25	9.56	1.24	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	0.90	0.00	0.76	0.90	0.76	-
Etherified gasoline	Gasoline blending components	664.9	89.32	145.10	18.76	4.19	0.58	ND	-	57.97	7.32	680.39	92.56	0.01	0.00	0.01	1.12	0.92	0.99
Raffinate oil-1	Gasoline blending components	11.42	1.37	3.88	0.45	10.16	1.42	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	0.89	0.00	0.66	0.89	0.66	-
Raffinate oil-2	Gasoline blending components	31.83	4.25	2.71	0.32	12.44	1.68	ND	-	15.12	1.98	1.03	0.12	0.39	0.00	0.36	0.90	0.83	0.56
Alkylated oil	Gasoline blending components	23.94	3.12	2.38	0.29	25.87	3.45	ND	-	0.47	0.06	0.43	0.05	1.08	0.00	0.98	1.12	1.02	0.03
Coal hydrogenation naphtha	Naphtha	17.99	9.87	2.63	0.33	24.41	3.18	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	1.36	0.00	1.18	1.36	1.18	-
Hydrogenated upgraded naphtha	Naphtha	79.18	10.25	4.46	0.56	145.40	18.92	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	1.84	0.00	1.74	1.84	1.74	-
140 refined naphtha	Naphtha	43.53	5.72	4.59	0.58	42.21	5.46	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	0.97	0.00	0.88	0.97	0.88	-
Refined naphtha	Naphtha	24.35	3.21	5.58	0.71	28.02	3.69	ND	-	10.89	1.42	ND	-	1.15	0.00	0.94	1.60	1.30	0.28
Refined oil for reforming feedstock	Naphtha	41.68	5.39	5.26	0.67	42.21	5.58	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	1.01	0.00	0.90	1.01	0.90	-
Reformulated gasoline	Gasoline	225.64	28.97	2.76	0.35	113.78	14.82	ND	-	265.46	34.81	4.44	0.57	0.50	0.00	0.50	1.70	1.68	0.70
120 refined heavy gasoline	Gasoline	49.40	6.42	37.39	4.86	56.24	7.31	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	1.14	0.00	0.65	1.14	0.65	-
Refined heavy gasoline	Gasoline	554.35	72.06	196.30	25.52	47.22	6.14	ND	-	250.31	32.54	558.85	72.65	0.09	0.00	0.06	1.54	1.14	0.94
C6-removed atmospheric residue	Atmospheric residue	144.95	18.84	3.05	0.39	199.80	25.97	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	1.38	0.00	1.35	1.38	1.35	-
Depentanization atmospheric residue	Atmospheric residue	146.97	19.11	4.63	0.59	192.57	24.98	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	1.31	0.00	1.27	1.31	1.27	-
Hydroprocessed kerosene	Kerosene	9.81	1.27	9.55	1.24	8.44	1.1	10.01	1.30	ND	-	ND	-	0.86	1.05	0.95	0.86	0.95	-
Straight-run kerosene	Kerosene	4.57	0.59	14.61	1.90	4.91	0.64	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	1.08	0.00	0.26	1.08	0.26	-
Reformulated diesel-1	Diesel	6.11	0.79	5.33	0.69	5.02	0.65	7.91	1.03	ND	-	ND	-	0.82	1.48	1.13	0.82	1.13	-
Reformulated diesel-2	Diesel	5.71	0.74	5.47	0.71	4.33	0.57	ND	-	ND	-	ND	-	0.76	0.00	0.39	0.76	0.39	-
140 refined diesel	Diesel	1.77	0.23	5.40	0.70	1.95	0.25	7.91	1.08	ND	-	ND	-	1.10	1.47	1.38	1.10	1.38	-
Straight-run diesel	Diesel	1.14	0.15	11.23	1.46	1.13	0.15	4.49	0.58	ND	-	ND	-	1.00	0.40	0.45	1.00	0.45	-
Catalytic diesel	Diesel	5.72	0.74	4.89	0.63	5.96	0.77	3.83	0.50	ND	-	ND	-	1.04	0.78	0.92	1.04	0.92	-
Pour point depressant diesel	Diesel	0.67	0.09	5.60	0.73	0.86	0.29	2.25	0.21	ND	-	ND	-	1.28	0.40	0.50	1.28	0.50	-
Note:. “ND” indicates not detected (below the method detection limit). “-” denotes that the ratio is not applicable.

下载: 导出CSV

Table 2. Henry's constant, saturation vapor pressure and aqueous solubility of selected organic compounds at 25°C.

	Henry's constant (atm m³/mol)	Saturation vapor pressure (kPa)	Aqueous solubility (mg/L)
MTBE	5.87×10⁻⁴	32.66	52,100
TAME	1.32×10⁻³	10.00	12,350
Benzene	0.18	12.7	1,790
Toluene	0.22	3.8	535
Ethylbenzene	0.32	1.3	61
m/p-Xylene	0.28	1.1	151
o-Xylene	0.29	0.9	171
1,3,5-trimethyl-Benzene	0.45	0.4	48
1,2,4-trimethyl-Benzene	0.37	0.6	74
1,2,3-trimethyl-Benzene	0.41	0.5	52
Cyclopentane	1.1	33	161
Butane	0.91	210	73
Pentane	1.4	68	48
Hexane	1.8	17	13
Heptane	2.2	6.1	3.00
Octane	2.6	1.9	0.66
Nonane	3	0.6	0.17
Decane	3.5	0.2	0.052
Undecane	4	0.1	0.044

下载: 导出CSV

Table 3. The TOP 10 most abundant compounds in VPH of 25 oil WSFs

	Reforming topped oil	Pentane oil	Light gasoline (etherification feedstock)	Etherified gasoline	Raffinate oil-1	Raffinate oil-2	Alkylated oil	Coal hydrogenation naphtha	Hydrogenated upgraded naphtha	140 refined naphtha	Refined naphtha	Refined oil for reforming feedstock	Reformulated gasoline
Oil types	Gasoline blending components	Gasoline blending components	Gasoline blending components	Gasoline blending components	Gasoline blending components	Gasoline blending components	Gasoline blending components	Naphtha	Naphtha	Naphtha	Naphtha	Naphtha	Gasoline
1,2,3,5-tetramethylbenzene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.98	-	0.64	3.33	5.40
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.95
1H-Indene,-2,3-dihydro-4-methyl	-	-	-	-	-	0.35	0.00	-	-	-	-	-	-
1-Methylnaphthalene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
1-Ethyl-2-methylbenzene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.71	-
1-Ethyl-3-methylbenzene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-butene	0.86	0.89	0.51	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-butene,-2-methyl	0.09	-	2.96	0.54	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-methyl-1-propene	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.53	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-methyl-2-pentene	-	-	-	-	0.13	0.77	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-methylbutane	0.25	0.30	0.73	1.08	0.12	0.60	2.14	-	1.31	-	-	-	-
2-methylnaphthalene	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.20	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-methylpentane	0.27	0.28	-	-	1.21	-	-	-	-	1.14	-	-	-
2-Pentene	-	-	1.42	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-pentene,-3-methyl-	-	-	0.31	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-pentene,-3-methyl-	-	-	-	-	-	0.82	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3-Hexen-1-ol,-(E)-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3-Methylheptane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3-Methylhexane	-	-	-	0.13	-	-	0.45	-	-	-	-	-	3.99
3-methyl-pentane	0.17	0.17	-	-	-	3.46	0.19	-	-	-	-	-	-
3-vinyl-1-cyclobutene	-	-	-	-	-	0.73	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Benzene	2.08	1.70	0.91	0.93	1.80	6.92	-	5.06	18.47	21.53	9.48	14.53	25.64
Benzene,-1,3-dimethylbenzene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.78	-
Benzene,-propyl	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.72	-
Butane	-	0.86	0.13	-	-	-	18.81	-	1.37	0.62	-	-	2.88
P-Xylene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.02	8.97	-	-	1.63	-
Decane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.2	-	-	-	-	-
Cyclohexane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.26	-	0.70	0.46	-	-
Cyclopentane	1.24	0.97	0.19	0.24	0.64	7.03	0.64	-	0.84	1.84	-	-	5.30
Cyclopentene	-	0.19	2.03	0.77	0.11	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Toluene	-	-	-	0.11	-	-	0.23	13.95	25.41	14.14	-	11.45	37.6
Methylcyclohexane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.26	-	0.75	0.63	-	-
Methylcyclopentane	-	-	-	-	1.12	0.75	-	-	-	0.84	1.14	-	-
Mesitylene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.87	2.85	6.55
O-Xylene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.32	4.93	-	1.53	5.23	7.20
Naphthalene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Nonane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pentane	0.45	0.53	-	-	-	0.95	0.25	-	0.83	0.69	0.95	-	-
Ethylbenzene	-	-	-	0.07	-	-	-	0.37	2.99	-	0.89	0.87	5.40
Ethylcyclopentane	0.29	0.26	0.09	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Hexane	0.02	-	-	0.25	2.89	4.22	-	0.30	-	1.21	0.67	-	-

下载: 导出CSV

3. (continued)

	120 refined heavy gasoline	Refined heavy gasoline	C6-removed atmospheric residue	Depentanization atmospheric residue	Hydroprocessed kerosene	Straight-run kerosene	Reformulated diesel-1	Reformulated diesel-2	140 refined diesel	Straight-run diesel	Catalytic diesel	Pour point depressant diesel
Oil types	Gasoline	Gasoline	Atmospheric residue	Atmospheric residue	Kerosene	Kerosene	Diesel	Diesel	Diesel	Diesel	Diesel	Diesel
1,2,3,5-tetramethylbenzene	-	-	-	-	-	0.24	-	-	-	0.00	-	0.00
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene	1.32	1.56	5.30	2.85	1.03	0.76	0.92	0.67	-	-	0.78	-
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene	-	-	1.91	1.08	1.00	0.76	0.33	0.26	-	-	0.34	-
1H-Indene,-2,3-dihydro-4-methyl	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.00	-	-	0.30	-
1-Methylnaphthalene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.20	0.37	0.00
1-Ethyl-2-methylbenzene	-	-	1.19	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
1-Ethyl-3-methylbenzene	-	0.81	1.68	-	-	-	0.27	-	-	-	-	-
2-butene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-butene,-2-methyl	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-methyl-1-propene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-methyl-2-pentene	-	1.00	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-methylbutane	4.56	-	-	-	0.32	-	0.21	-	-	-	-	-
2-methylnaphthalene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.25	0.63	0.00
2-methylpentane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-Pentene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-pentene,-3-methyl	-	0.99	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2-pentene,-3-methyl	1.81	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3-Hexen-1-ol,-(E)	-	0.55	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3-Methylheptane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.24	-	-	-
3-Methylhexane	-	-	-	-	0.40	-	0.22	-	-	-	-	-
3-methyl-pentane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3-vinyl-1-cyclobutene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Benzene	10.77	14.81	11.48	81.52	-	-	-	-	-	0.21	0.34	-
Benzene,-1,3-dimethylbenzene	-	4.13	-	-	0.46	0.20	-	0.25	-	-	-	-
Benzene,-propyl	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.19	-	-	-
Butane	1.25	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.85	-	-	-	-
P-Xylene	-	3.88	18.2	13.19	0.47	-	0.37	-	-	-	-	-
Decane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.20	-	0.20
Cyclohexane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cyclopentane	4.41	-	-	0.66	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cyclopentene	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Toluene	14.38	22.64	132.57	75.55	0.43	0.39	-	-	0.29	0.31	1.01	-
Methylcyclohexane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Methylcyclopentane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mesitylene	5.38	-	1.60	0.83	0.47	0.46	0.33	0.28	-	0.14	0.49	-
O-Xylene	2.76	-	14.71	7.93	0.53	0.38	0.41	0.33	0.18	-	0.50	-
Naphthalene	-	-	-	-	0.72	0.49	-	-	-	-	0.67	0.00
Nonane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.29	-	0.29
Pentane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Ethylbenzene	1.18	1.62	6.96	3.72	-	0.22	-	0.16	-	-	-	-
Ethylcyclopentane	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Hexane	-	-	-	0.71	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Note: “-” indicates that the compound was not ranked among the top 10 most abundant compounds in VPH of that WSF.

下载: 导出CSV

Table 4. The concentration of EPH within oil WSFs

Compound (mg/L)	Hydroprocessed kerosene	Reformulated diesel-1	140 refined diesel	Catalytic diesel	Pour point depressant diesel	Straight-run diesel
Total concentration	10.01	8.04	8.68	3.83	2.25	4.49
4-methyldecane	4.23
p-Cymene	0.21	2.53
2,3-dihydro-4-methyl-1H indene	0.91	0.55
Decahydro-2-methylnaphthalene	0.43	0.55
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene	0.55	0.17
Undecane	1.04	1.18	1.87	0.22	0.15	0.18
Dodecane	1.51	1.12	1.63
Tridecane		0.11	1.55
Tetradecane			0.32
Pentadecane			0.39
Hexadecane		0.30	0.42
Heptadecane		0.43	0.74
1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-5-methylnaphthalene		0.33	0.62
Naphthalene, 1,4,5-trimethyl	0.87	0.23		0.46		0.25
Naphthalene, 1,5-dimethyl	0.25	0.12	0.26	0.27	0.18	0.47
Naphthalene, 1,6,7-trimethyl			0.87	0.64	0.56	0.44
Naphthalene, 1,6-dimethyl		0.11			0.07
Naphthalene, 1-methyl		0.10				0.21
3- (2-methyl-propynyl) -1H indene						0.20
Decane, 2,4-dimethyl				0.28	0.21	0.24
Dodecane, 2,6,11-trimethyl				0.20	0.15	0.18
Naphthalene				0.21	0.12	0.35
Naphthalene, 2-(1-methylethyl)					0.18
Naphthalene, 2,3,6-trimethyl				0.63	0.37	0.81
Naphthalene, 2,3-dimethyl				0.32	0.27	0.42
Naphthalene, 2,6-dimethyl				0.61		0.47
Naphthalene, 2-methyl						0.26

下载: 导出CSV

S1. Concentration of OCOCs in some oil samples.

Oil WSFs samples	MTBE (mg/g-oil)	TAME (mg/g-oil)
Etherified gasoline	ND	312.6
Raffinate oil-2	18.9	0.2
Alkylated oil	0.1	ND
Refined naphtha	0.3	0.1
Reformulated gasoline	7.1	0.8
Refined heavy gasoline	6.0	114.2
Note: "ND" indicates not detected (below the method detection limit).

下载: 导出CSV

S2. NPOC recovery from standard aqueous solutions of MTBE and TAME.

MTBE			TAME
Nominal concentration (mg/L)	Measured concentration (mg/L)	$ \dfrac{\bf{Measured}~\bf{concentration}}{\bf{Nominal}~\bf{concentration}} $	Nominal concentration (mg/L)	Measured concentration (mg/L)	$ \dfrac{\bf{Measured}~\bf{concentration}}{\bf{Nominal}~\bf{concentration}} $
5	3.66	73.2%	5	2.01
10	6.24	62.4%	10	4.11	41.1%
20	15.93	79.7%	20	6.76	33.8%
50	32.28	64.6%	50	17.71	35.4%
100	66.32	66.3%	100	34.32	34.3%

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(55)

Bai J, Jiang J, Yan Z, et al. 2024. Distribution, migration, and segmented risk assessment of the total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil, groundwater, and soil gas at an oil refinery. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 46(3): 101−110. DOI: 10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103714.

Baker RJ. 2007. Used Motor oil as a source of MTBE, TAME, and BTEX to ground water. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 22(4): 46−51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2002.tb00770.x.

Balleste E, Pascual-Benito M, Martin-Diaz J, et al. 2019. Dynamics of crAssphage as a human source tracking marker in potentially faecally polluted environments. Water Research, 155: 233−244. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.042.

Bera G, Doyle S, Passow U, et al. 2020. Biological response to dissolved versus dispersed oil. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 150: 110713. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110713.

Brown DM, Bonte M, Gill R, et al. 2017. Heavy hydrocarbon fate and transport in the environment. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 50(3): 333−346. DOI: 10.1144/qjegh2016-142.

Bushnaf KM, Mangse G, Meynet P, et al. 2017. Mechanisms of distinct activated carbon and biochar amendment effects on petroleum vapour biofiltration in soil. Environmental Science-processes and Impacts, 19(10): 1260−1269. DOI: 10.1039/c7em00309a.

Chad MT, Virunya SB, Gregory PB, et al. 2021. Development of updated RfD and RfC values for medium carbon range aromatic and aliphatic total petroleum hydrocarbon fractions. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 71: 1555−1567. DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2021.1974123.

Dawn AZ, Foote GR. 2003. The technical case for eliminating the use of the TPH analysis in assessing and regulating dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons in ground water. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 23(3): 95−104. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2003.tb00687.x.

Devika N. 2015. Remediation techniques for BTEX contamination of groundwater-a review. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 3(03): 1−6. DOI: 10.17577/IJERTCONV3IS03023.

Gray RH. 1982. Chronic effects of a coal liquid on a freshwater alga, Selenastrum capricornutum. Environmental Science and Technology, 16: 225−229. DOI: 10.1021/es00098a011.

Herce C, Martini C, Salvio M, et al. 2022. Energy performance of Ialian oil refineries based on mandatory energy audits. Energies, 15(2): 1−20. DOI: 10.3390/en15020532.

Kaiser MJ. 2017. A review of reﬁnery complexity applications. Petroleum Science, 14: 167−194. DOI: 10.1007/s12182-016-0137-y.

Karishma S, Saravanan A, Deivayanai VC, et al. 2024. Emerging strategies for enhancing microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: Prospects and challenges. Bioresource Technology Reports, 26: 101866. DOI: 10.1016/j.biteb.2024.101866.

Lari KS, Johnston CD, Davis GB. 2016. Gasoline multiphase and multicomponent paprtitioning in the vadose zone: Dynamics and risk longevity. Vadose Zone Journal, 15(3): 1−15. DOI: 10.2136/vzj2015.07.0100.

Lekmine G, Bastow TP, Johnston CD, et al. 2014. Dissolution of multi-component LNAPL gasolines: The effects of weathering and composition. The Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 160: 1−11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2014.02.003.

Liu SY, Yi B, Liu F, et al. 2025. Groundwater metal pollution and health risk assessment in river valley heavy industrial cities of arid regions in China. China Geology, 8(3): 526−539. DOI: 10.31035/cg2025084.

Liu YC, Fei YH, Li YS, et al. 2024. Pollution source identification methods and remediation technologies of groundwater: A review. China Geology, 7(1): 125−137. DOI: 10.31035/cg2022080.

Logeshwaran P, Megharaj M, Chadalavada S, et al. 2018. Petroleum hydrocarbons (PH) in groundwater aquifers: An overview of environmental fate, toxicity, microbial degradation and risk-based remediation approaches. Environmental Technology and Innovation, 10: 175−193. DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2018.02.001.

Lukić M, Daković A, Joksimović K, et al. 2024. Removal of diesel from aqueous solutions by a combined adsorption and microbial degradation process. Minerals, 14(12): 1287. DOI: 10.3390/min14121287.

Mao D, Lookman R, Van De Weghe H, et al. 2009. Aqueous solubility calculation for petroleum mixtures in soil using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography analysis data. The Journal of Chromatography, 1216(14): 2873−2880. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.08.072.

Mcguire JT, Cozzarelli IM, Bekins BA, et al. 2018. Toxicity assessment of groundwater contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons at a well-characterized, aged, crude oil release site. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(21): 12172−12178. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b03657.

Mcmahon PB, Galloway JM, Hunt AG, et al. 2021. Geochemistry and age of groundwater in the Williston Basin, USA: Assessing potential effects of shale-oil production on groundwater quality. Applied Geochemistry, 125: 1−16. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2020.104833.

Mohler RE, Ahn S, O'reilly K, et al. 2020. Towards comprehensive analysis of oxygen containing organic compounds in groundwater at a crude oil spill site using GCxGC-TOFMS and Orbitrap ESI-MS. Chemosphere, 244: 125504. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125504.

Monteiro L, Traunspurger W, Roeleveld K, et al. 2018. Direct toxicity of the water-soluble fractions of a crude and a diesel-motor oil on the survival of free-living nematodes. Ecological Indicators, 93: 13−23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.066.

Muller JB, Melegari SP, Perreault F, et al. 2019. Comparative assessment of acute and chronic ecotoxicity of water soluble fractions of diesel and biodiesel on Daphnia magna and Aliivibrio fischeri. Chemosphere, 221: 640−646. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.069.

Nassery HR, Shahsavari AA, Vogt C, et al. 2024. Source differentiation of BTEX compounds in groundwater contaminated due to refinery activities. Journal of Environmental Management, 366: 121893. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121893.

Pal R, Farnood R. 2025. Occurrence and fate of substituted polycyclic aromatic compounds in petrochemical refinery and coking wastewater treatment plants. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 13(3): 116607. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2025.116607.

Patil P, Jeppu GP, Vasudevan M, et al. 2023. A review on dissolution of multi-component non-aqueous phase liquids: Recent studies, mechanisms and mass transfer limitations. Desalination and Water Treatment, 283: 164−184. DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2023.29230.

Radhakrishnan A, Balaganesh P, Vasudevan M, et al. 2023. Bioremediation of hydrocarbon pollutants: Recent promising sustainable approaches, scope, and challenges. Sustainability, 15(7): 5847. DOI: 10.3390/su15075847.

Rial D, Radović JR, Bayona JM, et al. 2013. Effects of simulated weathering on the toxicity of selected crude oils and their components to sea urchin embryos. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 260: 67−73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.05.004.

Santana DCN, Moreira LB, Cruz ACF, et al. 2024. Chemical composition and toxicity of water-soluble fractions of oil samples from the extensive spill in northeast Brazil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 114(1): 4. DOI: 10.1007/s00128-024-03985-9.

Sauer TC, Costa HJ. 2003. Fingerprinting of gasoline and coal tar NAPL volatile hydrocarbons dissolved in groundwater. Environmental Forensics, 4(4): 319−329. DOI: 10.1080/714044376.

Shih T, Rong Y, Harmon T, et al. 2003. Evaluation of the impact of fuel hydrocarbons and oxygenates on groundwater resources. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(1): 42−48. DOI: 10.1021/es0304650.

Song JH, Yu W, Zhou W, et al. 2025. Fingerprinting of dissolved constituents in groundwater at an operating refinery. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 27(11): 3521−3533.

Spruill TB. 1988. Use of total organic carbon as an indicator of contamination from an oil refinery, south-central Kansas. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 8(3): 76−82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.1988.tb01088.x.

Squillace PJ, Pankow JF, Korte NE, et al. 1997. Review of the environmental behavior and fate of methyl tert‐butyl ether. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 16(9): 1836−1844. DOI: 10.1002/etc.5620160911.

Sun DL, Sato S, Ueda W, et al. 2016. Production of C4 and C5 alcohols from biomass-derived materials. Green Chemistry, 18(9): 2579−2597. DOI: 10.1039/C6GC00377J.

Sun Y, Cao JH, Wang MY, et al. 2025. Chemical composition of headspace vapor from volatilization of ten petroleum samples. Fuel, 396: 135299. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2025.135299.

Takahashi H, Suzuoka D, Morita A. 2015. Why is benzene soluble in water? Role of OH/π interaction in solvation. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 11(3): 1181−1194. DOI: 10.1021/ct501133u.

Truskewycz A, Gundry TD, Khudur LS, et al. 2019. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in terrestrial ecosystems—Fate and microbial responses. Molecules, 24(18): 3400. DOI: 10.3390/molecules24183400.

Uhler AD, Emsbo-Mattingly S, Liu B, et al. 2005. An integrated case study for evaluating the impacts of an oil refinery effluent on aquatic biota in the Delaware River: Advanced chemical fingerprinting of PAHs. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 11(4): 771−836. DOI: 10.1080/10807030591008945.

Vasudevan M, Johnston CD, Bastow TP, et al. 2016. Effect of compositional heterogeneity on dissolution of non-ideal LNAPL mixtures. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 194: 10−16. DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2016.09.006.

Vasudevan M, Nambi IM, Suresh Kumar G. 2016. Scenario-based modelling of mass transfer mechanisms at a petroleum contaminated field site-numerical implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 175: 9−19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.009.

Vasudevan M, Suresh KG, Nambi IM. 2014. Numerical modelling of multicomponent LNAPL dissolution kinetics at residual saturation in a saturated subsurface system. Sadhana, 39(6): 1387−1408. DOI: 10.1007/s12046-014-0282-1.

Vasudevan M, Suresh Kumar G, Nambi IM. 2014. Numerical study on kinetic/equilibrium behaviour of dissolution of toluene under variable subsurface conditions. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 18(9): 1070−1093. DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2014.922902.

Wang XJ, Goual L, Colberg PJS. 2012. Characterization and treatment of dissolved organic matter from oilfield produced waters. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 217: 164−170. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.03.006.

Watts RJ, Haller DR, Jones AP, et al. 2000. A foundation for the risk-based treatment of gasoline-contaminated soils using modified Fenton's reactions. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 76(1): 73−89. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00173-4.

Muhsin W, Zhang J. 2022. Multi-objective optimization of a crude oil hydrotreating process with a crude distillation unit based on bootstrap aggregated neural network models. Processes, 10(8): 1438. DOI: 10.3390/pr10081438.

Xin Q, Farooqi H, Lang J, et al. 2024. Behavioral and toxicological impacts of bio-derived oils in aqueous spills. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 12(6): 114353. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2024.114353.

Yang Y, Li J, Lv NQ, et al. 2023. Multiphase migration and transformation of BTEX on groundwater table fluctuation in riparian petrochemical sites. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(19): 55756−55767. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-26393-8.

Yu W, Wan YR, Zhou W, et al. 2026. Molecular composition of water soluble fraction of petroleum products and crude oils: Insights into groundwater contamination potential and environmental forensics. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 159: 437−444. DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2025.05.003.

Zargar M, Sarrafzadeh MH, Taheri B, et al. 2013. The surveying of soil and groundwater pollution in a petroleum refinery and the potential of bioremediation for oil decontamination. Petroleum Science and Technology, 31(24): 2585−2595. DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2011.559507.

Zeneli A, Kastanaki E, Simantiraki F, et al. 2019. Monitoring the biodegradation of TPH and PAHs in refinery solid waste by biostimulation and bioaugmentation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 7(3): 103054. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2019.103054.

Zhang ZJ, Yan XY, Gao FL, et al. 2018. Emission and health risk assessment of volatile organic compounds in various processes of a petroleum refinery in the Pearl River Delta, China. Environmental Pollution, 238: 452−461. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.054.

Zito P, Sihota N, Mohler RE, et al. 2024. The formation, reactivity, and fate of oxygen-containing organic compounds in petroleum-contaminated groundwaters: A state of the science review and future research directions. Science of the Total Environment, 918: 170619. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170619.

[1]	Yong-jian Gu, Qian-kun Luo, Min Zhang, Zhuo Ning, Lin Sun, Lei Ma, Hai-chun Ma2026: SDPHC: A software tool for detecting petroleum hydrocarbons contamination in active industrial sites using Non-Invasive Survey (NIS) dataset, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 14, 342-355. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2026.9280066
[2]	Samar A El-Mekkawi, Sh K Amin2026: Remediation technologies for heavy metal-contaminated water resources, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 14, 399-434. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2026.9280089
[3]	Qi-fa Sun, Bing Lu, Chuan-lei Lu, Yuan Yang, Xu Xie, Lin Guo, Chen Hu, Xu Wang2026: Health risk assessment of Fluoride and Cadmium enrichment in rural drinking groundwater in Shanxi Province, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 14, 1-14. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2026.9280067
[4]	Lei Zhang, Xiang-quan Li, Jian-fei Ma, Zhen-yuan Zhang, Chang-chang Fu, Chun-chao Zhang, Ce Zhang2026: Multi-scale characterization of karst media, negative-pressure suffusion mechanism and collapse risk assessment for urban metro engineering: A case study of Guiyang metro line 3, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 14, 307-322. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2026.9280084
[5]	Ming Guo, Yun Yang, Qian-kun Luo, Ying-chun Li, Hai-chun Ma, Jia-zhong Qian2025: Are impermeable curtains necessary for a groundwater contaminant remediation project?, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 13, 237-249. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2025.9280052
[6]	Zhao-xuan Niu, Zhi-hui Deng, Xue Niu, Dong-fang Chen, Gui-lin Zhu, Wen-hao Xu, Lin-you Zhang, Qing-da Feng2025: Origin and risk assessment of natural radioactivity in groundwater from the Eastern Gonghe Basin, Tibetan Plateau, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 13, 301-311. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2025.9280056
[7]	Yu-xiang Shao, Wei Zhang, Wen-bin Chen, Li Chen, Jian Li, Guang-long Tian, Li-cheng Quan, Bu-qing Yan, Yu-jie Liu2025: Causes and health risk assessment of fluorine in the Red bed groundwater and adjacent geothermal water of the Guang'an Area, Southwest China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 13, 116-132. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2025.9280043
[8]	Aida H Baghanam, Vahid Nourani, Zohre Khodaverdi, Amirreza T Vakili2024: Assessment of water quality suitability for agriculture in a potentially leachate-contaminated region, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 12, 281-292. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2024.9280021
[9]	Fu-ning Lan, Yi Zhao, Jun Li, Xiu-qun Zhu2024: Health risk assessment of heavy metal pollution in groundwater of a karst basin, SW China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 12, 49-61. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2024.9280005
[10]	Hui Li, Zhan-tao Han, Qiang Deng, Chun-xiao Ma, Xiang-ke Kong2023: Assessing the effectiveness of nanoscale zero-valent iron particles produced by green tea for Cr(VI)-contaminated groundwater remediation, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 55-67. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280006
[11]	Yang Hui-feng, Meng Rui-fang, Bao Xi-lin, Cao Wen-geng, Li Ze-yan, Xu Bu-yun2022: Assessment of water level threshold for groundwater restoration and over-exploitation remediation the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Plain, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 113-127. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.02.002
[12]	Li Yue-nan, Gu Yan-sheng, Li Man-zhou, Huo Guang-jie, Wang Xi-ping, Xu Zhi-jie, Yue Jie, Du Dan, Geng Man-ge2021: Comparison on the phytoextraction efficiency of Bidens pilosa at heavy metal contaminated site in natural and electrokinetic conditions, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 121-128. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.02.004
[13]	LIN Dan, JIN Meng-gui, LI Xiu-juan2017: Risk assessment of heavy metals in topsoil along the banks of theYangtze River in Huangshi, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 162-172.
[14]	LIU Shu-yuan, WANG Hong-qi2016: Dynamic assessment of pollution risk of groundwater source area in Northern China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 333-343.
[15]	ZHANG Sheng, ZHANG Cui-yun, HE Ze, CHEN Li, ZHANG Fa-wang, YIN Mi-ying, NING Zhuo, SUN Zhen-hua, ZHEN Shi-jun2016: Application research of enhanced in-situ micro-ecological remediation of petroleum contaminated soil, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 157-164.
[16]	ZHANG Chuan-mian, GUO Xiao-niu, Richard Henry, James Dendy2015: Groundwater modelling to help diagnose contamination problems, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 3, 285-294.
[17]	MA Shao-bing, ZHOU Jun, LIANG Peng, SU Yao-ming2014: Characteristics-based classification research on typical petroleum contaminants of groundwater, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2, 41-47.
[18]	ZHANG Zhi-qiang, LI Hong-chao, WANG Yu-qing, ZHANG li-ye, WANG Ying2014: Application of Visual MODFLOW to simulation of migration in Cr6+ contaminated site, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2, 28-35.
[19]	Yan Zhang, Shuai Song, Jing Li, Fadong Li, Guangshuai Zhao, Qiang Liu2013: Stable Isotope Composition of Rainfall, Surface Water and Groundwater along the Yellow River, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 82-88.
[20]	Zhao-xian Zheng, Xiao-si Su2013: Risk Assessment on Organic Contamination of Shallow Groundwater of an Oilfield in Northeast China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 75-82.