Chapter 5 : Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils and Aquifers

FIGURE 5.1

Calculation of volume of a biopile. After the work of von Fahnestock et al. ( 349 ). V = 1/6h(B1 + 4M + B2), where V is the volume of the pile (in cubic meters), h is pile height (meters), B1 is the area of the lower base (square meters), B2 is the area of the upper base (square meters), and M is the area of the biopile midsection (square meters).

B1 = (l + 2a)(w + 2a) + lw + 2aw + 2al + 4a 2.

B2 = lw.

M = [1 + 2(a/2)] × [w + 2(a/2)] = lw + la + aw + a 2.

V = 1/6h(lw + 2aw × 2al + 4a 2 + 4lw + 4aw + 4al + 4a 2 + lw).

= 1/6h(6lw + 6aw + 6al + 8a 2).

= h(lw + aw + al + 1.33a 2).

tan θ = h/a ??a = h/tan θ.

An angle θ of 50 to 60θ gives an approximate slope (h/a) of 1.2 to 1.75.

FIGURE 5.2

Elements of a biopile. After the work of Kodres ( 163 ). (A) Schematic. (B) Detailed diagram.

FIGURE 5.3

Photograph of a biopile base showing its preparation. Courtesy of WSP Remediation Ltd., Cardiff, United Kingdom.

FIGURE 5.4

Photograph of a biopile slotted pipe (plastic pipe, 4-in. diameter).

FIGURE 5.5

Photograph of a typical blower for full-scale biopile operations. Courtesy of WSP Remediation Ltd.

FIGURE 5.6

Photograph of a fleece roller. A self-propelled windrow turner can be seen in the background. Courtesy of Shanks Waste Management Ltd., United Kingdom.

FIGURE 5.7

Photograph of soil screening and addition of wood chips (the lighter material in the soil heap) and bioaugmentation culture (contained in the 1-m3 Intermediate Bulk Container), which is being applied by spray at the top of the soil grader.

FIGURE 5.8

Photograph of a Knight Reel Auggie for soil mixing and distribution. Courtesy of Kuhn Knight.

FIGURE 5.9

Photograph of an ALLU bucket. It is fitted with rotating drums with blades, and also crushing bars, so that it can be used to grade soil containing materials such as brick. Courtesy of WSP Remediation Ltd.

FIGURE 5.10

Calculating volume of a windrow. Volume of windrow = 1/2 w × h × l. If the mass of contaminated soil and its density are known, the total volume of material, including the bulk materials such as organic compost and bulking agents, can be calculated. Knowing the width of the site, and the space between windrows, the number of windrows of set width can be calculated.

FIGURE 5.11

Photograph of an ALLU bucket being used as a windrow turner. Courtesy of WSP Remediation Ltd. Its adaptability to different machinery and its low cost make it a flexible alternative to windrow turners, although slower.

FIGURE 5.12

Photograph of a tractor-driven windrow turner. Courtesy of Environmental Reclamation Services Ltd., Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.

BOX FIGURE 5.2.1

Hydrocarbon contamination at the site. Dark squares are areas of highest contamination.

BOX FIGURE 5.2.2

Field measurements on windrows. Courtesy of WSP Remediation Ltd., Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.

BOX FIGURE 5.2.3

Three-sample series from windrow 11, showing progress of TPH removal during the bioremediation phase of the contract.

FIGURE 5.13

Photograph of experimental landfarm plots at an oil sludge storage facility, Perm, Russia. The left half of the plot has been sown with common Russian grasses. One plot has been treated with biofertilizer (top), and the other is an untreated control plot (bottom). After Kuyukina et al. ( 165 ).

FIGURE 5.14

Diagram showing a landfarm schematic (not to scale).

FIGURE 5.15

Landfarming oil refinery sludges. A disc harrow (top) and a tined tiller (bottom) are being used. Despite proven success in varied climates over several decades, there are concerns over this practice.

BOX FIGURE 5.3.1

Photograph showing disastrous oil contamination in Kuwait as a result of the Gulf War that resulted in the formation of hundreds of square kilometers of oil lakes.

FIGURE 5.16

Soil slurry reactor.

FIGURE 5.17

Ex situ source control projects at Superfund sites. Data are adapted from the work of the U.S. EPA ( 331 ). (A) 1982 to 2002. (B) 2000 to 2002.

FIGURE 5.18

In situ source control at Superfund sites. Data are adapted from work of the U.S. EPA ( 331 ). (A) 1982 to 2002. (B) 2000 to 2002.

FIGURE 5.19

Bioventing schematic. After the work of Cookson ( 68 ).

FIGURE 5.20

Vent well spacing, based on radius of influence.

FIGURE 5.21

Bioventing well design. After work of the U.S. EPA ( 323 ).

FIGURE 5.22

Biosparging schematic. After the work of Cookson ( 68 ).

FIGURE 5.23

Biosparging well design. After work of the U.S. EPA ( 324 ).

FIGURE 5.24

PRB schematic.

BOX FIGURE 5.4.1

Site and design drawings of the engineered bioreactive barrier for project SEREBAR at a former coal gasification site in the United Kingdom, combining abiotic and anaerobic biotransformation, aerobic biotransformation and abiotic sorption stages showing conceptual reactor design. Reprinted from the work of Kalin ( 153 ) with permission from Elsevier.

BOX FIGURE 5.4.2

Photograph of SEREBAR at active site of remediation. Courtesy of Second Site Property Holdings.

FIGURE 5.25

Bioslurping dual drop tube. After the work of Place et al. ( 252 ).

FIGURE 5.26

MNA decision support flowchart. After work of the U.S. EPA ( 361 ).

FIGURE 5.27

Typical serial enrichment procedure for bioaugmentation.

FIGURE 5.28

Food web relationships in a percolating filter. After the work of Wheatley ( 359 ). Practitioners should remember that adding microorganisms in a bioremediation project is very different from a chemical addition. It has the potential to shift the balance in the food web, so that simply adding more might make more problems, rather than solve any.

FIGURE 5.29

Solvent efflux pump schematic. The diagram shows how toluene might be transported out of the gram-negative cell by membrane- and periplasm-spanning proteins.

FIGURE 5.30

Scanning electron micrograph of bacteria emerging from bulges in a PVA immobilization gel. Such evidence suggests that it should be possible to manufacture engineered slow-release bioaugmentation.

FIGURE 5.31

A trehalose glycolipid from Rhodococcus ruber. After the work of Philp et al. ( 249 ). The trehalose imparts the hydrophilic group, and the longchain fatty acids impart the hydrophobic group.

FIGURE 5.32

Influence of biosurfactants on alkane metabolism. After the work of Hommel ( 134 ).

FIGURE 5.33

Positively charged metals may be released from soils by binding to negatively charged head groups in anionic (bio)surfactants.

FIGURE 5.34

The cyclodextrin molecule. Courtesy of Brian Reid, University of East Anglia, East Anglia, United Kingdom.