Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Arctic Soils Matthew R. Allen A Thesis submitted to

122 Pages·2000·6.61 MB·English

Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Arctic Soils
Matthew R. Allen
A Thesis submitted
to the Department of Chemistry and Chernical Engineering
In partial fultillment of the requirements for
the degree of
Master of Engineering
Royal Military College of Canada
Kingston, Ontario
May. 1999
O Copyright by M.R. Allen 1999
This thesis may be used within the Department of National Defence but
copydght for open publication remains the property of the author.
National Library Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographie Sewices services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington
ûttawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4
Canada Canaâa
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distniiute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microforni, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du
copyn*ghti n this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or othenuise de celleci ne doivent être imprimés
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
I would first like to thank my thesis supervisors; Dr. Ken Reimer, the Director of
the Environmental Sciences Group and Dr. Bi11 Mohn. professor of microbiology at the
University of British Columbia. They taught me how to integrate the elements of science
and project management and introduced me to the field of environmental engineering.
Withaut their guidance and the foundation laid by their research. this thesis would not
have been possible.
for her guidance. devotion and patience, I would like to thmk Dr. Joan Tome
who helped me with the microbial aspects of the labontory work and tolerated my
incessant questioning. Thanks also go to Dr. Barb Zeeb who taught me about the
disciplines of research and technical writing. For assistance in the analysis of the
experimental radiolabel results. I would like to acknowledge the entire Analytical
Services Group for their rapid turn around times and willingness to explain the science
behind the numbers. Finally, a great thank you goes out to al! the members of the
Environmental Sciences Group who always took the time to offer advice. professional
and academic. and forced me to see the humour amidst the chaos.
The experimental work in the field would not have been possible without the help
of the ESG Bioremediation Field Team, along with North Warning System, Frontec, and
the Department of National Defence site-support staR at FOX-M and CFS Alert. They
were always willing to work until sunset and their technical expertise often saved the day.
Thanks also go out to Jim BoissonneauIt, North Waming Systems Ofice. whose
knowledge of the workings of northem logistics and environmental science was
invaluable.
For assistance in the production of this thesis. 1 would like to thank Dr. Ken
Reimer, Dr. Barb Zeeb. and Dr. Som Tome. 1 am indebted for th& help in
"wordsmithing" and data interpretation.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the continuing financiai support of the North
Waming System Office and the Director General Environment of the Department of
National Defence. I am also gratehl to the Association of Canadian Univenities in
Northem Studies for the gift of the Northem Studentship Trust. To my fiends, farnily.
and my girlfnend Clare. thank you for letting me vent and forcing me to keep at it.
Accidental fuel discharges leading to hydrocarbon contamination in soil are a senous
environmental concem in northem industrial. commercial, and military opentions.
Developing dynarnic technologies to remediate these soils in the Canadian Arctic poses a
significant engineering challenge. The difficulty of transporting heavy, specialized
treatment equipment and short treatrnent semons require that remediation solutions be
efficient. low maintenance and on-si te. Phy sical and bio logical methods currently
available are either logistically or economically not feasible for use in the sensitive
ecosystems and extreme climate of the Arctic. Biopiles and landhrms overcome design
obstacles for the bioremediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils.
The objective of this thesis was to examine bioremediation parameters and identify areas
for future resewch needed to make aboveground engineered soil treatment systems an
etrective means of cleaning up fuel spills in the Arctic.
Labontory rnicrocosm and tield experirnents investigated the etfects of soil additives
including: 1) commercial and bioremediation-specific fertilizers, 2) microbial inoculation
with indigenous microbes. 3) surfactants, and 4) the evaluation of several aeration,
heating, and insulative options. Experimental and statistical design considentions for
enhancing Future research were also identitied. Experiments were c k e d out using
contaminated soil from two military sites in the Canadian Arctic: Hall Beach and CFS
Alert. Nunavut. These experiments tncked hydrocarbon removal through the monitoring
of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) changes and '"c-labelled n-dodecane
mineralization.
Laboratory microcosm experimentd results identitied the optimal concentration and type
of amendment for each soi1 type. They also highlighted the need for customized
amendment strategies that account for the specific physicoshemical soil characteristics
and nutrient profiles at ditTerent sites. The addition of a synthetic surîàctant and a
iii
commercial fertilizer to Alert soil produced a 16-fold increase in the extent of
mineralization of a '"c-labelled hydrocarbon over the response in unfertilized soil.
Commercial fertilizer amendment of FOX-M soil produced the greatest increase in the
mineralization of a '"c-labelled hydrocarbon while reducing lag penods and increasing
initial rates. Minenlization studies also gave evidence of nutrient inhibition from both
Iimited and excess levels of fertilizer and demonstrated the ability of synthetic surfactants
to reduce such inhibition in silt soil.
Field experimental results revealed significant changes in TPH levels over time in al1
biopile and landfi experiments pmducing TPH decreases as high as 2757 +/- 743 ppm
in Alert medium-scale biopiles over 12 days of treatment. Temperature data gathered
from medium-scde biopiles at both sites revealed no clear benetits from aention or
heating systems. Observation of an additional treatment effect over time highlighted the
strong effect of volatilization on TPH degrdation in uncovered treatments producing
TPH decreases as hi& as 1575 +/- 355 ppm in FOX-M srnall-scale biopiles over 53 days
of treatment.
halysis of field-scale findings demonstnted that biopiles and landfamis successfully
reduced hydrocarbon contamination in soil at two Arctic sites over a short summer
treatment season. Laboratory Cindings provided optimized amendment application ratios
and underlined the corn plexit ies of modeling TPH degradation with radiolabelled-
hydrocarbons in silt soil. An evaluation of the potential impacts of vo latilization
suggested that remediation with biopile and/or landfarming technologies is an effective.
safe treatment option provided that leachate containment and air quality standards are
controlled. Furthemore, field data was used to develop statistically valid proposais for
data interpretation including increased srimpie and treatment replicat ion.
.
..................
A Nature of fuel spills and Arctic hydrocarbon contamination 1
.
B Impacts of fuel spills in Arctic ccosystems ......................................... 2
1. Environmentu1 considerutions ......................................................... -7
2. Turicoiogicul und humun heult fi c~nsicler~tion..s. ...................................... 3
.
C Existing technologies for the remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated
...........................................................................................
soi1 4
. ......................................................................
1 Physicul metho& 5
i . Soi1 washing ........................................................................ 5
. ......................................................
ii Excavation and Landfilling 5
iii . Incineration and Thermal Desoption .......................................... 5
. ...............................................................
iv Vacuum Extraction 6
......................................................................
2. Biolugicui methoh 6
.1*. . [ntrl itration Galleries ............................................................. 6
. Biopiles and Landfming .. ............., ..................................6
il
.
.
D Arctic design considerations for the selection of remedintion technologies 7
.
.................. ...
E Bioremediation with biopik and Iandfarming upproaches 8
.................................................................
I . B.io rem.e diution principies 8
1 . M~crobe.s. .......................................................................... 9
ii . Nutrients ........................................................................... 11
...
. Surîàctants ....................................................................... 12
III
.
F Past research into biopile bioremediation. ..................................... 15
.
A Soi1 Sources .......................................................................... 17
.............................................................................
1. FO-Y-Msoil 17
..........................................................................
2 . CFS ,d[ert soif 18
.
B Chernicals and soi1 additives ...................................................... 19
.
III METHOD.S.. ........................................................................... 20
.
...........................................................
A Lab oratory experiments 20
1. Prepuruiion ofsoifs ................................................................... 21
7. rCli~*r~~*doessmig n ..................................................................... 21
..............................................................
3 . .Ct inerufizurion moniroring ,3,3
4. Liqrrid SC intilfuiion corinting proc*tdirrejirr rninerali:ution monitoring. ................. ,3,7
5. Ecperirn~lntdV uriubles. .............. .... ..... ,. ............................*....*..,.7 J-
6. TPH versus '$ C rrmovrrl ............................................................2. 5
.
B Field-scale research ....................................................*.....*...*... 26
......................................................................
. suif prepurutiun 27
2. Construction of FiX-iV smuft-scde biopifes ............................................ 38
3. Construction of meciirm-scair biupiles ................................................. 30
......................................................
4. Cunstrt~ctionof FOX- W Iandfirm 34
5. Field-scuk soif suntpiing procrdt~re.. .................................................. 35
6. 7PH .l na(vsis .................... .. ........ .. .................................. 37
.
C Data presentation & Analysis ....................... .... ...................... 4 0
.
....................................................................
A Microcosm studies 42
. ...........................................................................
B Field studies 52
.
.................
A Discussion of non-controllable experimental paramoters 60
I . Physico-cheniicuf soil churuererisrics. .................................................. 60
.....................................................................
2 . Tempruiure rficts 61
.
B Discussion of supporting laboratory results ................................... 62
i . ~unrrnerciuifirtiIizerm icrocosrn rrperiments ........................................... 63
2. Biormediatiun speci/ie/erliIker nticrucavm rrprrirnrnt.~.. ............................ 64
3. Sw/aiunt microcosn~e rperimenis ...................................................... 65
....................................................
Iic~ icrocosnin ocuiution rxprrintenrs 66
5. Compurison of FOX-M und .4 lert microcosm soif udrlithe rrprriments ................. 67
6. TPH versus 14C ternova[ uprrimercts .................................................. -69
C. Discussion of field resuits ..................................... . .................. 71
4. Stutistieul und aperimentul design co~t~ider~ti.u.m...-. .............................. 74
.............................
5. Volri~ilratiunc unri~krationsfo r Iundfurming <ipprouches 75
vii
...........................................
.4 ppendir A: UBC rrperimentai resrrlrs 84
..........................................
.-I ppendir B: Grain si-r unulyss reszdts 92
.-î ppt~dirC : Kineiic parumeters fiom Boltzman ndel. ........................... 95
. ........................................................
A ppendir D: 4 nova renrits 97
........................................................
Appendir E: Therntul datu 99
.............................................
.-î ppendir F: Fieid-scuk TPH rrriilts 102
.4 ppendir G: .4 novu sumpk si& culcttiation ..................................... 107
viii
Figure 1-1: Treatment costs for remediation technologies .................................4
Figure 1-2: Schematic of an engineered biopile ............................................ 14
Figure 11-1: Map showing the location of FOX-M and CFS Alert ....................... 18
Figure III-1: Schematic diagram of FOX-M and Alert medium-scale biopiles ....... 31
Figure 111-2: C ross-section of convex treatment surface for FOX-M landfm. ...... 35
Figure IV-1: Impact of commercial fertilizer on '"c-labelled HC mineralization in Alert
.................................................................................................
soil 44
Figure IV-2: Impact of commercial fertilizer on '"c-labelled HC mineralization in FOX-
M soil ............................................................................................. 44
Figure CV-3: Impact of bioremediation specific fertilizer on '"c-labelled HC
................................................................
mineralization in Alert soil 4 6
Figure IV-l: Impact of bioremediation specific fertilizer on '"c-labelled HC
mineralization in FOX-M soil .................................................................. 46
Figure IV-5: Impact of surfactant on 'J~-labelledH C mineralization in Alert soil .
Figure IV-6: Impact of surfactant on '"c-labelled HC mineralization in FOX-Ms oil
.....................................................................................................
47
Figure IV-7: Impact of inoculum and cryopreservative addition on '"c-labelled HC
.....................................................................
mineralization in Alert soil 49
Figure IV-8: Impact of inoculum on '"c-labelled HC mineralization in Alert soil .
*...........*........................................................................................ 49
Fipre IV-9: Comparison of '"c-labelled HC mineralization and TPH degradation in
FOX-M soil ................................................................................... 51
'"c
Fipre IV-10: Comparison OF -labelled HC mineralization and TPH degradation in
..........................................................................................
Alert soil 51
Figure IV-1 I: Impact of aeration systems on TPH degradation in FOX-M medium-scale
biopiles after 54 days of treatment ........................................................... 53