3. Advantages of Phytoremediation
1. Preserves natural environment and improves soil quality
2. It is driven by solar energy and suitable to most regions
and climates
3. It is cost effective and technically feasible
4. Restoration of ecosystem
5. Can be used effectively at remote sites
6. Effective for remediation of PHC and salt – relevant to the
energy industry
4. Disadvantages of Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation process is too SLOW
10-20 years for completion
Feasibility ? Not good
The Question:
How to speed up the process to 10-20 months?
The answer:
Soil Rhizobacteria
11. Plant promote rhizobacteria population
5 x 108
Phytorem
Rihzospere bacteria population, log
Enhanced phyto
Biorem
有 5 x 107
June July August September
seeding
13. HPLC analysis of PAH Degradation by PEP System
PYR BBF
BAP
CHR
FLA DBP
BBA BKF BGP
DBA 3 months
PHE 40%
14. Application of PEPS for PHC Remediation(2007- 09)
All sites met applicable criteria
1. Sarnia, ON – land farm for oil sludge – 3 year study (15% w/w –
60% F3 (C16-C34), 30% F4 (C34 – C50)
2. Quebec City, QC – Tier 1 criteria met in one year
3. Steinbach, MB – Complete remediation in 1 year – Gas station
site
4. Hinton, AB – Complete remediation in 2 years – Diesel invert
drilling waste
5. Peace River, AB – Complete remediation in 3 years – Flare pit
material
6. Edson, AB – Complete remediation in 2 years – Diesel invert
drilling waste
22. Field application: Gas Station in Steinbach, Manitoba
One year remediation:
PHC from 2200 ppm down to 1000 ppm
23. Plant Growth and Coverage at a Diesel Invert Site near Hinton AB
2008 remediation operation:
Plating on June 25
Final sampling on Oct 5
Plant coverage 95%
Pant height: 45 cm
29. Second Generation Full Scale Sites
1. Three sites near Dawson Creek, BC
2. One site near Fort Nelson, BC
3. One site near Swan Hills, AB
4. One site near Hinton, AB
5. One site near Edson, AB
6. One site near Red Earth Creek, AB
30. Application of PEPS for Salt Remediation
(2007- 09)
1. Norman Wells, NWT
2. Provost, AB
3. Cannington Manor, SK
4. Alameda, SK
5. Kindersley, SK
6. Brazeau, AB
7. Weyburn, SK (7 sites)
8. Red Earth, AB
33. Norman Wells, NWT – End of Season (2009)
Soil Impact – Salt
Plant Biomass (dry wt g/m2 ± SE)
Year Plot A Plot B Plot C
2009 300 ± 26 397 ± 50 623 ± 44
2010 393 ± 16 592 ± 40 525 ± 20
34.
35. Provost, AB: End of Season (2009, Year 1)
Soil Impact – Salt
•
High salt spots have filled in with plants
•
ECe (2009):
decreased from
13-17 to 4-12
dS/m
•
ECe (Spring
2010): all
sampling points
were below
applicable targets
•
Successful
remediation was
achieved in 1
year
36. Phytoremediation Cost analysis for the Edson Site
•
1.07 ha impacted to a depth of 0.3 m or 3,210 m3 of PHC
impacted material
•
The costs for the entire project for PEPs was: $104,000 or
$32.50/m3
•
Landfilling this material would have cost $70/m3
•
Assumes a 2 h truck turnaround time if no backfill
required
•
If backfill was required, the cost would rise to $90/m3
•
Composting would cost $75-150/m3
37. Examples of Remediation Methods
• Dig and dump - Any contaminant type - $100-500/m3
• Soil incineration - On or off site - Organic contamination -
$200-600/m3
• Chemical extraction - Any type of contamination -
$250/m3
• Electrokinetic separation - Metals/Salts - $200/m3
• Soil flushing/fracturing - Any contaminant type - $250/m3
• Land farming - Small organics - $50/m3
• Bioremediation - Organics - $100/m3
• Our PEPs - Any contaminant type - $25-50/m3
38. Development, Proof, and Application of
PGPR Enhanced Phytoremediation
Systems (PEPS)
Over 10 years of research and full-scale field
application:
1. PHC: 18 sites in AB, BC, MB, QC and ON(2004-10)
2. Gas station: site fully remediated in 1 summer (2007)
3. Salt: 14 sites in SK, AB and NWT (2007-10)
39. Why Use Phytoremediation?
•
Works effective for PHC and salt remediation.
•
Remediation at all sites have been successful; > 20 sites.
•
Costs of PHC and salt remediation are low.
•
Unit cost drops as the volume of material increases.
•
Phytoremediation costs (all in) < half the cost of landfilling.
•
Liability is reduced, not transferred to a landfill.
•
Cost effective at remote sites.
•
Purchase of backfill not required. Soils are reused.
•
Tier 2 approach - if required only marginal cost increase.
•
Green technology, solar energy and carbon sequestration.
•
Environmentally friendly and Positive PR opportunity.
40. Colleagues and Partners
People in the group Partners
•
Bruce Greenberg •
S Willets, O Mrklas, C Gordey,
•
Karen Gerhardt Conoco Phillips Canada
•
Jola Gurska
•
B Moore, Devon Canada Inc
•
Xiao-Ming Yu
•
E Harrison, Cenovus Energy
•
Mark Lampi •
P Coldham, Questerre Engegy
•
Shan Shan Wu •
L Lawlor, Imperial Oil
•
Julie Nykamp •
A Traverse, Baytex Energy Corp
•
Nicole Knezevich •
G Millard, Shell Canada
•
Greg MacNeill •
Canadian Forestry Oil Corp
•
Xiaobo Lu •
Perry Gerwing, Earthmaster
•
Scott Liddycoat
•
T Chidlaw, MWH
•
Han Zheng
•
Brianne McCallum
•
J Budziak, Seaway
•
Peter Mosley •
D McMillan, SNC
•
Matt Hannaberg •
G Stephenson, Stantec
•
S Steed, NorthWind
•
G Adams, URS
