ONEIA Xiao-Dong Huang presentation

1,444 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

ONEIA Xiao-Dong Huang presentation

  1. 1. Plant Growth Promoting RihzobacteriaEnhanced Phytoremediation Systems for Remediation of Contaminated Soils Xiao-Dong Huang, Ph.D. Vice President Waterloo Environmental Biotechnology Inc Waterloo, Ontario
  2. 2. Outline1. Bacteria enhanced phytoremediation3. Remediation cases: PHC and Salt3. Cost analysis
  3. 3. Advantages of Phytoremediation1. Preserves natural environment and improves soil quality2. It is driven by solar energy and suitable to most regions and climates3. It is cost effective and technically feasible4. Restoration of ecosystem5. Can be used effectively at remote sites6. Effective for remediation of PHC and salt – relevant to the energy industry
  4. 4. Disadvantages of PhytoremediationPhytoremediation process is too SLOW10-20 years for completionFeasibility ? Not goodThe Question:How to speed up the process to 10-20 months?The answer:Soil Rhizobacteria
  5. 5. Microorganisms in soil:Plant associated bacteria:Plant Growth PromotingRhizobacteria (PGPR)Degrading Bacteria:Contaminant degradation
  6. 6. Inoculationto plants
  7. 7. 1 week later Inoculateduninoculated
  8. 8. Greenhouse experiment for PHC degradation Bacteria enhanced Bacteria enhancedBioremedaition Phytoremediation Phytoremediaion Phytoremediaion
  9. 9. Greenhouse testing: PHC remediation phytorem Enhanced phytorem
  10. 10. Plant promote rhizobacteria population 5 x 108 Phytorem Rihzospere bacteria population, log Enhanced phyto Biorem 有 5 x 107 June July August September seeding
  11. 11. Degradation kinetics of bacteria enhanced phytoremediation 60 Phytoremediation Enhanced Phytorem 50Degradation rate , % 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 time
  12. 12. HPLC analysis of PAH Degradation by PEP System PYR BBF BAP CHR FLA DBP BBA BKF BGP DBA 3 months PHE 40%
  13. 13. Application of PEPS for PHC Remediation(2007- 09)All sites met applicable criteria1. 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 year3. Steinbach, MB – Complete remediation in 1 year – Gas station site4. Hinton, AB – Complete remediation in 2 years – Diesel invert drilling waste5. Peace River, AB – Complete remediation in 3 years – Flare pit material6. Edson, AB – Complete remediation in 2 years – Diesel invert drilling waste
  14. 14. Field application: Sarnia refinery landfarming site 2006/6/19
  15. 15. Field application: Sarnia refinery landfarming site 3 years remediation: PHC from 15% down to 3% PHC, %
  16. 16. 28 21 35% g/kg 14 7 F2 (C16-15) F3(C16-25) F4 (C26-50) >C50Phytorem PEPs
  17. 17. Quebec City, QCPHC contaminated soiltreated with bioremediation for one year
  18. 18. Quebec City, QC – start of Season May 20 2009 Quebec tier 1 criteria: 300 ppm Soil contain 1000 ppm PHC Treatment pads
  19. 19. Quebec City, QC – End of Season Oct 20 2009
  20. 20. PHC Removal for Growth Season QB Tier 1 standard
  21. 21. Field application: Gas Station in Steinbach, Manitoba One year remediation: PHC from 2200 ppm down to 1000 ppm
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. PHC removal at Hinton site, AB Alberta Tier 1 standard
  24. 24. A closed contaminated site near Peace River, AB
  25. 25. PHC Remediation at Peace River Site, AB 28% Alberta Tier 1 standard 51%
  26. 26. Plant growth and coverage at a diesel invert site near Edson AB July 31 2008
  27. 27. PHC Remediation near Edson, AB Alberta Tier 1 standard
  28. 28. Second Generation Full Scale Sites1. Three sites near Dawson Creek, BC2. One site near Fort Nelson, BC3. One site near Swan Hills, AB4. One site near Hinton, AB5. One site near Edson, AB6. One site near Red Earth Creek, AB
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. Norman Wells, NWT – Start of Season (2008)Soil Impact – Salt
  31. 31. Norman Wells, NWT – End of Season (2010)Soil Impact – Salt
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. Development, Proof, and Application of PGPR Enhanced Phytoremediation Systems (PEPS)Over 10 years of research and full-scale fieldapplication: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)
  37. 37. 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.
  38. 38. Colleagues and PartnersPeople 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

×