Heavy oils treatment

GROUP 5
1. YASMIN NABILAH BINTI MOHD FAUZEE
2. NURUL AFIQAH BINTI ANUAR
3. MOHAMMAD SUHAIL BIN SHOAIB
4. WAN ALI ABBAS BIN WAN MUSTAFA KAMAL
5. HASRIZAL BIN ABDUL HADI

Hydrocarbon
• Polyaromatic (PAH
compounds)
• Acyclic alkanes
• Aliphatic petroleum
hydrocarbon
Non-
hydrocarbon
• Heteroatoms
• Trace metals
(Mrozik, Piotrowska-Seget, & Labuzek,
2003)(Lee Jr & Von Lehmden, 1973)
•benz(a)anthracene and
•benzo(a)pyrene.
Carcinogenic to humans
 International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC)
(Petry, Schmid, & Schlatter,
1996)
•Heavy paraffin etc
•Fire or explosion hazard
•Effects on the CNS or as general
asphyxiants or irritants
•Pneumonia
(Irwin, Van Mouwerik, Stevens,
Seese, & Basham, 1997)
•Methane, Ethane
•Propane, Butane
•Asphyxia
•Explosion
(Vale & Meredith, 1981)
•S, N, Ni, Fe and trace metals.
•Lung, nose, larynx and prostate
cancer
• Sickness and dizziness after
exposure to nickel gas
•Respiratory failure
• Birth defects
(Das, Das, & Dhundasi, 2008)

IMPACT OF
HEAVY OIL
LEAKAGE
reduce the ability of
soil to support the
growth of plants
seep into ground to
contaminate ground
water(Adams, Fufeyin, Okoro,
& Ehinomen, 2015)
Bioremediation uses microbial metabolism in the presence of optimum
environmental conditions and sufficient nutrients to breakdown contaminants
notably petroleum hydrocarbons. (Adams, Fufeyin, Okoro, & Ehinomen, 2015)

THERMAL
TREATMENT
• Rely on addition of
heat on soil to
increase the removal
efficiency of volatile
and semi-volatile
compound.
• E.g. Thermal
desorption,
smoldering,
incineration
PHYSICAL AND
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
• Uses the physical
properties of the
contaminants or the
contaminated
medium to destroy
(i.e., chemically
convert), separate,
or contain the
contamination.
• E.g. Soil vapor
extraction, chemical
oxidation
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
• Uses microorganisms
or vegetation to
degrade, remove, or
immobilize
contamination in soil.
1 2 3

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
•- Can be completed in
short time periods
- As the pollutants are
under vacuum there is
little chance of an
environmental release
during the application of
this technique
- Undergoes rapid
oxidation reactions;
- Ensures direct and
immediate contact with
chemical oxidation
PROS
-Exhaust air from in-situ
SVE system may require
treatment
- Soil with a high
percentage of fines and a
high degree of saturation
will require higher
vacuums (increasing
costs) and/or hindering
the operation of the in
situ SVE system
CONS
FINES = FINE PARTICLES , often of inorganic
material such as silica , frequently with metals and
organic compounds on their surfaces. Vary greatly
in size. Also known as PM (particular matter).
PM = PARTICULATE MATTER (PM), also known as
particle pollution, is a complex mixture of extremely
small particles and liquid droplets that get into the
air. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the
heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.
(EPA, 2017)
1
ed

• The gas leaving the soil may be treated to
recover or destroy the contaminants,
depending on local and state air discharge
regulations.
• During incineration process, organic pollutants
may release as vapour, or bound to
particulates. Dioxin is the organic pollutants
that attracts most concern.
• The exhaust gases are filtered in scrubber,
electrostatic precipitators, or baghouses and
subsequently incinerated to remove any
gaseous products that cannot be vented due
to air pollution and soil deposition concerns
ed

- Eliminate large
volumes of oil quickly
and effectively
-broad applicability and
prevalence
- Energy intensive
- Costly
- Can damage soil
properties
THERMAL TREATMENT
Vidonish, J. E., et al. (2016)2

BIOREMEDIATION
Das, N. and P. Chandran (2011).
- environmental-friendly
- For a long time benefit
- to be noninvasive and relatively cost-effective
-several mechanism for removal
- Reduces landfill waste harvestable plant material
- Micro-organisms which are existent in the soil use
oil compounds as the sources of carbon and energy
-may take time
-depend on soil properties, water availability,
and the heat sensitivity of contaminated soils
- Climate dependent
PROS
CONS
3

TREATMENT PROPOSAL OF IN SITU
BIOREMEDIATION
Step 1 : Biosurfactant
Step 2 : Bioaugmentation
Step 3 : Biostimulation
Step 4 : Biocatalysis
Step 5 : Phytoremediation
ADVANTAGES OF IN-SITU
BIOREMEDIATION
• Typically less expensive
• No need to excavate & transport
soils
• Can treat a large volume of soil
at once
• Causes less contaminants to be
released than ex situ techniques
• Creates less dust
(Perelo, 2010)

1. Contaminated area washed with out by using a water solution of biosurfactant, and
partially removed the oil.
a. The collected oil can be used again
b. The biosurfactant easily biodegraded into a common natural compound

BIOSURFACTANT MECHANISM
(Santos, Rufino, Luna, Santos, & Sarubbo, 2016)

A) Use of Microbes To Degrade Hydrocarbon Contamination.
● Biodegradation of oil spill can be achieved through microbes utilization.
● One of the main approache to oil spill bioremediation:
○ Bioaugmentation – introducing new microbes to the existing microbial
population
○ Bacteria
○ Fungi
● The success of bioaugmentation success depends on the competitiveness of the
inoculated strains in different environments.
● Therefore it is important to establish and maintain conditions that favor enhanced
oil biodegradation rates in the contaminated environmental depends.
● Two major challenges:
○ Lack of important nutrients
○ Low bioavailability

B) Used Of Microbes To Lower Contamination Concentration
• - Using Bacteria Consortium.
• Use of bacteria consortium consisting of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Rhodococcus
erythropolis.
• The consortium degraded 91% of the hydrocarbon
content of soil contaminated with 1% (v/v) crude oil
sludge in 5 weeks (Cameotra and Singh, 2008).
• The bacteria also able to degrade liquid paraffin
more than 70% in 180 days (Zhukov et al., 2007).
• More than 98% hydrocarbon depletion was obtained
when both additives were added together with the
consortium.
• Transport of hydrocarbon across the cell membrane can
follow three main mechanisms: (1) passive diffusion; (2)
passive facilitated diffusion; or (3) energy-
dependent/active uptake (Huan and Wang, 2014).
Figure 1: Main principle of aerobic degradation
of hydrocarbons by microorganisms (Das and
Chandran, 2011)
ed

B) Used of Microbes To Lower Contamination Concentration
• - Using White Rot Fungi.
● Compared to bacteria, some white rot species are
better able to colonize soil and to compete with the
other microflora (Novotný et al., 2000).
● Intracellular degradation of highly condensed PAH is
limited due to their low solubility and their restricted
transport through the cell membrane.
● the ability of fungal hyphae to reach the pollutants by
penetrating contaminated soil, combined with the
production of extracellular oxidases, gives fungi a
significant advantage over bacteria (Pointing, 2001).
Mechanism for PAH degradation using
lignolytic degradation (Pointing, 2001)

Enhancement
steps
Biostimulation Biocatalysis

• Addition of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (CNPK). Only add the
undetectable needed nutrient on site. (F. Benyahi and A.S. Embaby, 2015)
• The addition of nutrients into treatment site by form of biosolid or inorganic
fertilizer.
• Biosolid is made up of combination of manure and plant waste such as peanut hull
and rice straw. (W. Liu, Y. Luo, Y. Teng, Z. Li, and Q. M, Lena, 2010)
• Also known as bulking agent
• Inorganic fertilizer are consist of NPK
• Addition of biosurfactant
The addition of limiting nutrients to support
microbial growth

BIOSTIMULATION ROLE
(Cameotra & Singh, 2008)

• Contributing to minimising fossil fuel damages and reduce
generate toxic by-products.
• Need to have the capacity to degrade the target contaminant
into less-toxic product which is do not depend on cofactor.
• Types of enzymes : Laccases, Alkane hydroxylases.
(R. S. Peixoto, A. B. Vermelho, and A. S. Rosado, (2011))
Utilization of enzymes to enhanced the
degradation

Phytoremediation to degrade to an acceptable level or render harmless the contaminants
in the soil.
Can be achive through rhizodegradation (phytostimulation)
• Degradation of contaminant in the rhizospehre by means of microbial activity which is
enhanced by the presence of plant roots in severals way (Anderson 1993):
1. The roots released compounds, such as sugars, organic acids, and alcohol which will enrich
indigenous microbe populations
2. root systems bring oxygen to the rhizosphere, which ensures aerobic transformations
3. mycorrhizae fungi, which grow within the rhizosphere, can degrade organic contaminants that
cannot be transformed solely by bacteria because of unique enzymatic pathways.
• A comparison performed in New Jersey using fine-rooted grasses showed that phytostimulation
ranges from $10 to $35 per ton of soil. Other technologies, such as incineration, range from $200 to
$1,000 per ton of soil

Plant roots uptake metal
contaminants from the soil
Translocate them from the
root to aerial tissues (stems
and leaves)
Transform into carbonate, sulphate, or
phosphate precipitate and immobilizing
them in apoplastic (extracellular) and
symplastic (intracellular) compartments
Process of Phytoextraction (Lasat, 2000; Raskin et al., 2000).
• Phytoremediation used plants to break down or degrade organic pollutants or remove and stabilize metal
contaminants.
• A plant used for phytoremediation needs to be heavy-metal tolerant, grow rapidly with a high biomass yield
per hectare, have high metal-accumulating ability in the foliar parts, have a profuse root system, and a high
bioaccumulation factor (Scragg, 2006).
• Hyperaccumulator plant species are used on metalliferous sites due to their tolerance of relatively high level
of pollution.
Phytoremediation

Figure 7: Strategies for phytoremediation. Figure 8: Long-term phytoextraction sunflower
plantation field site in Bettwiesen, Switzerland.
Examples: Willow (Salix viminalis L.), Indian
mustard (Brassica juncea L.), corn (Zea mays L.),
and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) have
reportedly shown high uptake and tolerance to
heavy metals (Schmidt, 2003).

Degradation by enzyme produced by plant or via metabolic processes within the plant
Phytotransformation
• 2 processes can occurs which are (1) storage of chemicals into plant via LIGNIFICATION, and (2) complete
conversion to carbon dioxide and water (mineralization).
• Certain enzymes produced by plants are able to breakdown and convert chlorinated solvent (e.g.,
trichloroethylene)
The release of volatile contaminant to the atmosphere via plant transpiration.
Phytovolatilization
• The metal and metalloids are converted into less toxic and volatile form.
• Modified by plant and released to atmosphere
Other mechanisms of phytoremediation used in contaminated
soil remediation

CONCLUSION
• In order to solve the environmental issue involving heavy oils wholly, the suggested plans to
perform in-situ treatment is starting from:
• Bio-surfactant will aid in removing the oil that contaminate the soil. Besides that, this also could
increase the bioavailability of the contaminants.
• However, the main steps will be the next 4 steps. As there are involvements of biological
organisms as well as catalyst to help in removal of contaminants completely.
ed
Step 1 :
Biosurfactant
Step 2 :
Bioaugmentation
Step 3 :
Biostimulation
Step 5:
Phytoremediation

• Introduction of microbes (fungi) into the system
• To degrade hydrocarbon contamination & to lower contamination concentration
• White rot fungi will degrade the hydrocarbon better compared to bacteria
• The fungi able to degrade the hydrocarbon using extracellular enzymes and it can
penetrate deeper in soil using the hyphae.
Step 1 : Bioaugmentation
• Use biosolid as a method of delivery. It consist of nitrogen source in the form of urea
and plant waste such as rice straw.
• It can increase the nutrient content.
• Plant waste make the soil become more porous which enhance the dispersion microbe
into the whole part of soil by supplying the water flow and give good aeration.
Step 2 : Biostimulation
• Enzymatic remediation can be simpler than working with whole organism.
• Can be increased in laboratory conditions.
• Use laccases which can easily get from Myceliophtora thermophila and Saccharomyces
cerevisae. Capable catalyzing the oxidation of phenols, polyphenols and anilines.
• For Hydrocarbon contaminants : Using phytostimulation (enhance microbes for
hydrocarbon degradation.)
• For heavy metals contaminants : Ni, Cd, Pb, Cu (sunflower, indian mustard)
• Reason : They are good hyper accumulator and have high tolerance to heavy metals.
• They will be extracted from the sites and are not for consumption and to feed the
others.
Step 4 : Phytoremediation
ed
Biotechnology application proposed to treat heavy oils:

REFERENCE
1. Das, N., & Chandran, P. (2011). Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants: an overview. Biotechnology research international, 2011.
2. Cameotra, S. S., & Singh, P. (2008). Bioremediation of oil sludge using crude biosurfactants. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 62(3), 274-280.
3. Eggen, T., & Majcherczyk, A. (1998). Removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in contaminated soil by white rot fungus Pleurotus ostreatus. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 41(2), 111-117.
4. Novotný, Č., Erbanova, P., Cajthaml, T., Rothschild, N., Dosoretz, C., & Šašek, V. (2000). Irpex lacteus, a white rot fungus applicable to water and soil bioremediation. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54(6),
850-853.
5. Pointing, S. (2001). Feasibility of bioremediation by white-rot fungi. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 57(1), 20-33.
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Agriculturally Based Bioremediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Soils and Shallow Groundwater in Pacific Island Ecosystems, 2003
7. A, Mrozik & Z. P, Seget. (2009), Bioaugmentation as a strategy for cleaning up of soils contaminated with aromatic compounds. Microbiological Research, (363-375).
8. Santos, D., Rufino, R., Luna, J., Santos, V., & Sarubbo, L. (2016). Biosurfactants: Multifunctional Biomolecules of the 21st Century. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 17(3), 401. MDPI AG. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms17030401
9. F. Benyahia & . A. S. Embaby. (2015). Bioremediation of Crude Oil Contaminated Desert Soil: Effect of Biostimulation, Bioaugmentation and Bioavailability in Biopile Treatment Systems. International of Journal
Environmental Research and Public Health. 13, 219
10. W. Liu, Y. Luo, Y. Teng, Z. Li, & Q. M, Lena. (2010). Bioremediation of oily sludge-contaminated soil by stimulating indigenous microbes. Environ Geochem Health. (32:23–29)
11. R.A. Wuana, F.E. Okieimen. (2011). Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecology, pp. 1-20.
12. GWRTAC. (1997). “Remediation of metals-contaminated soils and groundwater,” Tech. Rep. TE-97-01,, GWRTAC, Pittsburgh, Pa, USA, GWRTAC-E Series.
13. W. Ling, Q. Shen, Y. Gao, X. Gu, and Z. Yang. (2007). “Use of bentonite to control the release of copper from contaminated soils,” Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 618–623.
14. M. Farrell, W. T. Perkins, P. J. Hobbs, G. W. Griffith, and D. L. Jones. (2010). “Migration of heavy metals in soil as influenced by compost amendments,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 158, no. 1, pp. 55–64.
15. B. H. Jasperse and C. R. Ryan. (1992). “Stabilization and fixation using soil mixing,” in Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Grouting, Soil Improvement, and Geosynthetics, ASCE Publications, Reston, Va,
USA.
16. L. A. Smith, J. L. Means, A. Chen et al. (2008). Remedial Options for Metals-Contaminated Sites, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla, USA,, 1995.
17. K. Maturi and K. R. Reddy, “Extractants for the removal of mixed contaminants from soils,” Soil and Sediment Contamination, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 586–608.
18. H. Zhang, Z. Dang, L. C. Zheng, and X. Y. Yi. (2009). “Remediation of soil co-contaminated with pyrene and cadmium by growing maize (Zea mays L.),” International Journal of Environmental Science an Technology, vol.
6, no. 2, pp. 249– 258.
19. T. C. Chen and A. Hong. (1995). “Chelating extraction of lead an copper from an authentic contaminated soil using N-(2-acetamido) iminodiacetic acid and S-carboxymethyl-Lcysteine,”Journal of Hazardous Materials,
vol. 41, no. 2-3, pp.147–160.
20. R. A. Wuana, F. E. Okieimen, and J. A. Imborvungu. (2010). “Removal of heavy metals from a contaminated soil using organic chelating acids,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 7, no.
3, pp. 485–496.
21. S. D. Cunningham and D. W. Ow. (2006). “Promises and prospects of phytoremediation,” Plant Physiology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 715–719, 1996.
22. A. Scragg, Environmental Biotechnology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2nd edition.
23. M.M. Lasat. (2000). “Phytoextraction of metals from contaminated soil: a review of plant/soil/metal interaction and assessment of pertinent agronomic issues,” Journal of Hazardous Substances Research, vol. 2, pp.
1–25.
24. I. Raskin and B. D. Ensley. (2000). Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals: Using Plants to Clean Up the Environment, JohnWiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
25. U. Schmidt.. (2003). “Enhancing phytoextraction: the effect of chemical soil manipulation on mobility, plant accumulation and leaching of heavy metals,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 32, no. 6, pp.
26. Adams, G. O., Fufeyin, P. T., Okoro, S. E., & Ehinomen, I. (2015). Bioremediation, Biostimulation and Bioaugmention: A Review. International Journal of Environmental Bioremediation & Biodegradation, 3(1), 28-39.
27. Cameotra, S. S., & Singh, P. (2008). Bioremediation of oil sludge using crude biosurfactants. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 62(3), 274-280.
28. Das, K., Das, S., & Dhundasi, S. (2008). Nickel, its adverse health effects & oxidative stress. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 128(4), 412.
29. Faergestad, I. M. (2016). Heavy oil. Oilfield Review.
30. Irwin, R., Van Mouwerik, M., Stevens, L., Seese, M. D., & Basham, W. (1997). Environmental contaminants encyclopedia: Alkanes entry. National Parks Service. Water Resources Division. Fort Collins, Colorado.
31. Lee Jr, R. E., & Von Lehmden, D. J. (1973). Trace metal pollution in the environment. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 23(10), 853-857.
32. Mrozik, A., Piotrowska-Seget, Z., & Labuzek, S. (2003). Bacterial Degradation and Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 12(1).
33. Perelo, L. W. (2010). In situ and bioremediation of organic pollutants in aquatic sediments. Journal of hazardous materials, 177(1), 81-89.
34. Petry, T., Schmid, P., & Schlatter, C. (1996). The use of toxic equivalency factors in assessing occupational and environmental health risk associated with exposure to airborne mixtures of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). Chemosphere, 32(4), 639-648.
35. Santos, D. K. F., Rufino, R. D., Luna, J. M., Santos, V. A., & Sarubbo, L. A. (2016). Biosurfactants: multifunctional biomolecules of the 21st century. International journal of molecular sciences, 17(3), 401.
36. Vale, J., & Meredith, T. (1981). Poisoning due to Aliphatic, Aromatic and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Poisoning Diagnosis and Treatment (pp. 153-159): Springer Netherlands.
37. Das, N. and P. Chandran (2011). "Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminants: An Overview." Biotechnology Research International 2011.
38. Vidonish, J. E., et al. (2016). "Thermal Treatment of Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soils: A Review of Technology Innovation for Sustainable Remediation." Engineering 2(4): 426-437.

Heavy oils treatment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Heavy oils treatment

Similar to Heavy oils treatment (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Heavy oils treatment