Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
1.50
LTU 1 - Natural Attenuation
LTU 2 -Tilling
Pan 1 - control
Pan 2 - Biostimulation
Pan 3 - Bioaugmentation
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
Time (months)
Figure 7.36 Comparison of PAH removal in LTUs and troughs.
Table 7.19 Summary of Conditions and Results in Each Pilot Study
System
Conditions
Removal Summary
LTU 1
Control
No tilling
Good total removal
Slow rate
Trough 1
Control
Weekly tilling
Poor removal
Different microbial community from LTU 1
LTU 2
Tilling biweekly for 6
months, followed by
tilling quarterly
Good total removal, slow rate
Different microbial community from LTU 1
Trough 2
Nutrients, bulking agent
Tilling weekly
Good total removal, faster than LTUs
Different microbial community than LTUs
Trough 3
Nutrients, bulking agent
Bioaugmentation
Tilling weekly
Good total removal, faster than LTUs
Similar microbial community to trough 2
7.5 Conclusions on utility in remediation
7.5.1 Conclusions from flask studies
Biosurfactant from P. aeruginosa strain 64 can extract PAHs from sand, illite
clay, and creosote-contaminated soil. P. aeruginosa strain 64 (the biosurfactant
producer used to enhance the bioavailability of soil PAHs) and S. paucimobilis
EPA 505 (providing cometabolic degradation of PAHs) were both success-
fully immobilized on vermiculite. These microbes were able to be stored in
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search