ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY Contaminated Land and Bioremediation

1. ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY Contaminated Landand Bioremediation Chapter 2 Lecturer Dr. Kamal E. M. Elkahlout Assistant Prof. of Biotechnology

2. The importance of land remediation in cleaning up the residual effects of previous human activities on a site lies in two spheres. • Firstly, environmental legislation is becoming increasingly stringent. • Secondly, as the pressure grows to redevelop old, unused or derelict so-called ‘brown-field’ sites, rather than develop previously untouched ‘green-field’, the need to remove any legacy of previous occupation is clear. • A number of technologies are available to achieve such a clean-up, of which bioremediation.

3. The idea of ‘contaminated land’ is something which is readily understood, yet, like pollution, somewhat more difficult to define absolutely. • Implicit is the presence of substances which, when present in sufficient quantity or concentration, are likely to cause harm to the environment or human health. • Many kinds of sites may give rise to possible contamination concerns, such as asbestos works, chemical works, garages and service stations, gas works, incinerators, iron and steel works, metal fabrication shops, paper mills, tanneries, textile plants, timber treatment plants, railway yards and waste disposal sites.

4. Much of environmental biotechnology centers on the ‘unwanted’ aspects of human activity and the clean-up of contaminated land is one of this general trend. • As such, it is motivated by necessity and remedies are normally sought only when and where there is unacceptable risk to human health, the environment and occasionally to other vulnerable targets. • In broad terms it is possible to view the driving forces on remediation as characterized by a need to limit present or future liability, increase a site’s value, ease the way for a sale or transfer, comply with legislative, licensing or planning requirements, or to support corporate image or public relations.

5. Having established the need for treatment, the actual remedies to be employed will be based on a realistic set of priorities and will be related to the risk posed. • This will require adequate investigation and risk assessment to determine. • Moving to remediation is essentially commercial. • In purely economic terms, remediation will only take place when one or more of the driving forces becomes sufficiently compelling to make it unavoidable. • It will also tend towards the minimum acceptable standard necessary to achieve the required clean-up.

6. The goal of treating land is to make it suitable for a particular purpose or so that it no longer poses unacceptable risk. • Further treatment is typically not a good use of resources. • In the long term, the sustainable use of land largely depends on making sure that it is maintained at a level which enables its continued best use for its current or intended purpose. • In this respect, discussions of absolute quality become less relevant than a consideration of minimum acceptable standards.

7. The choice of method and the determination of the final remediation standard will always be chiefly governed by site-specific factors including intended use, local conditions and sensitivities, potential risk and available timeframe. • Remediation Methods • Soil remediation methods can be divided into: • • biological; • • chemical; • • physical; • • solidification/ vitrification; • • thermal.

8. Biological methods • Involve the transformation or mineralization of contaminants to less toxic, more mobile, or more toxic but less mobile, forms. • This can include fixation or accumulation in harvestable biomass crops. • The main advantages of these methods are their ability to destroy a wide range of organic compounds, their potential benefit to soil structure and fertility and their generally nontoxic, ‘green’ image. • On the other hand, the process end-point can be uncertain and difficult to gauge, the treatment itself may be slow and not all contaminants are conducive to treatment by biological means.

9. Chemical methods • Toxic compounds are destroyed, fixed or neutralized by chemical reaction. • The principal advantages are that under this approach, the destruction of biologically recalcitrant chemicals is possible and toxic substances can be chemically converted to either more or less biologically available ones, whichever is required. • On the downside, it is possible for contaminants to be incompletely treated. • The reagents necessary may themselves cause damage to the soil and often there is a need for some form of additional secondary treatment.

10. Physical methods • This involves the physical removal of contaminated materials, often by concentration and excavation, for further treatment or disposal. • It is purely physical with no reagent addition. • Applications and the concentration of contaminants significantly reduces the risk of secondary contamination. • Contaminants are not destroyed, the concentration achieved inevitably requires containment measures and further treatment of some kind is typically required.

11. Solidification/vitrification methods • Solidification is the encapsulation of contaminants within a monolithic solid of high structural integrity, with or without associated chemical fixation, when it is then termed ‘stabilization’. • Vitrificationuses high temperatures to fuse contaminated materials. • One major advantage is that toxic elements and/or compounds which cannot be destroyed, are rendered unavailable to the environment. • As a secondary benefit, solidified soils can stabilize sites for future construction work. • The contaminants are not actually destroyed and the soil structure is irrevocably damaged. • Significant amounts of reagents are required and it is generally not suitable for organic contaminants.

12. Thermal methods • Contaminants are destroyed by a heat treatment, using incineration, gasification, pyrolysis. • The principal advantage of this approach is that the contaminants are most effectively destroyed. • On the negative side, however, this is achieved at typically very high energy cost. • It is unsuitable for most toxic elements because of the strong potential for the generation of new pollutants. • In addition, soil organic matter, and, thus, at least some of the soil structure itself, is destroyed.

13. In Situ and Ex Situ Techniques • In situ • The major benefit is the low site disturbance. • This enables existing buildings and features to remain undisturbed, in many cases. • They also avoid many of the potential delays with methods requiring excavation and removal, while additionally reducing the risk of spreading contamination and the likelihood of exposing workers to volatiles. • In situ methods are suited to instances where the contamination is widespread throughout, and often at some depth within, a site, and of low to medium concentration. • Additionally, since they are relatively slow to act, they are of most use when the available time for treatment is not restricted.

14. Disadvantages: • The stringent requirement for thorough site investigation and survey. • Demanding a high level of resources by way of both desktop and intrusive methods. • Reaction conditions are not readily controlled. • The supposed process ‘optimization’ may, in practice, be less than optimum and the true end-point may be difficult to determine. • Finally, it is inescapable that all site monitoring has an in-built time lag and is heavily protocol dependent.

15. Ex situ • The main characteristic is that the soil is removed from where it originally lay, for treatment. • Strictly speaking this description applies whether the material is taken to another venue for clean-up, or simply to another part of the same site. • The main benefits are: • Conditions are more readily optimized. • Process control is easier to maintain. • Monitoring is more accurate and simpler to achieve. • Introduction of specialist organisms, on those occasions when they may be required, is easier and/or safer.

16. These approaches tend to be faster than corresponding in situ techniques. • They are best suited to instances of relatively localized pollution within a site, typically in ‘hot-spots’ of medium to relatively high concentration which are fairly near to the surface. • Main disadvantages: • Additional transport costs. • Increased likelihood of spillage, or potential secondary pollution, represented by such movement. • These approaches require a supplementary area of land for treatment and hence they are typically more expensive options.

17. As Figure 5.1 illustrates, the decision to use in situ or ex situ techniques is a comparatively straightforward ‘black-or-white’ issue at the extremes for either option. • However, the middle ground between them comprises many more shades of grey, and the ultimate resolution in these cases is, again, largely dependent on individual circumstance.

18. Figure 5.1 Factors affecting technology suitability

19. Intensive and Extensive Technologies • Alternative approach to categorize remediation activities. • It offer certain advantages over the earlier approach. • It is based on genuine similarities between technologies in each class. • Descriptions ‘intensive’ and ‘extensive’ have been suggested. • Intensive technologies can be characterized as; • sophisticated, fast-acting, high intervention strategies, with a heavy demand for resources and high initiation, running and support costs.

20. Their key factors are a fast response and low treatment time, which makes them excellent for heavy contamination conditions. • They can make an immediate lessening in pollutant impact. • Soil washing and thermal treatments are good examples of ‘intensive’ approaches. • Extensive methods • They are lower-level interventions, typically slower acting. • They are based on simpler technology and less sophisticated engineering. • They do less damage to soil quality.

21. With a smaller resource requirement and lower initiation, running and support costs. • These have a slower response and a higher treatment time. • Their lower costs make wider application possible • They are well suited to large-scale treatment where speed is not of the essence. • Examples include: • Composting, • Precipitation of metal sulphides under anaerobic conditions. • Cropping of heavy metal accumulator plants.

22. It is possible to examine the various forms of land remediation technologies in terms of their overall functional principle. • The approaches may be categorized as ‘destructive’, ‘separating’ or ‘containing’, dependent on their fundamental mode of operation. • Systemization is defined on the basis of representing the fate of the pollutant, rather than the geographical location of the work or the level of complexity of the technology used, as in the previous cases. • In addition, it can also be relatively easily extended to take account of any given technology.

26. Process Integration • All the individual technologies available each have their limitations. • Use of a combination approach will enhance remediation effectiveness. • Integrating different processes to provide an overall treatment. • In USA it is described as ‘bundled technologies’ or ‘treatment trains’. • The goal of process integration can be achieved by combining both different fundamental technologies (e.g. biological and chemical) and sequences of in situ or ex situ, intensive or extensive regimes of processing.

27. Complex contamination scenarios can be treated more cheaply, by the integrated combination of lower cost techniques. • This ensures higher cost individual methods to be used only where absolutely necessary. • Example in the case of major contamination events or acute pollution incidents. • With limited resources available for remediation work, treatment trains offer the possibility of maximizing their utilization by enabling responsible management decisions to be made on the basis of meaningful cost/benefit analysis.

28. The Suitability of Bioremediation • Bioremediation as a biotechnological intervention for cleaning up the residual effects of previous human activities on a site. • Typically relies on the inherent abilities and characteristics of indigenous bacteria, fungi or plant species. • In the present discussion, the emphasis will concentrate on the contribution made by the first two types of organism.

29. Phytoremediation: the use of plants, including bioaccumulation, phytoextraction, phytostabilization and rhizofiltration, all of which • It will be examined as part of a separate chapter. • The biological mechanisms underlying the relevant processes are biosorption, demethylation, methylation, metal-organic complexation or chelation, ligand degradation or oxidation. • Microbes capable of utilizing a variety of carbon sources and degrading a number of typical contaminants are commonly found in soils. • By enhancing and optimizing conditions for them, they can be encouraged to do what they do naturally, but more swiftly and/or efficiently.

30. This is the basis of the majority of bioremediation and proceeds by means of one of the three following general routes. • Mineralisation, in which the contaminant is taken up by microbe species, used as a food source and metabolized, thereby being removed & destroyed. • Incomplete, or staged, decomposition is also possible. • It is resulting in the generation and possible accumulation of intermediate byproducts, which may themselves be further treated by other micro-organisms.

31. Co-metabolism: the contaminant is taken up by microbes but is not used as food, being metabolized alongside the organism’s food into a less hazardous. • Subsequently, this may in turn be mineralised by other microbial species. • Immobilization: to the removal of contaminants, typically metals, by means of adsorption or bioaccumulation by various micro-organism or plant species. • Bioremediation is most suited to organic chemicals, • It can be effective in the treatment of certain inorganic substances and some unexpected ones. • Metals and radionuclides are examples of this.

32. Contaminants are not directly biodegradable themselves, under certain circumstances their speciation can be changed. • They may ultimately lead to their becoming either more mobile & accessible or less so. • Typical contaminants suitable for bioremediation would include the likes of crude oil and its derivatives, some varieties of fungicides and herbicides, hydrocarbons, glycols, phenols, surfactants and even explosives. • Developments in bioprocessing made many chemicals once thought ‘impossible’ are now routinely dealt with biologically. Table 5.1

34. Factors Affecting the use of Bioremediation • They can be divided into two groups: • Factors related to the character of contamination. • They encompass both the chemical nature of the pollutants & the physical state in which they are found in a given incident. • A given substance to be open to bioremediation, it must be both • susceptible to, and readily available for, biological decomposition. • It must also be dissolved, or at the very least, in contact with soil water and typically of a low–medium toxicity range.

35. The principal environmental factors of significance are temperature, pH and soil type. • Bioremediation tends to rely on the natural abilities of indigenous soil organisms. • Treatment can occur between 0–50 ◦C, since these temperatures will be tolerated. • The ideal range (20–30 ◦C). • Optimum pH (6.5–7.5) • Depending on individual used species, ranges of 5.0–9.0 may be acceptable. • Generally, sands and gravels are the most suitable soil types for bioremediation.

36. Heavy clays and those with a high organic content, like peaty soils, are less well indicated. • This is not an absolute restriction with developments in bioremediation techniques. • Factors depend on environmental conditions. • Nutrient availability, oxygenation and the presence of other inhibitory contaminants. • Suitability of biological treatment depends on: • The site character, whether it is contained or if the groundwater runs off. • What contaminants are present, where they are, in what concentrations and whether they are biodegradable.

37. Other typical considerations: • The required remediation targets and how much time is available to achieve them. • How much soil requires treatment, what alternative treatment methods are available and at what cost. • Benefits to the biological approach in terms of sustainability: • Contaminant removal or destruction and the fact that it is possible to treat large areas with low impact or disturbance. • Limitations: • Bioremediation is often relatively slower, especially in situ. • It is not equally suitable for all soils.

38. Soil properties may often be the largest single influence on the overall functional character of pollution. • Those properties are major factors in modifying the empirical contamination effect. • The primary influence consists of the contaminants themselves and actual origin of the contamination, which clearly have a major bearing on the overall picture. • Edaphic factors such as the soil type, depth, porosity, texture, moisture content, water-holding capacity, humus content and biological activity may all interact with the primary influences, and/or with each other, to modify the contamination effect, for better or worse.

39. Figure 5.3 is a simplified illustration of this relationship

40. The decision which technique is the most appropriate is a site-specific issue. • It must be made on the basis of the edaphic matters together with proper risk assessment and site surveys. • When this has been done, and approval has been gained from the relevant statutory, regulatory or licensing bodies, as applicable, the last phase is to implement the remediation work itself.

41. Essential Features of Biological Treatment Systems • All biotechnology treatments have certain central similarities. • The majority of applications make use of indigenous, resident microbes. • In some cases the addition of specialized organisms may be warranted. • The functional biology may be described as a process of bio-enhancement or bio-augmentation, or occasionally a mixture of both. • Bioenhancement concentrates solely on the existing microfauna, stimulating their activity by the manipulation of local environmental conditions.

42. Bioaugmentation, requires the planned introduction of selected microbes to bring about the required clean-up. • These additions may be unmodified ‘wildtype’ organisms, a culture selectively acclimatized to the particular conditions to be encountered, or genetically engineered to suit the requirements. • Enzyme or other living system extracts may also be used to further facilitate their activity. • Some land remediation methods simultaneously bioenhance resident bacteria and bioaugment the process with the addition of fungi to the soil under treatment.

43. All biological approaches are expressly designed to optimize the activities of the various micro-organisms (either native to the particular soil or artificially introduced) to bring about the desired remediation. • This generally means letting them do what they would naturally do but enhancing their performance to achieve it more rapidly and/or more efficiently. • Effectively it is little different from accelerated natural attenuation and typically involves management of aeration, nutrients and soil moisture, by means of their addition, manipulation or monitoring, dependent on circumstance.

44. Many interrelated factors is essential to achieve this goal. • Aerobic biodegradation requires an oxygen level of at least 2 mg/litre; • Any oxygen can be toxic during anaerobic bioremediation mechanism. • The presence of certain organic chemicals, heavy metals or cyanides may inhibit biological activity. • Under certain circumstances microbial action may itself give rise to undesirable side effects like iron precipitation, or the increased mobilization of heavy metals within the soil.

45. In situ techniques • In situ engineered bioremediation involves introducing oxygen and nutrients to the contaminated area. • Various methods are applied by modifying conditions within the soil or groundwater. • Three major techniques commonly employed, namely biosparging, bioventing and injection recovery.

46. Biosparging • It is used to remediate contamination at, or below, the water table boundary, (Figure 5.4).

47. The process involves superaeration of the groundwater, thereby stimulating accelerated contaminant biodegradation. • The permeability of the overlying soil has a bearing on the process, since increased oxygenation of this stratum inevitably benefits the overall efficiency of remediation. • Air is introduced via pipes sunk down into the contaminated area and forms bubbles in the groundwater. • The oxygen dissolves into the water and increase the aeration of the overlying soil, stimulating the activity of resident microbes, which leads to a speeding up of their natural ability to metabolize the polluting substances.

48. The method of delivery can range from relatively simple to the more complicated, dependent on individual requirements. • One of the major advantages of this is that the required equipment is fairly standard and readily available, which tends to keep installation costs down. • The Spurger control system consists of a pressure gauge and relief valve to vent excess air pressure, with associated flow meters and filter systems to clean particulates from the input. • More sophisticated versions can also include data loggers, telemetry equipment and remote control systems, to allow for more precise process management. • Site investigation, concentrating on site geology and hydrogeology in particular, is absolutely essential before any work starts.

49. Bioventing • A technique used to remediate contamination above the water table boundary (Figure 5.5) • It involves superaeration aiming to stimulate accelerated breakdown of the pollutants present. • It is taking place within the soil itself, instead of the groundwater. • It is not generally suitable for remediating sites with a water table within one meter of the surface. • Not suitable also for heavy or waterlogged soils, since air flow is compromised under these conditions.

50. Bioventing