Advertisement

Protocol for Biopile Construction Treating Contaminated Soils with Petroleum Hydrocarbons

  • Guozhong Wu
  • Frédéric CoulonEmail author
Protocol
  • 392 Downloads
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)

Abstract

When investigating the treatment of contaminated soils, the application of biotreatment is growing rapidly. Factors influencing this rapid growth include that the bioremediation processes are cost-efficient, safe, and nature-based. In the past, thermal, chemical, and physical treatment methods have failed to eliminate the pollution problem because those methods only shift the environmental pollutants to a new environmental phase such as air and water. Bioremediation technology, which leads to degradation of pollutants, may be a lucrative and environmentally beneficial alternative. Two major groups of bioremediation treatment techniques are used: in situ and ex situ remediation. While in situ remediation is more cost-effective, the thoroughness of this method is less effective than the ex situ remediation. Ex situ remediation is less cost-effective but is a more thorough remediation method. This paper presents biopile design settings and example of calculation for design.

Keywords

Biopile Bioremediation Composting Petroleum hydrocarbons 

References

  1. 1.
    USEPA (1995) How to evaluate alternative cleanup technologies for underground storage tank sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 510-B-95-007, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    USEPA (1995) Abstracts of remediation case studies. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 542-R-95-001, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    USEPA (1995) A citizen’s guide to soil washing. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 542-F-96-002, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    USEPA (1996) In situ soil vapor extraction. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    USEPA (1996) A citizen’s guide to natural attenuation. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 542-F-96-015, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    USEPA (1996) A citizen’s guide to treatment walls. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 542-F-96-016, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    USEPA (1996) A citizen’s guide to in situ soil flushing. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 542-F-96-006, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    USEPA (1996) A citizen’s guide to in situ thermal desorption. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 542-F-96-005, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    USEPA (1996) A citizen’s guide to phytoremediation. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 542-F-96-014, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    USEPA (1996) A citizen’s guide to bioremediation. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 542-F-96-007, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    USEPA (1998) Soil vapor extraction (SVE). Office of Underground Storage Tank, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 510-B-95-007, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    USEPA (1998) Landfarming. Office of Underground Storage Tank, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 510-B-95-007, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    USEPA (1998) Biosparging. Office of Underground Storage Tank, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 510-B-95-007, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    USEPA (1998) Bioventing. Office of Underground Storage Tank, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 510-B-95-007, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    USEPA (1998) Biopiles. Office of Underground Storage Tank, US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA 510-B-95-007, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    FRTR (1999) Landfarming. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    FRTR (1999) Passive/reactive treatment walls. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    FRTR (1999) Bioslurping. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    FRTR (1999) In situ solidification/stabilization. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    FRTR (1999) In and ex situ solidification/stabilization. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    FRTR (1999) Ground water pumping. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    FRTR (1999) Soil flushing. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    FRTR (1999) UV oxidation. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    FRTR (1999) Thermal desorption. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    FRTR (1999) Bioventing. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    FRTR (1999) Biopiles. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    FRTR (1999) Phytoremediation. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    FRTR (1999) Aeration. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    FRTR (1999) Slurry phase biological treatment. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    FRTR (1999) In-well air stripping. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    FRTR (1999) Incineration. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reddy KR, Admas JF, Richardson C (1999) Potential technologies for remediation of brownfield. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manage 3:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    RAAG (2000) Evaluation of risk based corrective action model. Remediation Alternative Assessment Group, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, NF, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gan S, Lau EV, Ng HK (2009) Remediation of soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). J Hazard Mater 172:532–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khan FI, Husain T, Hejazi R (2004) An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J Environ Manage 71:95–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellis DE, Hadley PW (2009) Sustainable remediation white paper-integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. 2009 U.S. Sustainable Remediation ForumGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vidali M (2001) Bioremediation. An overview. Pure Appl Chem 73:1163–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kumar A, Bisht B, Joshi V, Dhewa T (2011) Review on bioremediation of polluted environment: a management tool. Int J Environ Sci 1:1079–1093Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Coulon F, Whelan MJ, Paton GI, Semple KT, Villa R, Pollard SJT (2010) Multimedia fate of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil: oil matrix of constructed biopiles. Chemosphere 81:1454–1462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Coulon F, Al Awadi M, Cowie W, Mardlin D, Pollard S, Cunningham C, Risdon G, Arthur P, Semple KT, Paton GI (2010) When is a soil remediated? Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial. Environ Pollut 158:3032–3040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wu G, Kechavarzi C, Li X, Sui H, Pollard SJT, Coulon F (2013) Influence of mature compost amendment on total and bioavailable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in contaminated soils. Chemosphere 90:2240–2246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    von Fahnestock FM, Smith LA, Wickramanayake G, Place MC (1996) Biopile design and construction manual. NFESC, Port HuenemeGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Risdon GC, Pollard SJT, Brassington KJ, McEwan JN, Paton GI, Semple KT, Coulon F (2008) Development of an analytical procedure for weathered hydrocarbon contaminated soils within a UK risk-based framework. Anal Chem 80:7090–7096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Coulon F, Brassington K, Bazin R, Linnet P, Thomas K, Mitchell T, Lethbridge G, Smith J, Pollard S (2012) Effect of fertilizer formulation and bioaugmentation on biodegradation and leaching of crude oils and refined products in soils. Environ Technol 33:1879–1893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Goetz J, Brenner RC (2002) Application, performance, and costs of biotreatment technologies for contaminated soils. http://thewatchers.us/EPA/11/2002-not-culturable-in-lab.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Energy, Environment and Agrifood, Cranfield UniversityCranfieldUK
  2. 2.Shenzhen Key Laboratory for Coastal Ocean Dynamic and Environment, Division of Ocean Science and TechnologyGraduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations