BIOMEDIATION METHOD

Abstract

A method for enhancing in situ bioremediation of a volume containing groundwater and a quantity of contaminant, the method comprising the steps of: quantifying the mass of the contaminant; and amending the volume by adding thereto a compound that provides a source of NO.sub.3.sup.−. The method is characterized in that the compound is added such that the mass of the NO.sub.3.sup.− source is provided at the ratio of about 1 mg NO.sub.3.sup.− per 0.21 mg contaminant. The contaminant can be BTEX or petroleum-related VOC.

Claims

1. A method for enhancing in situ bioremediation of a volume containing groundwater and a quantity of petroleum-related VOC contaminant, the method comprising the steps of: quantifying the mass of the contaminant; (ii) amending the volume in situ by adding thereto a compound that provides a source of NO.sub.3.sup.− characterized in that the compound is added such that the mass of the NO.sub.3.sup.− source is provided at the ratio of about 1 mg NO.sub.3.sup.− per 0.21 mg contaminant.

2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the compound is selected from anhydrous ammonia, urea, ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate.

3. A method according to claim 1, wherein the compound is potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate.

4. A method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps: (iii) monitoring the concentration of the contaminant in the groundwater in the volume until it stabilizes; and (iv) repeating steps (i)-(iii) until the desired level of decontamination has been achieved.

5. A method for enhancing in situ bioremediation of a volume containing groundwater and a quantity of a BTEX contaminant, the method comprising the steps of: quantifying the mass of the contaminant; (ii) amending the volume in situ by adding thereto a compound that provides a source of NO.sub.3.sup.− characterized in that the compound is added such that the mass of the NO.sub.3.sup.− source is provided at the ratio of about 1 mg NO.sub.3.sup.− per 0.21 mg contaminant.

6. A method according to claim 5, wherein the compound is selected from anhydrous ammonia, urea, ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate.

7. A method according to claim 5, wherein the nitrogen compound is potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate.

8. A method according to claim 5, further comprising the steps: (iii) monitoring the concentration of the contaminant in the groundwater in the volume until it stabilizes; and (iv) repeating steps (i)-(iii) until the desired level of decontamination has been achieved.

9. A method for enhancing in situ bioremediation of an earthen volume containing groundwater and a quantity of a contaminant, the contaminant selected from one or more of TABLE-US-00005 benzene toluene ethylbenzene xylene alkylbenzene naphthalene methyl tertiary butyl ether 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene 1,3,5 trimethylbenzene n-propylbenzene n-butylbenzene p-isopropyltoluene the method comprising the steps of: (i) quantifying the mass of the contaminant; (ii) amending the volume in situ by adding thereto a compound that defines a source of NO.sub.3.sup.−, characterized in that the compound is added such that the mass of the NO.sub.3.sup.− source is provided at the ratio of about 1 mg NO.sub.3.sup.− per 0.21 mg contaminant; (iii) monitoring the concentration of the contaminant in the groundwater in the volume until it stabilizes; and (iv) repeating steps (i)-(iii) until the desired level of decontamination has been achieved.

10. A method according to claim 9, wherein the nitrogen compound is selected from anhydrous ammonia, urea, ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate.

11. A method according to claim 9, wherein the nitrogen compound is potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate.

12. A method according to claim 2, further comprising the steps: (iii) monitoring the concentration of the contaminant in the groundwater in the volume until it stabilizes; and (iv) repeating steps (i)-(iii) until the desired level of decontamination has been achieved.

13. A method according to claim 6, further comprising the steps: (iii) monitoring the concentration of the contaminant in the groundwater in the volume until it stabilizes; and (iv) repeating steps (i)-(iii) until the desired level of decontamination has been achieved.

14. A method according to claim 1 wherein the source of NO.sub.3.sup.− is in salt form.

15. A method according to claim 5 wherein the source of NO.sub.3.sup.− is in salt form.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0031] FIG. 1 shows a plan view of a bioremediation site.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0032] It has been found that the addition of NO.sub.3.sup.− salts that enhance denitrification decreases the dissolved-phase hydrocarbons in the groundwater system, and, even more surprisingly, decreases the VOC source mass present. It has also been found that addition of denitrification agents can be made in a controlled manner which minimizes or eliminates excess groundwater NO.sub.3.sup.− concentration. The appropriate amount of denitrification agent to be added can be determined, by balancing the reaction stochiometry, calculating the amount of source mass and other electron donor sinks, and deliberately underloading the denitrification agent such that a sufficient amount is provided to decrease the groundwater dissolved-phase hydrocarbon concentration (and/or the VOC source mass) while minimizing the residual nitrates present after such remedial action. Such minimizing of residual nitrates prevents or minimizes the formation of algae blooms in receiving surface waters and other potential undesirable environmental effects of NO.sub.3.sup.− salt amendment.

[0033] Injection of NO.sub.3.sup.− salts is found to be advantageous, as compared to traditional methods involving injection of oxygen, for a number of reasons. NO.sub.3.sup.− salts have aqueous solubility limits that are orders of magnitude greater than oxygen, which allows for supply/addition of much higher amounts of NO.sub.3.sup.−, much more easily than the injection of oxygen. NO.sub.3.sup.− salts are relatively low cost, and can be delivered via a low-technology injection approach such as Direct Push Technology equipped with a grout pump.

[0034] Because smaller microbial population densities are expected through the use of a denitrification enhancement agent (as compared to use of oxygen, given denitrification is less metabolically efficient than aerobic respiration), biofouling problems are typically less significant than the oxygen pathway. Other advantages are that NO.sub.3.sup.− supplies the inorganic nutrient, Nitrogen, which may further stimulate microbial activity, and that, because denitrification consumes hydrogen ions, NO.sub.3.sup.− respiration may also elevate groundwater pH. Given VOC-degrading bacteria can become inhibited under low pH conditions, especially within petroleum hydrocarbon plumes, where biogenic carbon dioxide produced during hydrocarbon metabolism produces carbonic acid (which depresses pH), the consumption of hydrogen ions, which elevates pH and enhances microbial metabolism.

[0035] Interestingly, because addition of oxygen contributes to the aerobic metabolic pathway, and addition of NO.sub.3.sup.− contributes to the anaerobic pathway, synergistic remediation methods wherein both oxygen and NO.sub.3.sup.− are added can be advantageous. Likewise, since the addition of NO.sub.3.sup.− contributes to the anaerobic pathway of most if not all anaerobic bacteria, synergistic remediation methods wherein both the addition of exogenous bacteria and NO.sub.3.sup.− are added can be advantageous.

[0036] “Contaminated groundwater”, as it is used in this description, is meant to include all sources of groundwater that have been contaminated by volatile organic compounds and/or allied chemicals.

[0037] “Denitrification enhancement agent” includes any substance known to enhance denitrification by indigenous soil bacteria. This includes compounds that are sources of NO.sub.3.sup.−,such as NO.sub.3.sup.− salts, NO.sub.2, NO, and/or N.sub.2O. Denitrification has a relatively high redox potential, and is the next step down the terminal electron acceptor ladder from molecular oxygen. Denitrification can yield kinetic degradation rates on the order of aerobic mineralization. NO.sub.3.sup.− respiration is the anaerobic metabolic analog to oxygen respiration, and oxidized nitrogen species serve as the terminal electron acceptor under anaerobic conditions, to collect the electrons released by the anaerobic metabolic cycle. Denitrification occurs under anoxic conditions in which NO.sub.3.sup.−, organic carbon, and, of course, soil bacteria are present. During denitrification, NO.sub.3.sup.− is ultimately transformed to molecular nitrogen (N.sub.2) through the following simplified reaction:

2NO.sub.3.sup.−10e.sup.−+12H.sup.+--->N.sub.2+6H.sub.2O

[0038] Denitrifying bacteria can also respire nitrite (NO.sub.2), nitric oxide (NO), and nitrous oxide N.sub.2O). Because NO.sub.3.sup.− has the highest oxidation state (+5, as compared to +3, +2 and +1, respectively for NO.sub.2, NO and/or N.sub.2O), a source of NO.sub.3.sup.− is the preferred denitrification enhancement agent.

[0039] “NO.sub.3.sup.− salts” mean any salts of NO.sub.3.sup.−, whether in salt or ionized form. NO.sub.3.sup.− salts include but are not necessarily limited to potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate.

[0040] “Volatile Organic Compounds” include any petroleum-based products and products derived from petroleum, that are volatile or semi-volatile in nature and biodegradable, and include the petroleum hydrocarbons benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, any form of xylene, any form of alkylbenzene, including 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, n-butylbenzene, p-isopropyltoluene and other hydrocarbons.

EXAMPLES

Example 1

Nitrate Amendment to Contaminated Groundwater

[0041] Groundwater sampling was performed at a site known to be contaminated with VOCs. Samples of groundwater were collected from a groundwater well and the following baseline parameters were measured: VOC concentration, NO.sub.3.sup.− concentration, level of dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance, and temperature. Samples were also collected from four groundwater wells monitoring wells at varying distances from the primary performance well.

[0042] Immediately after baseline sampling, a Passive Release Sock (PRS) containing about three pounds of sodium nitrate (Concord Crop Center, Concord, N.H.) was deployed below the top of the water column and straddling the well screen of the monitoring well. The PRS consisted of a 5 foot long, 1.5 inch outer diameter filter fabric sock, sealed at each end, constructed to release NO.sub.3.sup.− salt into the well bore upon hydration during deployment. About 1 pound of clean filter sand was added at the bottom of the PRS to provide negative ballast to position the PRS below the water level in the well bore during deployment.

[0043] Groundwater samples at the five wells were collected at 22, 36 and 50 days following deployment of the PRS. One additional set of groundwater samples was collected at 14 days following PRS removal to evaluate rebound intervals. At the 22 and 36 day time points, the PRS was observed to be completely depleted of NO.sub.3.sup.− salt, so fresh sodium nitrate was added to the PRS, following sampling, so that amendment of NO.sub.3.sup.− salt would continue. At the 50 day time point, the PRS was removed, so that at the 63 day time point reflected a two-week stabilization period during which NO.sub.3.sup.− salts amendments were not being made to site groundwater.

[0044] Groundwater samples from baseline and post PRS-deployment sampling rounds were transported in accordance with standard Chain of Custody protocol to a state-certified laboratory for analysis. An aliquot of each groundwater sample was analyzed in the field at the time of sample collection for Dissolved Oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and temperature, using parameter-specific electrodes.

[0045] Results for the primary performance well are summarized in Table 1; more detailed results can be found in Table 4.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 1 Summary of Groundwater VOC Data Baseline 50 days 64 days VOC (μg/L) (μg/L) % reduction (μg/L) Total BTEX* 386 0.0 100 7.7 Total VOCs 542.5 ND 100 10.3 Total 114.9 <1.0 100 ND Alkylbenzenes Benzene 9.8 <1 100 3.0 Naphthalene 21 <1.0 100 <2.0 *BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. **ND = Not detectable

[0046] NO.sub.3.sup.− salt amendment via the PRS achieved a 100% reduction in gross VOC concentrations. Significantly, following removal of the PRS, there was rebound for most performance metrics, due to source mass still being present in the formation and dissolving into the groundwater. This indicated that the reductions summarized in Table 1 were likely directly attributable to enhanced dentrification driven by NO.sub.3.sup.− salt amendment.

[0047] Results from another monitoring well closest to the PRS deployment well initially showed a spiked increase in total BTEX and total VOC at 22 days following PRS deployment, after which decreasing concentrations of both BTEX and total VOC were observed until 50 days, with minimal rebound at 64 days. The monitoring well furthest from the PRS deployment well did not show any effect of denitrification likely due to the de minimus loading of the PRS.

[0048] The results from the secondary well closest to the primary well (Well 2) are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 2 Well 2 results Baseline 50 days VOC (μg/L) (μg/L) % reduction Total BTEX* 2451 867 65 Total VOCs 3511 1798 49 Total 887.6 694 22 Alkylbenzenes Benzene 54 22 59 Naphthalene 120 170 −42

[0049] The results for the well second-closest to the PRS deployment well (Well 3) are summarized in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 3 Well 3 results Baseline 50 days VOC (μg/L) (μg/L) % reduction Total BTEX* 7034 876 88 Total VOCs 9749 1418 85 Total 2245 390 83 Alkylbenzenes Benzene 73 18 75 Naphthalene 310 100 68

[0050] PRS deployment generally resulted in significant reductions in VOC concentrations for contaminants of concern at the deployment and both downgradient monitoring well locations. Exceptions included a 42% increase in naphthalene concentration in Well 2. The reason for this increased concentration is unclear, but may represent analytical variability given that the baseline concentrations for this compound was one of the lowest detected of the entire baseline data set.

[0051] Total BTEX and total VOC concentrations were observed to rebound in both Well 2 and Well 3 at 64 days (14 days following end of treatment and removal of the PRS), indicating that the enhanced denitrification was the cause of the decreased concentration in these compounds observed during the study.

[0052] Wells 4 and 5 were too distant to be influenced by the NO.sub.3.sup.− salt administration via PRS at Well 1, especially given the de minimus amount of NO.sub.3.sup.−.

[0053] As discussed above, in addition to measurement of VOCs, various indicator parameters were also measured.

pH

[0054] Over the course of the 50 days, an overall increase in pH of about 0.5 to 1 standard unit was observed in groundwater samples collected from the primary well and from the secondary well closest to the primary well (Well 2). Since non-assimilatory NO.sub.3.sup.− reduction consumes hydrogen cations, the increased pH conditions at these wells provide a corroborating line of evidence that the denitrification petroleum hydrocarbon degradation pathway was driven by the NO.sub.3.sup.− salt amendment at the PRS deployment well. Only marginal increases in pH were noted at wells 4 and 5; these increases were likely not caused by the application of NO.sub.3.sup.− salt.

Specific Conductivity

[0055] An overall increase in specific conductivity, beyond the instrument's range of detection, was observed in groundwater samples collected at day 22 at the PRS deployment well; this increase in specific conductivity was observed throughout the remaining sample times and is consistent with NO.sub.3.sup.− salt amendment. A 31% increase in specific conductivity was also observed in Well 2 and is also consistent with NO.sub.3.sup.− salt amendment. There was no significant change in specific conductivity at Wells 3 and 4, and a decrease in specific conductivity was observed at Well 5.

Temperature

[0056] There was an overall increase in temperature throughout the study, likely due to the seasonal change from spring to summer. The temperature increase was seen in all wells. The temperature remained within a range suitable for microbial metabolism throughout the study.

Nitrates

[0057] Groundwater samples collected at the PRS deployment well immediately following NO.sub.3.sup.− amendment detected NO.sub.3.sup.− concentrations of over 20,000 mg/l. By 22 days, this level had dropped to less than 50 ug/l, suggesting that the NO.sub.3.sup.− was largely used up as the preferred terminal electron acceptor by denitrifying soil bacteria during petroleum hydrocarbon metabolism. Quite surprisingly, a 6 order of magnitude rebound in NO.sub.3.sup.− concentration was observed at 36 days, at the primary well. This rebound is consistent with residual source mass destruction. If only dissolved-phase petroleum hydrocarbons were destroyed and no residual source mass, NO.sub.3.sup.− concentrations would be expected to decrease consistently following each administration of NO.sub.3.sup.− as the NO.sub.3.sup.− was scavenged by residual source mass. Thus, this “rebound” is surprising evidence that administration of NO.sub.3.sup.− to groundwater not only breaks down the dissolved-phase petroleum hydrocarbons, but also the residual source mass.

[0058] Also surprising, the NO.sub.3.sup.− concentration at the site of PRS deployment was back to near normal levels just 2 weeks after the removal of the PRS (day 64). Note that the level of NO.sub.3.sup.− in the groundwater, both at the primary well 2 weeks after the removal of the PRS and at all secondary wells at all times was below the Ambient Groundwater Quality Standards for NO.sub.3.sup.−, (currently set at <10,000 ug/l), even though more than 20,000 mg/l was measured in the groundwater immediately following PRS deployment. This demonstrates that, surprisingly, NO.sub.3.sup.− amendment can be controlled and managed to be protective of groundwater quality when used appropriately. Most surprisingly, the addition of NO.sub.3.sup.− salt to groundwater destroys residual source mass, and should not contribute to algae bloom in receiving surface waters, since the levels of NO.sub.3.sup.− salt return to background just 2 weeks following amendment.

Post Phase 1

[0059] Monitoring was continued. Ongoing Phase 1 monitoring data indicated a slight rebound of petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations 6-12 months post nitrate amendment injection indicating the partial destruction and/or presence of residual source mass sorbed to the surface of site phreatic zone soil grains. Consistent with prediction, nitrate was not detected above analytical laboratory reporting limits, consistent with the results of the first phase of pilot testing.

[0060] Following on the success of Phase 1, the project was taken to Phase 2, namely, large-scale nitrate salt injection according to the present invention. A map showing the injection and monitoring wells is shown as FIG. 1 and the aggregated monitoring results of Phase 1 and Phase 2 are appended as Appendix A.

[0061] At well HA-4 an increase of nitrate salt concentrations in the groundwater of the petroleum-contaminated phreatic zone was observed. A similar increase was rapidly observed in downgradient monitoring wells GZ-4, GZ-5 and GZ-6 (listed in accordance with distance from injection area (around well HA-4).

[0062] Shortly thereafter, petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations are initially observed to increase as nitrate concentrations begin to decrease. Without intending to be bound by theory, this is believed to result from increased bioactivity of heterotrophic soil bacteria, namely, release of hydrocarbon desolubilizing enzymes, during the initial metabolism of petroleum constituents.

[0063] Subsequently, both nitrate salt and concentrations for the majority of petroleum metrics evaluated begin to significantly decrease, the exceptions being MtBE and benzene.

[0064] Benzene and MtBE migrate rapidly and this extended plume is believed to be representative of differential migration rates; however, trends (as like those above) ultimately reverse indicating a steady decrease in concentrations of both contaminants with additional nitrate reduction. As persons of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate, these results suggest that both contaminant and nitrate salt concentrations will ultimately attain concentrations reported as BDL.

[0065] The results were most pronounced at well GZ-4; wells GZ-5 and GZ-6 demonstrate similar patterns, but at lower orders of magnitude due to distance from injection area (HA-4)