A.9 SIP for Fuel Oil in Groundwater for Remediation (NJ)

Adapted with permission from:  K. Key, K.L. Sublette, T. Johnnes, E. Raes, E. Sullivan, D. Ogles, B.R. Baldwin, and A, Biernacki. 2013. An in situ bioreactor for the treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater. Remediation. Spring. (Publication Pending).

EMD Technology

Contacts

Mr. Jon Malkin

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

(609) 633-1201

[email protected]

 

Mr. Eric J. Raes, PE, PP

Engineering and Land Planning Associates, Inc.

(908) 238-0544, ext. 10

[email protected]

A.9.1 Site Background and Knowledge from Traditional Methods

In 1994, a release of No. 2 fuel oil occurred beneath a historic house constructed in 1839. Fuel oil compounds persist beneath the structure. To date, several remedial efforts have been completed including soil removal, oxygen release compound injections, and a small-scale chemical oxidation remediation. Biostimulation was observed after the chemical oxidation, but was not sustained. Chemical testing indicated the following:

A.9.2 EMD Objectives and Approach

SIP was used for this site to evaluate the impacts of in situ chemical oxidation on the indigenous microbial organisms. Once biostimulationA remedial technique which provides the electron donor, electron acceptor, and/or nutrients to an existing subsurface microbial community to promote degradation. was observed, SIP and qPCR were used to confirm that biostimulation processes could be sustained through the use of an in situ bio-reactor (ISBR).

The initial testing included the following activities.

The use of EMDs during chemical oxidation revealed that the site was suitable for biostimulation of the petroleum compounds. The full-scale effort included sustainable aerobic biostimulation and microbial analyses

Sustainable aerobic biostimulation was achieved through the installation of a novel ISBR (see Figure A.9-1). The central portion of the ISBR is filled with Bio-Sep beads; the sparge stone resides on the bottom of bead bed and serves two functions:

Figure A.9-1. Photographs of the ISBR; photographs show dye released at base of ISBR is “uplifted” through the beads and exits the top into the well.

Source: K. Sublette 2012. Used with permission.

Microbial analyses using qPCR of the EMD sampling device (Bio-Trap® Sampler) three months after the ISBR was installed in the well confirmed that microbial gene NAH expression was occurring, supporting the conclusion that biodegradation of the petroleum hydrocarbons was occurring.

A.9.3 Results

The results from sampling during and after chemical oxidation events demonstrated:

 

Figure A.9-2. SIP results before, during, and after ISCO.

Source: E. Raes 2012. Used with permission.

After six months of operations, a groundwater sample was collected from well WP-1R; the results were below the NJDEP GWQS for the first time in 17 years (see Figure A.9-3). In fact, the results were reported as nondetect for all targeted volatile organic and base neutral compounds, and nondetect for VOCs TICs. Base neutral TICs were reported as 135 mg/l.

 

Figure A.9-3. Comparison of SIP results after ISCO and ISBR operations.

Source: E. Raes 2012. Used with permission.

A.9.4 Conclusions

A.9.5 Costs

Table A.9-1 summarizes the analytical costs associated with the EMDs used in this study.

Table A.9-1 Summary of analytical costs associated with the EMDs during the study

EMD

No. of Samples

Cost per Sample

Total Cost

Bio-Trap®

9

$75

$675

SIP (Mass loss)

9

$300

$2,700

qPCR (DNA/mRNA)

9

$550

$4,950

DIC

9

$250

$2,250

TOTAL

 

-

$10,575.00

 

A.9.6 Outcomes and Challenges

The most significant challenges were as follows:

A.9.7 References

Baldwin, B. R., Nakatsu, C. H., and Nies, L. 2003. "Detection and enumeration of aromatic oxygenaseAn enzyme that catalyzes the incorporation of molecular oxygen into a compound (based on Madigan et al. 2010). genes by multiplex and real-time PCR. [Evaluation Studies Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]." Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69(6):3350-3358.

Baldwin, B. R., Biernacki, A., Blair, J., Purchase, M. P., Baker, J. M., Sublette, K., Ogles, D. 2010. "Monitoring gene expression to evaluate oxygen infusion at a gasoline-contaminated site." Environmental Science & Technology 44(17):6829-6834. doi: 10.1021/es101356t.

Geyer, R., Peacock, A. D., Miltner, A., Richnow, H. H., White, D. C., Sublette, K. L., & Kastner, M. 2005. "In situ assessment of biodegradation potential using biotraps amended with 13C-labeled benzene or toluene. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.]." Environmental Science & Technology 39(13):4983-4989.

Johnson D.R., P.K. Lee, V.F. Holmes, L. Alvarez-Cohen. 2005.  "An internal reference technique for accurately quantifying specific mRNAs by real-time PCR with application to the tceA reductive dehalogenaseAn enzyme that catalyzes the removal of a halogen atom from an organic compound. gene." Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71(7):3866-3871.

Key, K.L. Sublette, D. Ogles, B.R. Baldwin, and Raes, E.J. 2013. "An in situ bioreactor for the treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater." Remediation. Spring.

Suzuki, M. T., Taylor, L. T., & DeLong, E. F. 2000. "Quantitative Analysis of Small-Subunit rRNA Genes in Mixed Microbial Populations via 5′-Nuclease Assays." Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66(11):4605-4614. doi: 10.1128/aem.66.11.4605-4614.

 

 


Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer).

 

This web site is owned by ITRC.

1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 | P: (202) 266-4933 • F: (202) 266-4937

Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Usage Policy

 

ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States