phytoremediation along the indiana harbor canal€¦ · description of study • phytoremediation...

Steve Rock and Ann Whelan Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5 Office of Research and Development

Phytoremediation Along the

Indiana Harbor Canal

Canal system overview.

Lake George Branch

Lake Michigan

IHC

IHC

Columbus Avenue

Sheen on Federal IHC facing east

Oiled turtle

Oiled Turtle, IHC

This is the second largest flyway in the continental U.S. Many migratory birds stop off at the tip of Lake Michigan and this is what they find.

Great White Egret Pair on Bank of IHC

There is still substantial contamination coming from ground water

More Mousse

There is also unaccounted for oil. • Sediments? • Re-oiling from the Shoreline? • Groundwater? • Illegal dumping?

Dead Carp, Heavy Sheen on Oiled Canal Bank

Overall Goals for the Canal

• Containment or stabilization of oil • Oil removal through many means

including degradation • Establishment or restoration of habitat

Programs to Reach Goals • Enforcement (EPA R5) • Natural Resource Damage Assessment

(USF&WS and Indiana Dept. of Env. Management) • Clean-up of hot spots (EPA R5) • Bioremediation (EPA ORD) • Phytoremediation � Survivability (EPA ORD) � Field studies (Sand Creek Consultants, Inc.) � Green house studies (Purdue University)

Planting History at IH

• Recon and sampling Dec. 2001 • Pot studies for plant selection and

planting strategy 1/02 • Initial field planting • Second field planting Spring 03

Spring 02

Reconnaissance We found: Layers Bare stretches of beach Arrowhead, cattails, phragmites 15+% TPH

Description of Study • Phytoremediation is being considered for full-scale

Indiana Harbor clean-up. • Field and greenhouse studies were funded for feasibility

investigation. • Target plants were switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.),

poplar (Populus sargentii), carex (Carex stricta), Eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), willow (Salix exigua), and arrowhead (Sagitaria latifolia).

• Plant growth, biomass, microbial populations, andcontaminant concentrations were monitored.

• Field plots were established in the June of 2002 andmonitored until September, 2003.

• The greenhouse study was conducted from September,2002 to October, 2003.

Planting Plot REP

1

Pur

REP 3

REP 4

REP 2

Pur

Pur

Pur

Pur

MT

REP 6

REP 5

CA

NA

LIndustrial

Land Use

8’ fence (deer and beaver)

ROW 1 2 3 4 5

20 trees per row 100 trees per rep

W W P P P Species

Planting: Cuttings

• 10” cuttings in 2002

• 36” cuttings in 2003

Poplar and Willow

Oct 25, 2002 (21 weeks)

Qualitative Root Evaluation

Dense root mass concentrated in oily soil horizon

Qualitative Root Evaluation

Indiana Harbor Field Site - 2002

2003 Planting 36” cuttings No mulch, No holes, No fence Slow release fertilizer ½ mile of canal bank

---------- ---------

Purdue University Plot Plan Gate

SCUE

CESU

ESUC

UECS

UECS

SCUE

CSEU

EUSC

Plot A Plot B Plot C Plot D

Canal

U = Unvegetated S = Switchgrass E = Eastern gamagrass C = Carex stricta

Field Site – Initial Planting

Indiana Harbor Greenhouse Design

P C U P S A A W

E W U C E S E C W E C P

A S W A U P S U

Rep 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4

U=Unvegetated Control S=Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) P=Poplar (Populus sargentii) C=Carex (Carex stricta) E=Eastern Gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides) W=Willow (Salix exigua) A=Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)

Greenhouse Study – Eastern Gama Grass

Greenhouse Study – TPH Analysis

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

0 3

Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated

Months 1

Greenhouse Study – PAH Analysis (Anthracene)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 13

Time (months)

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

) Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated

Greenhouse Study – PAH Analysis (Pyrene)

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

0 13

Time (months)

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

) Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated

Greenhouse Study – PAH Analysis (Chrysene)

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

0 13

Time (months)

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

) Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated

Greenhouse Study – PAH Analysis (Benzo[a]pyrene)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

0 13

Time (months)

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

) Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

PAH

-dag

rad e

r p o

pula

tions

plots

planted 31,690 29,741 19,670 22,148

non-planted 806 908 1,493 1,515

1-A -B 2-A -B

Field Site – PAH Degraders by MPN (August, 2002)

1 2

Field Site – PAH degaders (MPN)

0.00E+00

2.00E+04

4.00E+04

6.00E+04

8.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.20E+05

1.40E+05

1.60E+05

Sample Identification

MPN

cel

ls p

er G

ram

of D

ry S

oil

MPN 1.11E+05 1.18E+05 2.79E+04 9.01E+04 1.89E+02

Arrowhead Rhizosphere-

affected

Arrowhead Rhizosphere

Carex Rhizosphere-

affected

CarexRhizosphere Non-vegetated

Field Site – Average TPH Analysis

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 18

Time (months)

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

)

Unvegetated Switchgrass Gamagrass Carex

Conclusions • The PAH-degraders are approximately 2–5 orders

of magnitude greater in the rhizosphere and rhizosphere-influenced soil compared to non-vegetated soil.

• Molecular microbiological techniques indicate thatorganisms present in the arrowhead rhizospherehave significant PAH degradation ability.

• In the greenhouse, the plant root interaction withthe soil resulted the following trend:switchgrass>Carex>gama>grass>poplar> willow.

• Arrowhead was difficult to grow in thegreenhouse due to water requirements, limiting theassessment time after establishment.

Conclusions • In the field, Eastern gama grass had the highest

overall shoot biomass of the three plant treatments.

• Switchgrass had the highest percent coverage inthe plots further away from the canal and Carexhad the highest percent coverage in the plotscloser to the canal.

• In the field study, Carex and switchgrass were the best performers in terms of TPHdegradation, and were effective for severalPAHs.

• In the greenhouse study, switchgrass,arrowhead, Carex, and gamagrass were the best performers in terms of TPH degradation, andwere effective for several PAHs.

Conclusions

• Each type of plant works in a different micro environment

• Trees surrounded by grass limit beaver predation, increase hydrologic control, work on oiled ground water

• Grasses work in top 2-3 feet • Arrowhead works at waters edge • Varied planting may work best

Conclusions • Possible to

revegetate areas, will decrease sheen, re-oiling canal

• Beavers will slow tree growth (40% in ‘03)

• Restoration will work slowly but cheaply July 2003