study on the effects of soil ph and addition of n-p-k fertilizer on degradation of petroleum...

7/30/2019 STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF SOIL PH AND ADDITION OF N-P-K FERTILIZER ON DEGRADATION OF PETROLEUM HYDR

1/14

STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF SOIL PH

AND ADDITION OF N-P-K FERTILIZER ON

DEGRADATION OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON PRESENT IN OIL

CONTAMINATED SOIL

MUKUT KALITA& ARUNDHUTI DEVI

RM&E Division, Institute of Advanced Study in S & T, Guwahati, India

ABSTRACT

Many of the hydrocarbons are resistant to degradation in the natural environment. The overall degradation rate of

hydrocarbons biodegradation in soils is strictly limited by a variety of parameters Two of the most important soil factors

that affect degradation are soil pH

and available nutrients. Soil pH

is an important parameter that predominantly affects the

biodegradation process. This is because each type of microorganisms has a preferred pH

range for optimal growth andactivity. The positive effects as well as the negative effects of different N-P-K levels on the biodegradation of

hydrocarbons have been reported by different authors.In the present study, role of soil pH

and N-P-K fertilizer on the

degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons was evaluated. Remediation studies using petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated

soil (artificially contaminated with crude oil of Assam) were conducted under different pH

values and different N-P-K

environments. The set up of the experimental samples along with the test conditions applied to study the effect of pH

and

N-P-K fertilizer on degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons has been evaluated. The present study shows the effects of pH

on degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in order to determine the optimum soil pH

that gives best result for degradation.

The effect of different N-P-K levels in soil on the biodegradation ofhydrocarbons was also determined in the study.

KEYWORDS: Crude Oil Contaminants, Hydrocarbons, Soil PH

, N-P-K Fertilizer, TpH

, Biodegradation, Remediation

INTRODUCTION

Petroleum or crude oil is a natural product which has very wide range of uses. In the oil producing states like

Assam (India), different companies are engaged in exploration, production and transportation of crude oil. A large number

of contaminants including hydrocarbons and heavy metals enter into the nearby areas of an oil collecting station (gathering

station) through spills, leaks as well as through emissions from gas flaring and from effluents which are likely to pollute

the environment.

If oil is spilled on the surface of soil during the drilling operation the hydrocarbons gradually penetrate into the

soil system. It has been found that the oil hydrocarbons can infiltrate up to a depth of 50-cm. (Ilangovan and

Vivekanandan, 1992).It is known that rainfall prior to or during the spills reduces oil infiltration into the soil and washes

petroleum components away to runoff waters (Francke and Clark, 1974).The oil concentration in the soil of the

contaminated field decreases with time. Initially the oil concentration is high in the upper 1 to 30-cm layer but after six

months, the rapid decrease of oil in the upper layer reverses the situation. Biodegradation, evaporation and leaching could

be considered as causes for the decrease but leaching has been shown to be not very significant (Raymond et al., 1976;

Dibble and Bartha, 1979a and b).Biodegradation is the metabolic activity of microorganisms to transform or mineralize

organic contaminants into less harmful, non-hazardous substances, which are then integrated into natural biogeochemical

cycles (Margesin and Schinner, 2001).The time required for degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils depends on

International Journal of Chemical and

Petrochemical Technology (IJCPT)

ISSN 2277-4807Vol.2, Issue 3 Dec 2012 9-22

TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,


2/14

10 Mukut Kalitaand Arundhuti Devi

the chemical compositions of crude oil, the climatic conditions and the properties of soil. Unless all the proper conditions

are met for a given compound, biodegradation is not likely to occur (Bitton and Gerba, 1985).

Oil infiltration into the soil modifies the soil properties and hence may deteriorate the natural environment (Kalita

et al., 2007).Considerable effort is being made to remediate soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals

and other organic and inorganic compounds that have resulted from industrial activities, accidental spills and improper

waste disposal practices (Saldaa et al.,2005).Remediation can lead to quick recovery of the polluted soils Gradi 1985,

Alexander 1978).Biodegradation of oil is one of the most important processes for the eventual removal of petroleum from

the environment, particularly for the non-volatile components of petroleum (Albert and Xueqing, 2003).

Soil conditions are often controlled to increase the rate of contaminant degradation (Odu, 1978, Gradi, 1985).In

the biodegradation process, pH

of the soil plays a predominant role. The growth and activity of soil microorganisms are

very much dependant on the soil pH. For example, fungi predominate under acidic conditions (p

H


3/14

Study on the Effects of Soil PH and Addition of N-P-K Fertilizer on 11Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Present in Oil Contaminated Soil

original pH

of 5.0 (1:5 soil-water suspension) with a total organic carbon (TOC) load of 0.49 %. A sample ofcrude oil was

collected from a group gathering station (Lakowa GGS1) of ONGCL under Lakowa oil field, Assam.

Collection of N-P-K Fertilizer

A commercial N-P-K mixture (with N, P, and K in the weight ratio of 12:12:12) was used in this study.

Important Chemicals

For controlling soil pH, either sodium hydroxide (GR MERCK), or hydrochloric acid (minimum 35% GR

MERCK) were used. Teepol (Intklean-Teepol Grade, International Chemicals, India) was used as de-emulsifier.

The Procedure

The samples for the laboratory degradation experiment were prepared in duplicate as follows. Experiments were

carried out in 1000 ml glass beakers containing 100 g soil in distilled water at soil-to-water ratio of 1:5 in each beaker. Soil

solutions in required number were adjusted to pH of 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 by addition of either 1N HCl or 1N NaOH.

Adjustments to desired pH

values were made at every alternate day over a period of one month till the pH

values of the soilsstabilized. Soil solutions at original p

H(p

H5.0) in required number were also kept prepared without adjusting p

H. After p

H

adjustment, crude oil (with the help of TEEPOL-used as de-emulsifier) was added to soil solutions including normal soil

solutions to yield four different concentrations of TPH viz. 0.3%, 1.5%, 3.0%, and 5.0% for each pH

value. Here %

signifies the amount of oil present, in the unit of gram, per 100g of [soil+oil] system. These initially added TPH

concentrations were considered as TPH concentrations at 0 day without any hydrocarbon degradation due to biological,

physical or chemical phenomenon. Just after the addition of crude oil, the above factors may come into immediate action

and hence the TPH calculation at later part of the initial day may give TPH concentrations different from initially added

TPH concentrations.

For each adjusted p

H

, 8 (4 x 2) beakers were used. Hence, total number of beakers used was 8 x 6 plus 8 (fornormal soil solutions without adjusting p

H), i.e., 56 containing 28 types of samples in duplicate. The experimental samples

were set up as shown in Table1 and monitored for a period of six months.

Samples were drawn after 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 days for analysis. Each of the soil samples, after

collection, was immediately soaked in dichloromethane to prevent further biodegradation of the hydrocarbons and

preserved by refrigeration at 4oC for the calculation of TPH (Janiyani et al. 1992). The experiment on remediation was

carried out at room temperature. Similarly, remediation studies using petroleum hydrocarbons contaminated soil (at initial

TPH 3.0%) were conducted under pH

7.5, original pH

and at different N-P-K environments. Here % signifies the amount

of oil present, in the unit of gram, per 100g of [soil+N-P-K+oil] system. The experimental samples were set up as shown in

Table2.

The petroleum hydrocarbons in the samples (collected as above soaking in dichloromethane) were extracted with

dichloromethane by the Soxhletmethod, and the concentration of TPH was determined by using the gravimetric estimation

as described below. In Soxhlet method, fresh solvent (DCM) is continuously refluxed through the finely divided soil

sample (W g) contained in a porous thimble and a siphon system removes the extract back into the refluxing solvent. The

process was repeated for many times until the completion of extraction of petroleum hydrocarbons from the sample. The

extract containing the petroleum hydrocarbons was transferred in to a weighed glass vial (Wi). After the complete

evaporation of the solvent, the final weight (Wf) of the glass vial was recorded. TPH was measured by complete

evaporation of the extracting solvent and weighing the residue (Potter, 1999).


4/14


The percentage of TPH content is computed using the formula:

% TPH = [(Wf- Wi) / W] 100

Wi = Initial weight of the glass vial (in g)

Wf= Final weight of the glass vial (in g)

W= Weight of the soil sample (in g)

The extent of degradation of crude oil can be determined by estimating the concentration of residual TPH as

mentioned above. Also, the total percentage loss in TPH was determined by using the following formula:

Total percentage loss in TPH= [{Conc. of initial TPH - Conc. of residual TPH}

/ Conc. of initial TPH] 100%.

Net percentage loss in TPH due to treatment is defined as:

Net percentage loss in TPH due to treatment = Total percentage loss in TPH due to treatment - Total percentage loss in

TPH without treatment

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Many of the hydrocarbons are resistant to degradation in the natural environment. The overall degradation rate of

hydrocarbons biodegradation in soils is strictly limited by a variety of parameters Rockne et.al 2002.

Two of the most

important soil factors that affect hydrocarbons degradation are soil pH

and available nutrients. The results of the present

study reveal considerable effects of soil pH

and addition of nutrients (in the form of N-P-K fertilizer) on the hydrocarbons

degradation of crude oil contaminated soil.

The results obtained from the detailed remediation studies carried out with soil spiked with different amounts of

crude oil under different pH

values are presented in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. The results estimate the loss of TPH from

the crude oil contaminated soil samples for each treatment options employed to study the effect of pH

on remediation.

As already mentioned above, remediation experiment was also carried out using petroleum hydrocarbons

contaminated soils (only with initial TPH 3.0%) under pH

7.5, original pH

and at different N-P-K environments. The results

of the study are presented in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8. The results determine the loss of petroleum hydrocarbons from

the crude oil contaminated soil samples for each treatment options employed to study the effect of additional N-P-K

fertilizer at optimum pH

on remediation.

Soil pH

is an important parameter that predominantly affects the biodegradation process. This is because each type

of microorganisms has a preferred pH

range for optimal growth and activity.[3]

Following important observations can be

made from the detailed remediation (enhanced degradation measured with loss of TPH) studies carried out with soil spiked

with different amounts of crude oil under different pH

values.

a) The common order of degradation (DpH, measured as total percentage loss in TPH after six months) for each

initial TPH (except for initial TPH 0.3 %) according to pH

variation is as follows-

D7.5>D4.5>DORIGINAL > D5.5>D6.5>D8.5>D3.5

For initial TPH 0.3% the order is slightly different-


5/14


D7.5>D4.5> D5.5>D6.5>D8.5> DORIGINAL >D3.5

In the second case the less degradation at original pH

may be due to the non-treatment condition i.e., absence of

pH

controlling reagents which requires further investigations.

b) The degradation was very good at pH

4.5 and showed identical TPH degradation (enhanced degradation)pattern similar to the Control soil which had a pH of 5.0(original pH). As the Control soil is acidic in nature these

observations may be attributed to the members of the indigenous microbial community. This may be due to the fact that

biological activity in the soil is less affected by small pH

variation.

c) The soil samples whose pH

was adjusted to 5.5, 6.5 showed enhanced degradation for lowest initial TPH (0.3%)

concentration and decreased degradation for other higher initial TPH concentrations.This may perhaps be due to the fact

that low TPH concentration is lost favorably due to evaporation and remaining part is used in physical processes. At other

higher TPH concentrations these processes are not predominant due to high initial TPH. The soil sample whose pH

was

adjusted to 8.5 showed identical TPH degradation as above. The soil pH

between pH

5.5 and 8.5 encourage microbial

activity.

d) The soil sample whose pH

was adjusted to 3.5 showed decreased TPH degradation for all initial TPH

concentrations. This may be due to the decreased microbial activities at very low pH

(3.5) as compared to original pH

(5.0).

e) The study conducted at different pHs showed that the highest degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons occurred

at pH

7.5. This may be due to the fact that microbial activity is greater at or near neutral pH, which enhances degradation

processes, mineralization, and nitrogen transformations (e.g., nitrogen fixation and nitrification).

The degradation continued to improve with time and it was observed that TPH continued to degrade more and

more up to 180 days. Above observations are graphically represented in the Figure 1-Figure 4.

Thus, the p

H

factor affected total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) degradation and remediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil appears to be feasible.

Another most important soil factor that affects degradation is nutrient availability. The nutrient status of soil has

direct impact on microbial activity and hence biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil. The positive effectsas well as the

negative effectsof different N-P-K levels on the biodegradation ofhydrocarbons have been reported by different authors.

[25,26]In the present study, role of N-P-K fertilizer added at optimum p

Hand original p

Hon the degradation of petroleum

hydrocarbons was evaluated. There was significant degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons with the addition of N-P-K

fertilizer. The common order of degradation according to N-P-K contents (DpH/NPK%, only for initial TPH 3.0%) after six

monthsof experimentation is shown below. The term NPK% means the amount (in the unit of gram) of N-P-K fertilizer

added to 100g soil system.

D 7.5/90%> D7.5/60%> D7.5/30%>D7.5/0%> DORIGINAL/0%

The degradation continued to improve with increase in concentration of additional N-P-K fertilizer. Thus, soil

responded most positively to 90% additional N-P-K fertilizer. This is clearly visible from the Figure 5. It is important to

mention that the results of the present study may vary from the results obtained by other studies due to the difference in

crude oil compositions, climatic conditions, soil characteristics, soil microbial community and many other important

factors. Present findings will, ultimately, help to carry out further investigations to prepare a suitable in situ method for the

degradation of hydrocarbons in oil field soil.


6/14


CONCLUSIONS

The detailed remediation (degradation measured with net loss of TPH) studies during six months of

experimentation show significant degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons at pH

4.5 and 7.5. In general soil responded most

positively to pH

increase from original pH

to pH

7.5. The soil sample whose pH

was adjusted to 3.5 showed less TPH

degradation at all initial TPH concentrations which may be attributed to the decreased microbial activities at very low p H

(pH3.5) as compared to original p

H(p

H5.0). Also, there was significant degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons with the

addition of N-P-K fertilizer. The degradation continued to improve with increase in concentration of N-P-K fertilizer and

available results indicate most positive result for 90% additional N-P-K fertilizer. The above observations strongly support

that both the factors (that is soil pH

and addition of N-P-K fertilizer) in combination enhance the total petroleum

hydrocarbons degradation. This will, ultimately, help in preparing a suitable method for remediation of petroleum

hydrocarbon contaminated soil.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors are highly thankful to DBT (Govt. of India) for funding the project entitled Assessment of oil field soil(with special reference to polyaromatic hydrocarbons) for their eventual remediation and reclamation. Authors are also

thankful to all the members of the institutions, viz., IASST & Gauhati University for providing all the necessary helps to

carry out the experiment.

REFERENCES

1. Abu, G. O.& Ogiji, P. A. (1996). Initial test of a bioremediation scheme for the clean up of an oil polluted waterbody in a rural community in Nigeria, Bioresource Technology, 58:7-12.

2. Albert, D.V. & Xueqing, Z.(2003). Biodegradation of crude oil contaminating marine shorelines and FreshwaterWetlands. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin. 8(2): 163-178.

3. Alexander, M. (1978). An introduction to soil microbiology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons/ New York p223-330.4. Bitton, G. & Gerba, C. P. (1985). Groundwater Pollution Microbiology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.5. Chayneau, C.H., Rougeux, G.,Yepremian, C. & Oudot, J.(2005). Effects of nutrient concentration on the

biodegradation of crude oil and associated microbial populations in the soil. Soil. Biol. Biochem., 37: 1490-1497.

6. Choi, S. C., Kwon, K. K., Sohn, J.H.& Kim, S. J. (2002). Evaluation of fertilizer additions to stimulate oilbiodegradation in sand seashore mescocosms. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 12: 431-436.

7. Coulon, F., Pelletier, E., Gourhant, L.& Delille, D. (2005). Effects of nutrient and temperature on degradation ofpetroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated sub-Antarctic soil. Chemosphere. 58(10):1439-48.

8. Coulon F, Pelletier E, St Louis R, Gourhant L and Delille D. 2004. Degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in twosub-antarctic soils: influence of an oleophilic fertilizer.Environ Toxicol Chem. 2004 Aug;23(8):1893-901.

9. Dibble, J.T. & Bartha,R.(1979a). Effects of environmental parameters on the biodegradation of oil sludge. Appl.Environ. Microbiol.37, 729-739.

10. Dibble, J. T. & Bartha, R. (1979b). Leaching aspects of oil sludge biodegradation in soil. Soil Science. 127, 365-370.

11. Francke, H.C. & Clark, R E. (1974). Disposal of oily wastes by microbial assimilation. Report Y-1934. U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.


7/14


12. Gradi,P.C.(1985). Biodegradation. Its Management and Microbiology Basis. Biotechnology and Bio-Engineering27:660-674.

13. Illangovan, K. & Vivekanandan,M.(1992). Effect of soil pollution on soil respiration and growth of vignamungo(L). Sci. Total Environ. 116, 187-194.

14. Janiyani, K. L., Wate, S. R., Muthal, P. L. & Joshi, S. R.(1992). Hydrocarbons in oil and oil sludge from refinery.Indian J. Environ. Hlth.34, 169-179.

15. JRB Associates, Inc. (1984). Summary report: Remedial Response at Hazardous Waste Sites.Prepared forMunicipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. PB 85-124899.

16. Kalita, M., Das, H., Khanikar, N., Bhattacharyya, K .G. & Devi, A.(2007). Assessment of pollution risksgenerated by Group Gathering Station: A case study in Lakowa Oil Field(GGS-1) of ONGCL. Enviro-Spectra .

Vol.2 (1). pp 52-59.

17. Margesin, R. & Schinner, F.(2001). Biodegradation and bioremediation of hydrocarbons in extremeenvironments. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 56:650-663.

18. Margesin, R. & Schinner, F.(1997). Bioremediation of diesel-oil-contaminated alpine soils at low temperatures.Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 147:462-468.

19. Odu, C. T .I. (1978). The effects of nutrients application and aeration on oil degradation in soil. EnvironmentalPollution. 15:235-240.

20. Olivieri, R., Robertiello, A. & Degen, L. (1978). Enhancement of microbial degradation of oil pollutants usinglipophilic fertilizers.Mar.Pollut. Bull. 9:217-220.

21. Pitchard, P. H., Mueller, J.G., Rogers, J. C., Kremer, F. V. & Glaser, J .A. (1992). Oil spill bioremediation:exoeriences, lessons and results from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Biodegradation. 3:315-335.

22. Potter, T. L. (1999). Assessment and Remediation of Oil Contaminated Soils. New Age International (P) Ltd.,Publishers, New Delhi. pp 13-40.

23. Raymond, R. L., Hudson, J. O. & Jamison, V. W. (1976). Oil degradation in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 31:522-535.

24. Riser-Roberts Eve. (1998). Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soils Biological, Physical, and ChemicalProcesses. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton Boston London New York Washington, DC.

25. Rockne, K. J., Shor, L. M., Young, L. Y., Taghon, G. L. & Kosson, D.S.(2002). Distributed sequestration andrelease of PAHs in weathered sediment. The role of sediment structure and organic carbon properties. Environ. Sci.

Technol., 36: 2636-2644.

26. Rosenberg, E. & Ron, E. Z. (1996). Bioremediation of petroleum contamination. Cambridge University Press, UK.pp100-124.

27. Saldaa, M.D., Nagpal, V. & Guigard, S. E. (2005). Remediation of contaminated soils using supercritical fluidextraction: a review (1994-2004). Environ Technol. 26(9):1013-32.

28. Swannell, R.P.J., Mitchell, D., Lethbridge, G., Jones, D., Heath, D., Hagley, M., Jones, M., Petch, S., Milne, R.,Croxford, R.& Lee, K. (1999). A field demonstration of the efficacy of bioremediation to treat an oiled shoreline

following the Sea Empress incident. Environ. Technol. 20:863-873.

29. Ward,D.M.& Brock T.D.(1978).Hydrocarbon biodegradation in hypersaline environments. Appl. Environ.Microbiol. 35(2):353-359.


8/14


Figure 1: Total percentage loss in TPH for the samples with initial TPH 0.3% [A=0 day, B=30 days, C=60 days,

D=90days, E= 120 days, F= 150 days, G=180 days]

Figure 2: Total Percentage Loss in TPH for the Samples with Initial TPH 1.5% [A= 0 Day, B=30 Days, C=60 Days,

D=90days, E= 120 Days, F= 150 Days, G= 180 Days]

Figure 3: Total Percentage Loss In TPH for the Samples with Initial TPH 3.0% [A= 0 Day, B=30 Days, C=60 Days,

D=90days, E= 120 Days, F= 150 Days, G= 180 Days]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

pH3.5 pH4.5 pH5.5 pH6.5 pH7.5 pH8.5 Original pH

TOTALTPH(%

)LOSS

INITIAL TPH 0.3%A B C D E F G

pH

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


TOTALT

PH(%)LOSS

pH

INITIAL TPH 3.0%A B C D F G


9/14


Figure 4: Total percentage loss in TPH for the samples with initial TPH 5.5% [A= 0 day, B=30 days, C=60 days,

D=90days, E= 120 days, F= 150 days, G= 180 days]

Figure 5: Total Percentage Loss in TPH for the Various Samples treated to Study the Effect of N-P-K Fertilizer. the

Sample Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 Correspond to Samples with Code Nos. PFX1, PFX2, PFX3, PX18 And C02 Respectively

[A= 0 Day, B=30 Days, C=60 Days, D=90days, E= 120 Days, F= 150 Days, G= 180 Days]

Table 1: A Summary of Sample Treatment and Test Conditions Employed to Study the Effect of Ph

on Remediation

S.N. Sample

Code

Sample Treatment Test

Condition

1 PX1 100 g soil in solution (p controlled at 3.5) treated to yield 5.5% TPH pControlled

2 PX2 100 g soil in solution (pH controlled at 3.5) treated to yield 3.0% TPH pH Controlled

3 PX3 100 g soil in solution (pH

controlled at 3.5) treated to yield 1.5% TPH pH

Controlled

4 PX4 100 g soil in solution (p controlled at 3.5) treated to yield 0.3% TPH pControlled



Controlled



Controlled7 PX7 100 g soil in solution (p

Hcontrolled at 4.5) treated to yield 1.5% TPH p

HControlled



Controlled




Controlled




Controlled



Controlled



Controlled




Controlled

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


TOTALTPH

(%)LOSS

INITIAL TPH 5.5%A B C D E F G

pH

0

20

40

60

80

A B C D E F G

TOTALTPH(%)LOSS

SAMPLING DAYS

N-P-K EFFECT1 2 3 4 5


10/14


S.N. Sample

Code

Sample Treatment Test

Condition



Controlled



Controlled



Controlled



Controlled




Controlled




Controlled

25 C01 100 g soil in solution (Original pH) treated to yield 5.5% TPH Original p

H

26 C02 100 g soil in solution (Original pH) treated to yield 3.0% TPH Original pH


H


H

Table 2: A Summary of Sample Treatment and test Conditions Employed in the Effect of N-P-K Fertilizer on

Remediation

S.N. Sample

Code

Sample Treatment Test Condition

1 PFX1 100g soil in solution(pH controlled at 7.5) + 30g N-P-

K fertilizer and treated to yield 3.0% TPH

N-P-K fertilizer added

2 PFX 2 100g soil in solution(pH

controlled at 7.5) + 60g N-P-



3 PFX 3 100g soil in solution(pH

controlled at 7.5) + 90g N-P-



4 PX18 100g soil in solution(pH

controlled at 7.5) and treated

to yield 3.0% TPH

No N-P-K fertilizer

added

5 C02 100g soil in solution (Original pH) and treated to yield

3.0% TPH

No N-P-K fertilizer

added

Table 3: Conc. of Residual TPH (%) [A= 0 Day, B=30 Days, C=60 Days, D=90days, E= 120 Days, F= 150 Days, G=

180 Days]

S.N.Sample

Code

A B C D E F G

1 PX1 5.50 5.43 5.37 5.23 5.20 5.18 5.16

2 PX2 3.00 2.99 2.98 2.90 2.86 2.83 2.80

3 PX3 1.50 1.44 1.42 1.41 1.30 1.28 1.26

4 PX4 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.24

5 PX5 5.50 4.73 4.28 3.94 3.27 2.91 2.63

6 PX6 3.00 2.97 2.76 2.71 2.65 2.05 1.47

7 PX7 1.50 1.42 1.37 1.32 1.26 1.06 0.90

8 PX8 0.30 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.16

9 PX9 5.50 5.22 4.99 4.55 4.54 4.50 4.47

10 PX10 3.0 2.71 2.39 2.38 2.23 2.17 2.13

11 PX11 1.50 1.31 1.27 1.21 1.12 1.11 1.11

12 PX12 0.30 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.17

13 PX13 5.50 5.44 5.24 5.15 4.98 4.71 4.48

14 PX14 3.00 2.68 2.56 2.54 2.35 2.34 2.34

15 PX15 1.50 1.47 1.42 1.41 1.38 1.23 1.14

16 PX16 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.18

17 PX17 5.50 4.69 4.16 3.82 3.00 2.76 2.54

18 PX18 3.00 2.87 2.86 1.71 1.45 1.40 1.34

19 PX19 1.50 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.82 0.81 0.80

20 PX20 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.12

21 PX21 5.50 5.38 5.32 5.28 5.19 5.03 4.89

22 PX22 3.00 2.92 2.90 2.83 2.66 2.56 2.48


11/14


S.N.Sample

Code

A B C D E F G

23 PX23 1.50 1.39 1.35 1.33 1.26 1.25 1.24

24 PX24 0.30 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.19

25 C01 5.50 5.40 4.91 4.65 4.43 4.28 4.16

26 C02 3.00 2.88 2.80 2.71 2.64 2.23 1.75

27 C03 1.50 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93

28 C04 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.23

Table 4: Total Percentage Loss in TPH (%) [A= 0 day, B=30 days, C=60 days, D=90days, E= 120 days, F= 150 days,G= 180 days]

S.N. Sample

Code

A B C D E F G

1 PX1 * 1.27 2.36 4.91 5.45 5.82 6.18

2 PX2 * 0.33 0.67 3.3 4.67 5.67 6.67

3 PX3 * 0.40 5.33 6.00 13.33 14.67 16.00

4 PX4*

3.33 6.67 10.00 16.67 20.00 20.00

5 PX5 * 14.00 22.18 28.36 40.55 47.09 52.18

6 PX6 * 1.00 8.00 9.67 11.67 31.67 51.00

7 PX7 * 5.33 8.67 12.00 16.00 29.33 40.00

8 PX8 * 13.33 20.00 30.00 36.67 43.33 46.67

9 PX9 * 5.09 9.27 17.27 17.45 18.18 18.73

10 PX10 * 9.67 20.33 20.67 25.67 27.67 29.00

11 PX11 * 12.67 15.33 19.33 25.33 26.00 26.00

12 PX12 * 16.67 23.33 26.67 36.67 40.00 43.33

13 PX13 * 1.09 4.73 6.36 9.45 14.36 18.55

14 PX14 * 10.67 14.67 15.33 21.67 22.00 22.00

15 PX15 * 2.00 5.33 6.00 8.00 18.00 24.00

16 PX16 * 13.33 26.67 30.00 36.67 40.00 40.00

17 PX17 * 14.73 24.36 30.55 45.45 49.82 53.82

18 PX18 * 4.33 4.67 43.00 51.67 53.33 55.33

19 PX19 * 34.00 34.67 36.00 45.33 46.00 46.67

20 PX20 * 13.33 16.67 30.00 50.00 56.67 60.00

21 PX21 * 2.18 3.27 4.00 5.64 8.55 11.09

22 PX22 * 2.67 3.33 5.67 11.33 14.67 17.33

23 PX23 * 7.33 10.00 11.33 16.00 16.67 17.33

24 PX24 * 13.33 20.00 26.67 33.33 36.67 36.67

25 C01 * 1.82 10.73 15.45 19.45 22.18 24.36

26 C02 * 4.00 6.67 9.67 12.00 25.67 41.67

27 C03 * 34.00 34.67 36.67 37.33 38.00 38.00

28 C04 * 3.33 6.67 13.33 20.00 23.33 23.33

*Not Applicable


12/14


Table 5: Net Percentage Loss in TPH (%) Due to Treatment [A= 0 Day, B=30 Days, C=60 Days, D=90days, E= 120

Days, F= 150 Days, G= 180 Days]

S.N. Sample

Code

A B C D E F G

1 PX1 * -0.55 -8.37 -10 -14 -16.36 -182 PX2 * -3.67 -6 -6.37 -7.33 -20.00 -35

3 PX3 * -33 -29 -30 -24 -23.33 -22

4 PX4 * 0 0 -3.33 -3.33 -3.33 -3.33

5 PX5 * 12.18 11.45 12.91 21.1 24.91 27.82

6 PX6 * -3 1.33 0 -0.33 6.00 9.33

7 PX7 * -28 -26 -24 -21 -8.67 2

8 PX8 * 10 13.33 16.67 16.67 20.00 23.34

9 PX9 * 3.27 -1.46 1.82 -2 -4.00 -5.63

10 PX10 * 5.67 13.66 11 13.67 2.00 -12

11 PX11 * -21 -19 -17 -12 -12 -12

12 PX12 * 13 16 13 16 16.67 20

13 PX13 * -0.73 -6 -9.09 -10 -7.82 -5.81

14 PX14 * 6.67 8 5.66 9.67 -3.67 -19

15 PX15 * -32 -29 -30 -29 -20.00 -14

16 PX16 * 10 20 16.67 16.67 16.67 16.67

17 PX17 * 12.91 13.63 15.1 26 27.64 29.46

18 PX18 * 0.33 -2 33.33 39.67 27.66 13.66

19 PX19 * 0 0 -0.67 8 8.00 8.67

20 PX20 * 10 10 16.67 30 33.34 36.67

21 PX21 * 0.36 -7.46-

11.45-13.81 -13.63 -13.27

22 PX22 * -1.33 -3.34 -4.00 -0.67 -11.00 -24.34

23 PX23 * -26 -24 -25 -21 -21.33 -20

24 PX24 * 10 13.33 13.34 13.33 13.34 13.34

25 C01 * * * * * * *

26 C02 * * * * * * *

27 C03 * * * * * * *

28 C04 * * * * * * *

*Not Applicable


13/14


Table 6: Conc. of Residual TPH (%) [A= 0 Day, B=30 Days, C=60 Days, D=90days, E= 120 Days, F= 150 Days, G=180 Days]

S.N. Sample

Code

A B C D E F G

1 PFX1 3.00 1.65 1.59 1.20 1.14 1.03 0.94

2 PFX 2 3.00 2.28 1.29 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.81

3 PFX 3 3.00 2.02 1.53 0.98 0.94 0.85 0.73

4 PX18 3.00 2.87 2.86 1.71 1.45 1.40 1.34

5 C02 3.00 2.88 2.80 2.71 2.64 2.23 1.75

Table 7: Total Percentage Loss in TPH (%) [A= 0 Day, B=30 Days, C=60 Days, D=90days, E= 120 Days, F= 150

Days, G= 180 Days]

S.N Sample

Code

A B C D E F G

1 PFX1 * 45.00 47.00 60.00 62.00 65.67 68.67

2 PFX 2 * 24.00 57.00 67.33 68.33 69.33 73.00

3 PFX 3 * 32.67 49.00 67.33 68.67 71.67 75.67

4 PX18 * 4.33 4.67 43.00 51.67 53.33 55.335 C02 * 4.00 6.67 9.67 12.00 25.67 41.67

*Not Applicable

Table 8: Net Percentage Loss In TPH (%) Due To Treatment [A= 0 Day, B=30 Days, C=60 Days, D=90days, E= 120

Days, F= 150 Days, G= 180 Days]

S.N Sample

Code

A B C D E F G

1 PFX1 * 41.00 40.33 50.33 50.00 40.00 27.00

2 PFX 2 * 20.00 50.33 57.66 56.33 43.66 31.33

3 PFX 3 * 28.70 42.33 57.66 56.67 46.00 34.00

4 PX18 * 0.33 -2 33.33 39.67 27.66 13.66

5 C02 * * * * * * **Not Applicable


14/14

study on the effects of soil ph and addition of n-p-k fertilizer on degradation of petroleum...

Documents