successful field and lab tests of a multi-process ... · pah contaminated soil from urban foundry...
TRANSCRIPT
Partners: Imperial Oil; Talisman Energy; ConocoPhillips Canada; Northrock Resources; Canetic Resources; BASF; EBA; OAFT; Stantec; Ontario Ginseng Growers, CRA; Region of Waterloo; City of Guelph; NSERC
Successful Field and Lab Tests of a Multi-Process Phytoremediation System for Decontamination of
Petroleum and Salt Impacted SoilsBruce Greenberg, Xiao-Dong Huang, George Dixon,
Perry Gerwing and Bernie Glick
WATERLOO
ENVIRONMENTALBIOTECHNOLOGY Inc
EarthmasterEnvironmental Strategies Inc
Development and Proof of the Multi-Process Phytoremediation System (MPPS)
1. 6 Years of Lab Studies1. Soil spiked with creosote (PAHs)2. Total Petrol. Hydrocarbon (TPH) contam. soil3. PAH contaminated soil from urban foundry4. Plant growth on salt impacted soils
2. 3 Years of Field Studies1. TPH, Talisman Energy, Turner Valley, AB 2005-
062. TPH, North East Alberta 2005-063. TPH, Imperial Oil Land Farm, Sarnia, ON 2004-064. DDT, Simcoe, ON 2005
Advantages of Phytoremediation
1. Improves the natural structure and texture of soil2. It is driven by solar energy and suitable to most
regions and climates3. It is low in cost and technically feasible4. Plants can provide sufficient biomass for rapid
remediation; promote high rhizosphere activity5. Restoration6. > 30,000 sites in Canada where such technology is
needed, > 300,000 sites in the US
Description of the Multi-ProcessPhytoremediation System (MPPS)
Physical soil Till the soil: exposure to sunlight and air treatment: Exposure to sunlight photooxidizes
contaminants
Bioremediation: Inoculation of PAH/TPH degradingbacteria
Phytoremediation: Growth of plants alone on the soil
MPPS: Land farming the soil for two weeksInoculation of PAH degrading bacteriaGrowth of plants with PGPR
PGPR: Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Prevents the synthesis of stress ethylene.
Interaction of a PGPR containing ACC deaminase with a plant seed or root
Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)
Two natural, non-pathogenic strains of Pseudomonas putida(UW3 and UW4)
One has high ACC DeaminaseOne is an auxin producer
Both PGPR are applied to seeds prior to planting
Stress Response
Ethylene
ACCSynthase
ACC OxidaseAmmonia and α-ketobutyrate
ACCDeaminase
Plant Tissue
Bacterium
Exudation
Amino Acids
ACC ACC
IAA IAA
SAM
Amino Acids
Cell Elongation and Proliferation
Isolation
Proliferation of selected PGPR
Apply to seed,
Plant seeds
Few days later (Tomato)
Control PGPR Treated
Use of the Multi-Process phytoremediation System (MPPS)
for Removal of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons from Imperial Oil Soil
(~ 5% TPH)
Greenhouse Studies and demonstration of PGPR effects
Plants only Plants with Degrad. Bacteria
Plants with
PGPR
Multi-Process System
Growth of Tall Fescue – 90 d
Plants only
MPPS
Plants from the MPPS on Land-
Farmed Contaminated Soil
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Root FW Root DW Shoot FW Shoot DW
Plant Biomass
Perc
enta
ge o
f no
cont
amin
ant c
ontr
ol phytoremMulti-system
Plant Biomass for Phytoremediation and the MPPS
Remediation Kinetics of Four Methods Tested
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8
Remediation time, months
THP
rem
aini
ng in
soi
l, g/
kg
landfarmingbioremPhytorem onlyMPPS
Remediation of different fractions of TPHafter 2 4-month seasons
TPH Fractions
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Fraction 2 Fraction 3A Fraction 3B Fraction 4 Average
Land farming
Phytoremediation
Msystem
TPH
rem
aini
ng, %
con
trol
Contaminants metabolized/degraded: ~40g TPH/kg soil removed, < 100g DW plants/kg soil. Plants cannot be 40 % TPH.
Field Test at Talisman Energy Biopile (1 % TPH)Turner Valley Alberta
Year 1: Summer 2005 – Rye/Fescue Growth
- PGPR + PGPR
+ PGPR
- PGPR
90 dNote: Weather cool and wet. Poor, gravelly soil required fertilizer
Talisman Energy,Turner Valley SiteSummer 2005 Remediation Results
100 d – Year 1
Rye/Fescue+PGPR
Rye/Fescue- PGPR
BLANK
RYE/FESCUE +PGPR
RYE/FESCUE - PGPR
BARLEY/RYE - PGPR
BARLEY/RYE +PGPR
TRITICALE - PGPR
TRITICALE +PGPR
BLANK
~2m ~2m
~70m
35m
10m20m 20m
12 0.58%
13 0.53%
14 0.57%
11 0.52%
15 0.55%
50.73%
60.78%
70.83%
80.87%
4 0. 65%
3 0.48%
31 0.659%
30 0.768%
26 0.609%
24 0.716%
20 0.698%
21 0.751%
9
2 0.55%1 0.76%
10 0.97%
+ PGPR
Avg 0.55%
SE: 0.01%
35 % REM0.89%
Blank
Avg 0.85%
SE: 0.03%
- PGPR
Avg 0.61%
SE: 0.06%
28 % REM
Note: Every plot with PGPR had 15 to 20 % superior remediation
Excellent remediation of recalcitrant contamination on poor soil to a depth of 20 cm in 1st year
CCME Fractions remaining in Turner Valley Soil after 100 d – Year 1
(rye/fescue + PGPR)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Blank Plants Blank PlantsCC
ME
Frac
tion,
% D
W o
f Soi
l
Fraction 4Fraction 3
Remediation Kinetics For Turner Valley SoilGreenhouse vs. Field
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8
Remediation time, months
THP
rem
aini
ng in
soi
l, g/
kg
landfarmingbioremPhytorem onlyMPPS
MPPS: Greenhouse 100 days
Field 100 days
Both at 35 to 40 % Remediation in 100 d
~70 m
~70 m
~30 m ~10 m ~30 m
~3 m wide access roads
Rye/Fescue + PGPR
Over seed with new rye fescue + PGPR
Rye/Fescue - PGPR
5 m wide strips for small scale experiments
Blank
Blank
Rye/Fesc + PGPR
Rye/Fesc - PGPR
T/B/A + PGPR
T/B/A - PGPRBarley + PGPR
Barley - PGPR
Site plan May 13th, 2006
Timothy/Brome/Alfalfa(T/B/A) + PGPR
Timothy/Brome/Alfalfa- PGPR
Not to scale
35 m20 m
Sample point
11
1
23
45
6
15
7 8
910
11
12
1314
16
17
19
18
21
22
27
23
2526
24
20
28
32
29
30
33
31
34
35 36
37 38
39
41
40
4255
56
5857
Turner Valley Year 2 2006Planted May 15, 2006
• Quality control• Ryegrass treated with
seed treater• UW3 + UW4 + Me-
Celluose• Test of PGPR efficacy
on 3 % Creosote• Plants grew well in the
field
Control Soil
Control Soil
- PGPR
0.3 % Creosote- PGPR
0.3 % Creosote+ PGPR
Turner Valley, Year 2 2006
• Planted May 15, 2006• Treated with seed treater• UW3 + UW4 + Me-Celluose• Good positive PGPR effect• Excellent growth
June 8, 2006 July 28, 2006
- PGPR + PGPR
Rye Fescue + PGPRRye Fescue
Rye Fescue + PGPR
Sept 5, 2006
Timothy Brome Alfalfa + PGPR
Turner Valley, Year 2 Remediation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
May 15 July 13 Sept 5
Date
TPH
, %
30 % Remediation in 3.5 months
9 % Remediation in 2 months
Same as the remediation kinetics observed in previous years
Turner Valley 2006 – 60 cm deep ploton clay pad - Planted May 15, 2006
• Controlled experiment• Test depth of remediation• UW3 + UW4 + Me-Celluose• Spring ryegrass and tall fescue• Plants have grown well• Positive PGPR effect• Remediation Sept 5:
15 % w/ PGPR, 15 % w/ PGPR, 66 % w/o PGPR% w/o PGPR
June 8, 2006 June 25, 2006
July 28, 2006
- PGPR
+ PGPR + PGPR
- PGPR
- PGPR
+ PGPR
Field Test at Imperial Oil Land Farm, Sarnia, ONYear 1: Summer 2004 – Rye grass
Oil Sludge Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) Contaminated Soil (15 % w/w)
MPPS (+ PGPR) Plants alone (- PGPR)
60 after planting
Remediation of TPHs CCME Fractions from Imperial Oil Land
Farm, 120 d
7
14
21
28
F2 F3 F4 >C50
Frac
tion
in so
il, g
/kg
Untreated MPPS
Contaminants Contaminants metabmetaband/or degraded:and/or degraded:
•• ~75 g TPH/kg soil ~75 g TPH/kg soil removedremoved
•• All fractions All fractions removedremoved
•• 100 g DW plants/kg 100 g DW plants/kg soil. soil.
•• Plants cannot be Plants cannot be 75 % TPH.75 % TPH.
Note: Summer 2004 was a cool wet summer
~ 130 m
~ 40 m
10 m5 m
Barley/Rye + PGPR
Barley/Rye - PGPR
Corn - PGPR
Corn + PGPR
F Rye - PGPR
F Rye + PGPR
Fall Rye + PGPR
Blank
Fall
Rye
-PG
PR
10 W
Rye
/Fes
cue
+ PG
PR
25 m
F Rye - Beads
F Ryr + Beads
F Rye – AC1
Fall Rye + PGPR F Rye + AC1
F Rye - PM
F Rye + PM
Triticale - PGPR
Triticale + PGPR
10 mNot to scale
T = Treated with PGPR PM = Peat moss coated with PGPRBeads = Alginate beads containing PGPR
Fall rye + PGPR + PMFall rye + PM
Sarnia Land Farm – 10E and 10 W – 2005 PlantingYear 2
Fall Rye + PGPR + Peat Moss
Fall Rye - PGPR + Peat Moss
Imperial Oil Land Farm, Sarnia, ONYear 2: 2005 – Fall Rye Growth
15 % TPH 60 d 15 % TPH 60 d
10 % TPH 30 d 10 % TPH 90 d
- PGPR + PGPR - PGPR + PGPR
- PGPR+ PGPR+ PGPR
Note: Summer 2005 was unusually hot and dry
Imperial Oil Land Farm, Sarnia, ONSummer 2005 – Rye/Fescue
Results
Root depth (+ PGPR) after 90 d was > 40 cm
Extent of Remediation
+ PGPR30 d 9 % ± 1.560 d 17 % ± 2
120 d 35 % ± 4
- PGPR remediation was about 50 % slower
TPH Removal from Sarnia Year 2
0
6
12
Blank Rye/Fescue
TPH
, % D
W o
f Soi
l
1C
CM
E Fr
actio
n, %
DW
of S
oil 3
1.5
0
Fraction 3
Fraction 4
Blank Plants Blank Plants
Imperial Oil Sarnia Land Farm Year 3
June 19, 2006
+
Rye/Fesc/Barley + PGPR
-+-
Fall Rye overseededwith Rye/Fescue
+ PGPR
Imperial Oil Sarnia Land Farm Year 3 (2006)
• Planted Barley/Fescue/Rye Grass on April 20, 2006• Plants were treated with PGPR (UW3 and UW4)
using a mechanical seed treater
Barley/Rye/Fescue
Rye/Fescue
- PGPR
- PGPR + PGPR
+ PGPR
~ 11 % TPH10 E (~6% TPH)
Barley/Rye/Fescue+PGPR
40 days after planting – Weather good
Imperial Oil Sarnia Land Farm Year 3
60 d after planting60 d after planting
Fall Rye Fall Rye overseededoverseededwith Rye/Fescuewith Rye/Fescue
+ PGPR+ PGPR
100 d after planting100 d after planting
Over seeded Over seeded Rye/Fescue field,Rye/Fescue field,
after fall rye mowedafter fall rye mowed
40 d after planting40 d after planting
100 d after planting100 d after planting
Rye/Fescue,Rye/Fescue,Test plotsTest plots
Remediation data on Aug 15: 13 % ± 3%
Time (min)
0 20 40 60 80
Abs
orba
nce
Uni
ts
0
1
2
3
4
5
Non-remediated soilRemediated soilRoots from rem. soil
Root data rescaled; Qualitatively different HPLC profile
Time (min)0 20 40 60
Abs
orba
nce
Uni
ts
0
1
2
3
4
HPLC assay for TPH uptake by Rye/Fescue roots
~ 35 % of the TPH removed from the soil
Remediated TPH does not appear in the roots
What happened to the TPH?
• TPH removed from the soil, but not in the plant roots
• TPH must have been degraded• Where was it degraded?• Perhaps in rhizosphere by
bacteria, fungi and roots• Soil fungi and bacteria have
very active and diverse metabolic activities
• In soils with PGPR treated plants, bacteria and fungal counts are 5 to 10 fold higher
PGPRSoil bacteriaFungi
TPH
CO2 Acetate
etc
Possible degradation pathway of TPH in Soil
RR'
RR'
O
RR'
OH
OH
RR'
O
O
RR'
O
O
OH HO
[O] P450?
[O]
[O] P450?
H2O
2 Fatty Acids
Aliphatic hydrocarbon
Control Oil consuming bact.Control UW3 (PGPR) Control UW4 (PGPR)
No Inoculation Inoculation w/ PGPR
Grow for 12 h on shaker
SaturatedTPH in Phos-Buff-Saline
PGPR Can Degrade Oil
TPH sole reduced carbon source
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
Microbes in Sarnia Land Farm Soil From Remediation Field Trial 2006
Rye Fescue Barley Soils
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
PGPR Petro Deg Bacteria
Total FungiTotal Bacteria
108
107
106
105
107
106
105
104
103
106
105
104
103
108
107
106
105
104
27.4 27.429.5 29.521.7 21.713.8 13.8
+ Plants + PGPR
+ Plants - PGPR
- Plants - PGPR
Enhancement of Plant Growth on Salt Contaminated Soils
Using PGPR
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Contro
lNo P
GPR
UW4
UW3UW4+
UW3
Wei
ght (
g)
Barley fresh weight - 10 days on AL
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
Contro
lNo P
GPR
UW4
UW3UW4+
UW3
Wei
ght (
g)
Shoots biomassRoots biomass
Oat fresh weight - 10 days on AL
Effect of PGPR on Plant growth in Alberta Salt Impacted SoilEC = 2.2 dS/m, SAR = 27, Cl = 260 mg/kg
Oat – 10 d
Control soil No PGPR UW4 UW3 UW4+UW3
Control soil No PGPR UW4 UW3 UW4+UW3
Barley – 10 d
Shoots – 219% increase
Roots – 356% increase
Shoots – 24% increase
Roots – 4.1% increase
Wheat Low 21d Fresh Weight
Promix-PGPR
UW3+UW4Fungus
PGPR+Fungus
Fres
h W
eigh
t (g)
0.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Oat Low 21d Fresh Weight
Promix-PGPR
UW3+UW4Fungus
PGPR+Fungus
Fres
h W
eigh
t (g)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0RootShoot
Sask Salt Soil: EC = 14 dS/m , SAR = 11, Cl = 1880 mg/kgOat
Promix -PGPR UW3+UW4 Fungus PGPR+Fungus
7.2g
Shoots and roots 100 % improved3.5g
Wheat
Promix -PGPR UW3+UW4 Fungus PGPR+Fungus
1.1g
0.69g
Shoots and roots 60 to 80 % improved
• MPPS has great potential for efficient remediation of organic, salt and metal contaminated sites
• PGPR is the key: healthy plants with vigorous roots in PAH, TPH, DDT, salt and metal contam. soils
• PGPR alleviate stress and promote growth: Low ethylene and high auxin
• 8 Months in the greenhouse: MPPS removed 90 % of recalcitrant TPHs and PAHs
• 3 years of fields tests successful: MPPS removed 30 % to 60 % of recalcitrant TPHs and DDT per year
• Contaminants metabolized and/or degraded• Great promise for restoration of oil and salt impacted
sites, and brownfields
CONCLUSIONS
• Continued field testing of the MPPS• Increasing research on salt remediation• Ready to deploy at new sites• Proposals for new sites are being
entertained• TPH sites can be remediated in 2 to 4
years • Further research on salt and metal
remediation underway
Future Work
Colleagues and partners• The people that do all
the workKaren GerhardtYola GurskaMark LampiPearl ChangWenxi WangHaitang WangAaron KhalidDavid IsherwoodShan Shan WuJulie NykampAnabel UeckermannXiao-Ming Yu
• CollaboratorsXiao-Dong HuangBernie GlickPerry GerwingGeorge DixonRon Pitblado
• Partners D Bristow, L Lawlor, M Young, Imperial OilJ Gordon, Talisman EnergyA Hopf, BASFG Surgeoner, OAFTG Stephenson, StantecG Brooks, CRAD Hoffman, Ginseng GrowersRegion of WaterlooCity of GuelphNSERC
Phytoremediation of TPH Contaminated Soil Early in Tall Fescue Growth
Plants only
Plants + PAH Deg. bacteria Plants + PGPR MPPS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
landfarm Biorem phytorem Multi-process Control
Different Remediation Methods
TPH
s re
mai
ning
, g/k
gEffectiveness of Different Methods on TPH Remediation -
Second 4 month season (i.e., 8 months total)
Remediation Kinetics For Land Farm SoilGreenhouse vs. Field
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8
Remediation time, months
THP
rem
aini
ng in
soi
l, g/
kg
landfarmingbioremPhytorem onlyMPPS
MPPS: Greenhouse 120 days
Field 120 days
Both at 50 to 60 % Remediation in 120 d
Barley/Rye 30 days - PGPR + PGPR
Sarnia Land Farm – 2005
Barley/Rye 40 days - PGPR + PGPR
Barley/Rye + PGPR - PGPR
Fall rye 30 d
- PGPR + PGPR
15 % TPH
Remediation of Metals
PGPR Effect on Plant Growth with 2% Salt in Irrigation Water
Control w/ PGPR Salt w/ PGPR Salt w/o PGPR
Plants alone (- PGPR)MPPS (+ PGPR)
Dundas foundry soil – PAH contamination ~ 500 ppm
MPPS: germinated earlier and grew faster in the contaminated soil
Plants alone (- PGPR) MPPS (+ PGPR)
Dundas Foundry: 30 d growth, MPPS has 300% more plant biomass in roots and shoots than plants alone
Effectiveness of the MPPS for Remediation From Dundas Foundry Soil: 90 days
PAH
rem
aini
ng, %
unt
reat
ed
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Biorem Phytorem MPPS Control soil
Multi-Process System for Remediation of PAH ContaminatedBrownfield: 90 d remediation leads to ~ 40 % removal of organics
Untreated brownfield soil Bioremediation for 90 days
DBP
CHRBAP
DBA
BBA BKF
BBFPYR
FLA
PHE
BGP
Phytoremediation for 90 days MPPS for 90 days
DDT Remediation with Millet Summer 2005, Simcoe, ON
+ PGPR+ Peat Moss
w/PGPR
+ PGPR- Peat Moss
70 d growth
Remediation of DDT
• Approximately a 0.5 Hectare site• SW Ontario farmland• Homogeneous levels of DDT at ~ 0.8
mg/kg (ppm)• Half planted with Millet and half planted
with fall rye• 40 % overall DDT remediation after 90 d• DDT breakdown products (DDE or DDD)
not found • Chlorinated compounds can be degraded
by phytoremediation
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 6 12 17 23Time, days
Bio
mas
s, g
Effect of PGPR on Plant Growth duringFlooding or Drought Stress
FloodingFlooding + PGPRDroughtDrought + PGPR
EP3 (a salt tol. PGPR) -PGPR UW4+EP3 (2 PGPRs)
Growth of rye grass in salt contaminated soil
Salt impacted clay-loam soil Fenn-Big Valley. Preliminary greenhouse experiment.Cl: 1200-2000 mg/ml, SAR: 11-15, ECe: 9-15 dS/m
Survival 50 % higher with PGPR
Growth of fall rye in salt contaminated soil from Fenn-Big Valley
0
10
20
Unc
onta
m.
Con
trol
soi
lN
o PG
PRU
W4
MG
3EP
3U
W4
+ EP
3U
W4
+ M
G3
Leng
th, c
m
Fall rye shoots
0
3
6
No
PGPR
UW
4M
G3
EP3
UW
4 +
EP3
UW
4 +
MG
3
Fall rye roots
50 % more survival + 20 - 30 % more growth ≅100% more biomass
MG3/EP3: PGPR from salted soils
Triticale/Barley MixYear 1: Summer 2005, North East, AB
~ 1 % TPH on a 7 Hectare site
- PGPR +PGPR70 d growth on good soil
Remediation of the NE Alberta Site• A very large site: > 7 hectares• Overall ~1 % TPH, with high variability in TPH levels (0.3 to 3
% TPH)• 6 Hectares planted: Large scale pilot remediation; All plants
(barley/fall rye mix, 2000 kg of seeds) were PGPR treated• 1 Hectare was used as a random block test for PGPR
efficacy. Barley, fall rye and triticale were used• Pilot area: 15% to 30 % remediation was observed in 70 d• Random block test (70 d), % remediation:
+ PGPR - PGPRF3 2.8 ± 0.5 - 4.2 ± 0.7F4 8.9 ± 1.3 1.9 ± 0.3Total 21.9 ± 4.7 16.7 ± 2.3F4G 32.6 ± 10.9 28.7 ± 5.3
• Consistent rates of remediation observed • Evidence of PGPR improvement, PGPR impact on par with
Turner Valley• 2006 season: Planted only + PGPR Barly/Rye on June 20.
Multi-Process Phytoremediation System (MPPS)
1. Complicated mixtures of contaminants are present in the environment
2. Many techniques based on an individual process failed or were ineffective
3. Contaminants are too toxic to plants and bacteria for remediation
4. Use and understanding of different remediation mechanisms
5. Multiple remediation kinetics resulting in effective and efficient remediation
Field Test at Talisman Energy Biopile (1 % TPH)Turner Valley Alberta
Summer 2005 – Rye/Fescue Plant Growth
- PGPR + PGPR - PGPR + PGPR
Average root depth: 21 cm
Field Test at Imperial Oil Land Farm, Sarnia ON15 % Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH)Year 1: Summer 2004 - 60 d after planting
Rye Grass - PGPR
Rye Grass + PGPR
Field Test at Imperial Oil Land Farm, 120 d
Rye Grass - PGPR
Rye Grass + PGPR
Rye Grass + PGPR
Rye Grass - PGPR