biotechnologies at soil & groundwater ...15 figures / case study dekonta – 18 years in...
TRANSCRIPT
1
BIOTECHNOLOGIES
AT SOIL & GROUNDWATER
REMEDIATION
Lenka Wimmerova
OECD Workshop, Rimini, 16-17 September 2010
2
Presentation outlines
• Introduction – SME company
• R&D driving factors
• Current state-of-art of remedial biotechnology
• Key factors for successful bioremediation
• Impediments / barriers
• LCA in remediation
• Figures, case study
• Conclusions
3
Introduction
DEKONTA, Czech Republic
• Established in 1992
• Solely as a bioremediation company
• Presently extensive technological
background
(physical, chemical, thermal)
• Over 120 employees
• Czech and Eastern European leader in biotechnological
remediation of contaminated sites
• Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Romania , Russia, Turkey,
Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Vietnam …
4
Research activities
R&D unit
• Established in 2000
• As a support for company innovation
in bioremediation
• Ca 25 research projects – majority national
(Czech Ministries), 10% international (EU)
• Various technical fields
• 25-30 staff (working on a commercial base)
• Cooperation with universities,
research institutions (Czech + European)
5
R&D driving factors
Company competitiveness
Customer's requirements
Market demands
Business type
– company strategy development
Funding / co-funding resources
Universities‘ / research institutions‘
requests
6
Bioremediation state-of-art
Natural attenuation / enhanced biodegradation
Bacteria (autochthonous, allochthonous, GMO)
• Yeast, fungi, plants
• Enzymes and other commercial preparations
Conditions (aerobic, anaerobic)
Additives (common, innovative)
• Nutrients, oxygen, HS, by-products
Application forms (in situ / on site / ex situ)
7
Bioremediation principle
Ability of a special genus to exploit
pollutants as C + energy sources
Organic pollutants decomposed
to water and carbon dioxide
Acceleration of the process
– possible and technically feasible
8
Biological factor
Bacteria – mostly aerobic
• Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Alcaligenes,
Rhodoccoccus, Achromobacter,
Arthrobacter, Nocardia, Bacillus sp.
• Dehalococcoides sp. (anaerobic,
bioaugmentation costly and problematic)
Yeasts, moulds
• Candida, Rhodotorulla, Trichoderma,
Aspergillus sp.
White rot fungi (basidiomycetes)
Plants (phytoremediation)
9
Bioremediation in situ
A. Contamination plume
B. GW depression
C. Contaminant pumping
D. Biopreparation
infiltration
E. Venting boreholes
F. Air sparging
G. Application of the
biotechnology
H. Biofermentor I
– biopreparation
production
I. Biofermentor II
– pumped GW treatment
J. Filtration venting units
10
Bioremediation ex situ / on site
11
Key factors for successful bioremediation
Effectiveness for contaminant of concern
Feasibility (tailor made approach, site specific)
Applicability (technical considerations,
knowledge transfer)
Monitoring / assessment
(COD/TOC, biomarkers…)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1000 2000 3000
Organic load [mg.l-1.day-1]
Rem
oval
eff
icie
ncy
[%]
0
400
800
1200
1600
Bio
deg
rad
ati
on
rate
[mg
.l-1
.day
-1]
12
Barriers to overcome
Environmental legislation
• Conflict waste law versus demands for on site remediation
• EIA process – time consuming, costly, not fully applicable
State authorities
• Disbelief, low interest in innovation
• Lack of knowledge – law, technical news
Unrealistic expectations
• Realistic / achievable target limits
13
LCA in remediation
Rarely used – rather research purposes
• No legislation support (RA, EIA have it!)
• Low expertise
• Costly
• Time consuming
Used – RA, EIA, a GIS tool (costs)
LCA – useful tool for a remediation sector
• But not fully applicable
• Proper definitions
• Sustainable measures, multi-criteria – clarification
14
UK Environment Agency publications
15
Figures / case study
DEKONTA – 18 years in remediation
• Performed – ca 1,800 remedial projects
• Treated – soil ca 3.6 M t, water ca 2.1 M m3
• Ca 50% bioremediation (900 projects)
• 10% bioremediation in situ, 89% ex situ, 1% on site
• Only 2 projects performed on site in the Czech Republic
– case study TRIANGLE ŽATEC and ŠKODA PLZEŇ
• On site abroad – SFOR (Bosnia-Herzegovina), Slovnaft
(Slovakia), IFA (Serbia, Macedonia), UNDP (Albania), WB
(Azerbaijan), local administrations (Romania, Turkey)
• Mainly based on customer requirements, not law requirements,
rather knowledge transfer, partly on our decision
16
Conclusions
Biotechnologies already successfully established
in a remediation field
But mostly applied ex situ (90%)
Need to increase on site / in situ applications
• Lack of environmental legislation (waste, EIA, LCA)
• Awareness knowledge of state authorities
• LCA useful but not fully applicable – properly defined
• Open discussions – technological platforms
– , Sustainable Water Resources
