Plant Growth Promoting Rihzobacteria Enhanced Phytoremediation Systems for

Remediation of Contaminated Soils

Xiao-Dong Huang, Ph.D.Vice President

Waterloo Environmental Biotechnology IncWaterloo, Ontario

Outline

1. Bacteria enhanced phytoremediation

3. Remediation cases: PHC and Salt

3. Cost analysis

1. Preserves natural environment and improves soil quality2. It is driven by solar energy and suitable to most regions

and climates3. It is cost effective and technically feasible4. Restoration of ecosystem5. Can be used effectively at remote sites6. Effective for remediation of PHC and salt – relevant to the

energy industry

Advantages of Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation process is too SLOW10-20 years for completionFeasibility ? Not goodThe Question:How to speed up the process to 10-20 months?The answer: Soil Rhizobacteria

Disadvantages of Phytoremediation

Microorganisms in soil: Plant associated bacteria:

Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) Degrading Bacteria:

Contaminant degradation

Inoculationto plants

1 week later

uninoculated

Inoculated

Greenhouse experiment for PHC degradation

BioremedaitionBacteria enhancedPhytoremediaionPhytoremediation

Bacteria enhancedPhytoremediaion

Greenhouse testing: PHC remediation

Enhanced phytoremphytorem

Plant promote rhizobacteria population

5 x 108

5 x 107 有

PhytoremEnhanced phytoBiorem

June seeding

July August September

Rih

zosp

ere

bact

eria

pop

ulat

ion,

log

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2 4 6 8

Degradation kinetics of bacteria enhanced phytoremediation

time

Deg

rada

tion

rate，

%

Phytoremediation Enhanced Phytorem

HPLC analysis of PAH Degradation by PEP System

DBP

CHRBAP

DBA

BBA BKF

BBFPYR

FLA

PHE

BGP

3 months40%

Application of PEPS for PHC Remediation(2007- 09)

All sites met applicable criteria1. Sarnia, ON – land farm for oil sludge – 3 year study (15% w/w –

60% F3 (C16-C34), 30% F4 (C34 – C50)2. Quebec City, QC – Tier 1 criteria met in one year3. Steinbach, MB – Complete remediation in 1 year – Gas station

site 4. Hinton, AB – Complete remediation in 2 years – Diesel invert

drilling waste5. Peace River, AB – Complete remediation in 3 years – Flare pit

material6. Edson, AB – Complete remediation in 2 years – Diesel invert

drilling waste

2006/6/19

Field application: Sarnia refinery landfarming site

PH

C, %

Field application: Sarnia refinery landfarming site

3 years remediation: PHC from 15% down to 3%

PEPsPhytorem

7

14

21

28

F2 (C16-15) F3(C16-25) F4 (C26-50) >C50

g/kg

35%

Quebec City, QC PHC contaminated soil treated with bioremediation for one year

Soil contain 1000 ppm PHC

Quebec City, QC – start of Season May 20 2009

Quebec tier 1 criteria: 300 ppm

Treatment pads

Quebec City, QC – End of Season Oct 20 2009

PHC Removal for Growth Season

QB Tier 1 standard

Field application: Gas Station in Steinbach, Manitoba

One year remediation: PHC from 2200 ppm down to 1000 ppm

Plant Growth and Coverage at a Diesel Invert Site near Hinton AB

2008 remediation operation: Plating on June 25Final sampling on Oct 5Plant coverage 95%Pant height: 45 cm

PHC removal at Hinton site, AB

Alberta Tier 1 standard

A closed contaminated site near Peace River, AB

PHC Remediation at Peace River Site, AB

28%

51%

Alberta Tier 1 standard

Plant growth and coverage at a diesel invert site near Edson AB

July 31 2008

PHC Remediation near Edson, AB

Alberta Tier 1 standard

Second Generation Full Scale Sites

1. Three sites near Dawson Creek, BC2. One site near Fort Nelson, BC3. One site near Swan Hills, AB4. One site near Hinton, AB5. One site near Edson, AB6. One site near Red Earth Creek, AB

Application of PEPS for Salt Remediation (2007- 09)

1. Norman Wells, NWT 2. Provost, AB3. Cannington Manor, SK4. Alameda, SK5. Kindersley, SK6. Brazeau, AB7. Weyburn, SK (7 sites)8. Red Earth, AB

Norman Wells, NWT – Start of Season (2008)Soil Impact – Salt

Norman Wells, NWT – End of Season (2010)

Soil Impact – Salt

Norman Wells, NWT – End of Season (2009)Soil Impact – Salt

Plant Biomass (dry wt g/m2 ± SE)

Year Plot A Plot B Plot C

2009 300 ± 26 397 ± 50 623 ± 44

2010 393 ± 16 592 ± 40 525 ± 20

• ECe (2009): decreased from 13-17 to 4-12 dS/m

• ECe (Spring 2010): all sampling points were below applicable targets

• Successful remediation was achieved in 1 year

Soil Impact – Salt Provost, AB: End of Season (2009, Year 1)

• High salt spots have filled in with plants

Phytoremediation Cost analysis for the Edson Site

• 1.07 ha impacted to a depth of 0.3 m or 3,210 m3 of PHC impacted material

• The costs for the entire project for PEPs was: $104,000 or $32.50/m3

• Landfilling this material would have cost $70/m3 • Assumes a 2 h truck turnaround time if no backfill

required • If backfill was required, the cost would rise to $90/m3

• Composting would cost $75-150/m3

Examples of Remediation Methods• Dig and dump - Any contaminant type - $100-500/m3• Soil incineration - On or off site - Organic contamination -

$200-600/m3• Chemical extraction - Any type of contamination -

$250/m3• Electrokinetic separation - Metals/Salts - $200/m3• Soil flushing/fracturing - Any contaminant type - $250/m3• Land farming - Small organics - $50/m3• Bioremediation - Organics - $100/m3• Our PEPs - Any contaminant type - $25-50/m3

Development, Proof, and Application of PGPR Enhanced Phytoremediation

Systems (PEPS)Over 10 years of research and full-scale field application:1. PHC: 18 sites in AB, BC, MB, QC and ON(2004-10)

2. Gas station: site fully remediated in 1 summer (2007)

3. Salt: 14 sites in SK, AB and NWT (2007-10)

• Works effective for PHC and salt remediation. • Remediation at all sites have been successful; > 20 sites.• Costs of PHC and salt remediation are low.• Unit cost drops as the volume of material increases. • Phytoremediation costs (all in) < half the cost of landfilling.• Liability is reduced, not transferred to a landfill.• Cost effective at remote sites.• Purchase of backfill not required. Soils are reused.• Tier 2 approach - if required only marginal cost increase.• Green technology, solar energy and carbon sequestration. • Environmentally friendly and Positive PR opportunity.

Why Use Phytoremediation?

Colleagues and PartnersPeople in the group

• Bruce Greenberg• Karen Gerhardt• Jola Gurska• Xiao-Ming Yu• Mark Lampi• Shan Shan Wu• Julie Nykamp• Nicole Knezevich• Greg MacNeill• Xiaobo Lu• Scott Liddycoat• Han Zheng• Brianne McCallum• Peter Mosley• Matt Hannaberg

Partners • S Willets, O Mrklas, C Gordey,

Conoco Phillips Canada• B Moore, Devon Canada Inc• E Harrison, Cenovus Energy• P Coldham, Questerre Engegy• L Lawlor, Imperial Oil• A Traverse, Baytex Energy Corp• G Millard, Shell Canada• Canadian Forestry Oil Corp• Perry Gerwing, Earthmaster • T Chidlaw, MWH• J Budziak, Seaway • D McMillan, SNC• G Stephenson, Stantec• S Steed, NorthWind• G Adams, URS• B Chubb, Maxxam