Bioremediation of PAHs - Limitations and soultions

Introduction 1.1 Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the environment Worldwide industrial and agricultural developments have released a large number of natural and synthetic hazardous compounds into the environment due to careless waste disposal, illegal waste dumping and accidental spills. As a result, there are numerous sites in the world that require cleanup of soils and groundwater. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are one of the major groups of these contaminants (Da Silva et al., 2003). PAHs constitute a diverse class of organic compounds consisting of two or more aromatic rings with various structural configurations (Prabhu and Phale, 2003). Being a derivative of benzene, PAHs are thermodynamically stable. In addition, these chemicals tend to adhere to particle surfaces, such as soils, because of their low water solubility and strong hydrophobicity, and this results in greater persistence under natural conditions. This persistence coupled with their potential carcinogenicity makes PAHs problematic environmental contaminants (Cerniglia, 1992; Sutherland, 1992). PAHs are widely found in high concentrations at many industrial sites, particularly those associated with petroleum, gas production and wood preserving industries (Wilson and Jones, 1993). 1.2 Remediation technologies Conventional techniques used for the remediation of soil polluted with organic contaminants include excavation of the contaminated soil and disposal to a landfill or capping - containment - of the contaminated areas of a site. These methods have some drawbacks. The first method simply moves the contamination elsewhere and may create significant risks in the excavation, handling and transport of hazardous material. Additionally, it is very difficult and increasingly expensive to find new landfill sites for the final disposal of the material. The cap and containment method is only an interim solution since the contamination remains on site, requiring monitoring and maintenance of the isolation barriers long into the future, with all the associated costs and potential liability. A better approach than these traditional methods is to completely destroy the pollutants, if possible, or transform them into harmless substances. Some technologies that have been used are high-temperature incineration and various types of chemical decomposition (for example, base-catalyzed dechlorination, UV oxidation). However, these methods have significant disadvantages, principally their technological complexity, high cost , and the lack of public acceptance. Bioremediation, on the contrast, is a promising option for the complete removal and destruction of contaminants. 1.3 Bioremediation of PAH contaminated soil & groundwater Bioremediation is the use of living organisms, primarily microorganisms, to degrade or detoxify hazardous wastes into harmless substances such as carbon dioxide, water and cell biomass Most PAHs are biodegradable unter natural conditions (Da Silva et al., 2003; Meysami and Baheri, 2003) and bioremediation for cleanup of PAH wastes has been extensively studied at both laboratory and commercial levels- It has been implemented at a number of contaminated sites, including the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989, the Mega Borg spill off the Texas coast in 1990 and the Burgan Oil Field, Kuwait in 1994 (Purwaningsih, 2002). Different strategies for PAH bioremediation, such as in situ , ex situ or on site bioremediation were developed in recent years. In situ bioremediation is a technique that is applied to soil and groundwater at the site without removing the contaminated soil or groundwater, based on the provision of optimum conditions for microbiological contaminant breakdown.. Ex situ bioremediation of PAHs, on the other hand, is a technique applied to soil and groundwater which has been removed from the site via excavation (soil) or pumping (water). Hazardous contaminants are converted in controlled bioreactors into harmless compounds in an efficient manner. 1.4 Bioavailability of PAH in the subsurface Frequently, PAH contamination in the environment is occurs as contaminants that are sorbed onto soilparticles rather than in phase (NAPL, non aqueous phase liquids). It is known that the biodegradation rate of most PAHs sorbed onto soil is far lower than rates measured in solution cultures of microorganisms with pure solid pollutants (Alexander and Scow, 1989; Hamaker, 1972). It is generally believed that only that fraction of PAHs dissolved in the solution can be metabolized by microorganisms in soil. The amount of contaminant that can be readily taken up and degraded by microorganisms is defined as bioavailability (Bosma et al., 1997; Maier, 2000). Two phenomena have been suggested to cause the low bioavailability of PAHs in soil (Danielsson, 2000). The first one is strong adsorption of the contaminants to the soil constituents which then leads to very slow release rates of contaminants to the aqueous phase. Sorption is often well correlated with soil organic matter content (Means, 1980) and significantly reduces biodegradation (Manilal and Alexander, 1991). The second phenomenon is slow mass transfer of pollutants, such as pore diffusion in the soil aggregates or diffusion in the organic matter in the soil. The complex set of these physical, chemical and biological processes is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, biodegradation processes are taking place in the soil solution while diffusion processes occur in the narrow pores in and between soil aggregates (Danielsson, 2000). Seemingly contradictory studies can be found in the literature that indicate the rate and final extent of metabolism may be either lower or higher for sorbed PAHs by soil than those for pure PAHs (Van Loosdrecht et al., 1990). These contrasting results demonstrate that the bioavailability of organic contaminants sorbed onto soil is far from being well understood. Besides bioavailability, there are several other factors influencing the rate and extent of biodegradation of PAHs in soil including microbial population characteristics, physical and chemical properties of PAHs and environmental factors (temperature, moisture, pH, degree of contamination). Figure 1: Schematic diagram showing possible rate-limiting processes during bioremediation of hydrophobic organic contaminants in a contaminated soil-water system (not to scale) (Danielsson, 2000). 1.5 Increasing the bioavailability of PAH in soil Attempts to improve the biodegradation of PAHs in soil by increasing their bioavailability include the use of surfactants , solvents or solubility enhancers.. However, introduction of synthetic surfactant may result in the addition of one more pollutant. (Wang and Brusseau, 1993).A study conducted by Mulder et al. showed that the introduction of hydropropyl-ß-cyclodextrin (HPCD), a well-known PAH solubility enhancer, significantly increased the solubilization of PAHs although it did not improve the biodegradation rate of PAHs (Mulder et al., 1998), indicating that further research is required in order to develop a feasible and efficient remediation method. Enhancing the extent of PAHs mass transfer from the soil phase to the liquid might prove an efficient and environmentally low-risk alternative way of addressing the problem of slow PAH biodegradation in soil.

Analisi del fine vita degli pneumatici attraverso una metodologia Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

This study aims to show the scope of environment impact due to tyre treatments. The study scrutinises a firm’s case, Marangoni S.p.A, which is one of the first pneumatics treatments firm with emphasis on disposed and recostructed exhausted pneumatics. In particular those pneumatic’s treatments are two: reconstruction (30% of the whole amount of the pneumatics given) and incineration (70% of the whole amount of the pneumatics given). With LCA methods (EcoIndicator 99, EPS 2000, EDIP 97, IMPACT 2002) it has been possible to value the impact on the environments in terms of human health, ecosystem quality and resources. In addition, comparison with the principal process and subsidiary processes within the main one has brought to highlight how some results could be understood in different way. This interpretation should bring politics and socials network to take decision in order to save our planet.

Life Cycle Assessment comparativo tra il processo di co-digestione della frazione organica dei rifiuti solidi urbani e dei fanghi di depurazione disidratati e il sistema di gestione attuale. Il caso di Bagnacavallo (RA)

Waste management is becoming, year after year, always more important both for the costs associated with it and for the ever increasing volumes of waste generated. The discussion on the fate of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) leads everyday to new solutions. Many alternatives are proposed, ranging from incineration to composting passing through anaerobic digestion. “For Biogas” is a collaborative effort, between C.I.R.S.A. and R.E.S. cooperative, whose main goal is to generate “green” energy from both biowaste and sludge anaerobic co-digestion. Specifically, the project include a pilot plant receiving dewatered sludge from both urban and agro-industrial sewage (DS) and the organic fraction of MSW (in 2/1 ratio) which is digested in absence of oxygen to produce biogas and digestate. Biogas is piped to a co-generation system producing power and heat reused in the digestion process itself, making it independent from the national grid. Digestate undergoes a process of mechanical separation giving a liquid fraction, introduced in the treatment plant, and a solid fraction disposed in landfill (in future it will be further processed to obtain compost). This work analyzed and estimated the impacts generated by the pilot plant in its operative phase. Once the model was been characterized, on the basis of the CML2001 methodology, a comparison is made with the present scenario assumed for OFMSW and DS. Actual scenario treats separately the two fractions: the organic one is sent to a composting plant, while sludge is sent to landfill. Results show that the most significant difference between the two scenarios is in the GWP category as the project "For Biogas" is able to generate “zero emission” power and heat. It also generates a smaller volume of waste for disposal. In conclusion, the analysis evaluated the performance of two alternative methods of management of OFMSW and DS, highlighting that "For Biogas" project is to be preferred to the actual scenario.

Waste management in Forlì-Cesena province: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Forlì incinerator

This work assesses the environmental impact of a municipal solid waste incinerator with energy recovery in Forlì-Cesena province (Emilia-Romagna region, Italy). The methodology used is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). As the plant already applies the best technologies available in waste treatment, this study focuses on the fate of the residues (bottom and fly ash) produced during combustion. Nine scenarios are made, based on different ash treatment disposing/recycling techniques. The functional unit is the amount of waste incinerated in 2011. Boundaries are set from waste arrival in the plant to the disposal/recovery of the residues produced, with energy recovery. Only the operative period is considered. Software used is GaBi 4 and the LCIA method used is CML2001. The impact categories analyzed are: abiotic depletion, acidification, eutrophication, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, global warming, human toxicity, ozone layer depletion, photochemical oxidant formation, terrestrial ecotoxicity and primary energy demand. Most of the data are taken from Herambiente. When primary data are not available, data from Ecoinvent and GaBi databases or literature data are used. The whole incineration process is sustainable, due to the relevant avoided impact given by co-generator. As far as regards bottom ash treatment, the most influential process is the impact savings from iron recovery. Bottom ash recycling in road construction or as building material are both valid alternatives, even if the first option faces legislative limits in Italy. Regarding fly ash inertization, the adding of cement and Ferrox treatment results the most feasible alternatives. However, this inertized fly ash can maintain its hazardous nature. The only method to ensure the stability of an inertized fly ash is to couple two different stabilization treatments. Ash stabilization technologies shall improve with the same rate of the flexibility of the national legislation about incineration residues recycling.