Reductive Bio Reductive Bio - - Modification of Sediment Modification of Sediment Contaminants: An Contaminants: An In Situ In Situ , Molecular Hydrogen , Molecular Hydrogen Formation Approach. Formation Approach. NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Prevention and Remediation In Selected Industrial Sectors: Sediments. Ljubljana, Slovenia. June 17-22, 2007 Guy W. Sewell, Ph.D. Guy W. Sewell, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Health Sciences Professor of Environmental Health Sciences Robert S. Kerr Endowed Chair Robert S. Kerr Endowed Chair Executive Director IESER Executive Director IESER East Central University East Central University
27
Embed
Reductive Bio-Modification of Sediment Contaminants: An In ... · Reductive Bio-Modification of Sediment Contaminants: An In Situ, Molecular Hydrogen Formation Approach. Formation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Reductive BioReductive Bio--Modification of Sediment Modification of Sediment Contaminants: An Contaminants: An In SituIn Situ, Molecular Hydrogen , Molecular Hydrogen
Formation Approach.Formation Approach.
NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Prevention and Remediation In Selected Industrial Sectors:
Sediments. Ljubljana, Slovenia. June 17-22, 2007
Guy W. Sewell, Ph.D.Guy W. Sewell, Ph.D.Professor of Environmental Health SciencesProfessor of Environmental Health Sciences
Robert S. Kerr Endowed ChairRobert S. Kerr Endowed ChairExecutive Director IESERExecutive Director IESEREast Central UniversityEast Central University
East Central University Ada, Oklahoma ~4000 Students
Ada is Home to the US-EPAsGround Water Research Center
Assumption: Dredging may be necessary but it is not desirable.
• Efficacy Questions
• Ecological Impacts
• Sustainability Questions
Can we treat in situ effectively?
Sediments: System Management Factors
• Dynamic SystemΔ
Solution Transport RateΔ
Particulate Transport RateContaminant Transport Rate is a Function of Both
Prediction of Contaminant Distribution DifficultControl of Treatment/Residence Time Difficult
• Mixture of ContaminantsSink for Multiple SourcesPoint and Non-Point → linear source
• Concentration vs Mass Loading (mass flux)Descrete Receptor-More likely than most mediaDo we manage for the media or the receptor?
Figure 2. Bottom: Microbial consortia operating at the surface of corroding iron, transferring electrons from removed hydrogen, and reducing sulfate. Top: Microbial consortia operating at the surface of metal that is electrolytically generating hydrogen and transferring electrons to chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The story of The story of Postgate’s nailPostgate’s nail
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 50 100 150
Time (days)
FIGURE 1. Environmentally benign products production from PCE degradationand concurrent methane formation with cathodic hydrogen as electron donor(Ο control; enrichment only; s iron B (5 g/L) only; Δ enrichment + iron B (5g/L))
Metal Surface
H+
SO4=S=
SRBFe2+
Feoelectron
delocalization
Fe2+ Fe[-]
HHHH
Metal Surface
H+
C2Cl4HC2Cl3
?Fe2+
e-
Feoelectron
rich
Fe2+ Fe[-]
HHHH
Electrolytic ReductiveDechlorination
AnaerobicCorrosion
Figure 2. Bottom: Microbial consortia operating at the surface of corroding iron, transferring electrons from removed hydrogen, and reducing sulfate. Top: Microbial consortia operating at the surface of metal that is electrolytically generating hydrogen and transferring electrons to chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The story of The story of Postgate’s nailPostgate’s nail
Hydrogen EvolutionExperimental conditions: 150 mL water, Na 2SO 4 3500mg/L, headspace150mL, mild steel electrode, 0.18 g each, diameter 0.83mm, 40mmlong, distance between cathode and anode 40mm, voltage 0.03 V
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Time (min)
H y d r o g e n
( p p m )
0
2
4
6
8
10
12HydrogenControlCurrent
Cur
rent
(µA
)
Figure 6. Quantification of evolved hydrogen at a constant applied potential of 0.03V
CH 4 Profiles for the Electrode Reversal Test
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2 4 6 8
Time (day)
Methane (mM)
Control at 0 V (Protein content 7.5 micro-g/L)
Continuous electricity at 0.4 V
8 hr/day & 1 switching/10 min at 0.4 V
Figure 14. Methane concentration profiles for the systems tested at 0 V, 0.4 V continuous, and 0.4 V with reversal.
Injection Cathode,E3E-10'E3E-12'
E1 E2Anode
Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6
AB
CD E
A AB BC CD D
EWells
NWells are represented byWells are designated by Lane, Row, Letter (when applicable), and depth (when applicable).For example, E4A, E3E-12', etc. Distance between wells within rows - 1 ft.Note: Row 3 wells C, D, and E are out of sequence with Row 4 and 5 wells.
Ground Water Flow Cathode to Anode Distance
5' 5' 2.7' 2.6' 2.7' 5' 5' 2.6'5'
10'
15.3'
4.2'
30'
Figure 16. Lane E map showing the anode, cathode, installed monitoring wells and physical dimensions.
5 ft(Row
1)
7.7 ft(Row
2)
10.3 ft(Row
3)
13 ft(Row
4)
18 ft(Row
5)
23 ft(Row
6)
ED
CB
A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
H 2 (nM)
Row
Well
Hydrogen Concentration Profile in Lane E (Fallon, NV, 10/29/98)
E D C B A
Figure 17. Fallon, NV, pilot test Lane E hydrogen profile on October 29, 1998.
5 ft(Row
1)
7.7 ft(Row
2)
10.3 ft(Row
3)
13 ft(Row
4)
18 ft(Row
5)
23 ft(Row
6)
E
DCBA
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
H 2 (nM)
Row
Well
Hydrogen Concentration Profile in Lane E(Fallon, NV, 12/3/98)
E D C B A
Figure 19. Fallon, NV, pilot test Lane E hydrogen profile on December 3, 1998.
BioLance Advantages• In situ application• Ease of installation• Low cost installation and
operation • Can be easily applied
where needed to intercept the plume or source
BioLance Disadvantages• Requires electricity source• Hydrogen is potentially
hazardous• Electrodes may need
replacement• There is a lack of
performance data due: ROI, rates
• Attenuation rates may be very slow
Summary• BioLance may be applicable to sediments• Low cost in situ technology• Appropriate for ex situ applications also• Ecologically Benign• Enhances Native Processes• Applicable to a variety of bio-reducible