Slurry-Phase Experiments as Screening Protocol for Bioremediation of Complex Hydrocarbon Waste
Publication: Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management
Volume 5, Issue 2
Abstract
Flare pits have been used by the upstream oil and gas industry for decades to store and/or burn produced fluids at well sites, compressor stations, and batteries. Waste at such sites, or flare pit (FP) waste, usually contains high levels of hydrocarbons, metals, and salts. At present, bioremediation by land application is the most common method practiced by the oil and gas industry to treat FP waste. High rate slurry-phase and solid-phase biotreatment methods are viable alternatives to the low cost yet inefficient land treatment option. An ultimate biotreatability screening tool is needed to assess the viability of each treatment method. The effects of salinity, nutrient, soil type, and temperature on the ultimate biotreatability of FP waste were investigated using 2 L slurry reactors. The results showed an initial decrease in petroleum concentrations; however, biodegradation decreased or ceased with time, leaving recalcitrant compounds. Within a week, the majority of saturated hydrocarbons degraded to low levels. Aromatics remained stable, while the level of polar compounds fluctuated. Temperature (30–40°C), salinity levels (up to 40 dS/m), and nutrient concentrations (above 350 mg N/L as ammonium nitrogen) exhibited no statistically significant effects on hydrocarbon degradation. The primary effect of waste composition was highly significant; with higher soil clay content resulting in lower biodegradation. Results indicate that slurry phase experiments may serve as a screening tool; however, caution should be exercised because slurries do not contain some of the microflora found in the solid phase (e.g., fungus).
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP). ( 1993). “Waste control regulation.” Alberta Regulation 129/93, Edmonton, Canada.
2.
Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP). ( 1994). Alberta tier 1 criteria for contaminated soil assessment and remediation, Edmonton, Canada.
3.
American Public Health Association (APHA). ( 1998). “Method 2710B: oxygen-consumption rate.” Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th Ed., Washington, D.C.
4.
ASTM. ( 1997). “Standard practice for nitric acid digestion of solid waste.” D5198-92, West Conshohocken, Pa.
5.
ASTM. ( 1998). “Standard practice for extraction of solid waste samples for chemical analysis using soxhlet extraction.” D5369-93, West Conshohocken, Pa.
6.
Beveridge, T. J., and Doyle, R. J. ( 1989). Metal ions and bacteria, Wiley, Toronto.
7.
Black, W. V., Ahlert, R. C., and Kosson, D. S. ( 1991). “Slurry-based biotreatment of contaminants sorbed onto soil constituents.” On-site bioremediation processes for xenobiotic and hydrocarbon treatment, R. E. Hinchee and R. F. Olfenbuttel, eds., Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, Mass., 408–422.
8.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). ( 1989). Evaluation of technology for the treatment of waste sludges and solids contaminated with salt, metals, and hydrocarbons, Calgary, Canada.
9.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). ( 1994). “Waste treatment technology field assessment project.” 1993 Rep., Calgary, Canada.
10.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). ( 1997). Recommended Canadian soil quality guidelines, Winnipeg, Canada.
11.
Chung, N., and Alexander, M. ( 1998). “Differences in sequestration and bioavailability of organic compounds aged in dissimilar soils.” Envir. Sci. and Technol., 32, 855–860.
12.
Clark, F. ( 1965). “Agar plate method for total microbial count.” Methods of soil analysis, Vol. 2, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisc., 1460–1465.
13.
Glaser, J. A., Dosani, M. A., McCauley, P. T., Platt, J. S., Opatken, E. J., and Krishnan, E. R. ( 1994). “Soil slurry bioreactors: Bench scale studies.” EPA 600/R-94-011, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 127–134.
14.
Hach Company. ( 1993). “Method 8154: nitrogen, ammonia.” Handbook of procedures for the DR/2000 spectrophotometer, Loveland, Colo.
15.
Huesemann, M. H. ( 1995). “Predictive model for estimating the extent of petroleum hydrocarbon biodegradation in contaminated soils.” Envir. Sci. and Technol., 29, 7–18.
16.
Irvine, R. L., Earley, J. P., Kehrberger, G. J., and Delaney, B. T. ( 1993). “Bioremediation of soils contaminated with bis-(2-ethylhexyl) pthalate (BEHP) in a soil slurry-sequencing batch reactor.” Envir. Progress, 12, 39–44.
17.
Malekani, K., Rice, J. A., and Lin, J. S. ( 1997). “The effect of sequential removal of organic matter on the surface morphology of humin.” Soil Sci., 162, 333–342.
18.
McMillen, S. J., et al. ( 1994). “Bioremediation potential of crude oil spilled on soil.” Microbial processes for bioremediation, R. E. Hinchee, C. M. Vogel, and F. J. Brockman, eds., Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, 91–99.
19.
Puskas, K., Al-Awadhi, N., Abdullah, F., and Literathy, P. ( 1995). “Remediation of oil-contaminated sandy soil in a slurry reactor.” Envir. Int., 21, 413–421.
20.
Rogers, J. A., Tedaldi, D. J., and Kavanaugh, M. C. ( 1993). “A screening protocol for bioremediation of contaminated soil.” Envir. Progress, 12, 146–156.
21.
Speer, J. ( 1999). “Flare pit waste in Western Canada: characterization mechanism to enhance flare pit sludge remediation efficiency.” MS thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management
Volume 5 • Issue 2 • April 2001
Pages: 88 - 97
History
Received: Dec 20, 2000
Published online: Apr 1, 2001
Published in print: Apr 2001
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.