Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of a permeable reactive barrier to capture and degrade hydrocarbon contaminants

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A permeable reactive barrier (PRB) was installed during 2005/2006 to intercept, capture and degrade a fuel spill at the Main Power House, Casey Station, Antarctica. Here, evaluation of the performance of the PRB is conducted via interpretation of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations, degradation indices and most probable number (MPN) counts of total heterotroph and fuel degrading microbial populations. Results indicate that locations which contained the lowest TPH concentrations also exhibited the highest levels of degradation and numbers of fuel degrading microbes, based on the degradation indices and MPN methods selected. This provides insights to the most appropriate reactive materials for use in PRB’s in cold and nutrient-limited environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aislabie J, Foght J et al (2000) Aromatic hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria from soil near Scott base, Antarctica. Polar Biol 23:183–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortone I, Di Nardo A et al (2013) Remediation of an aquifer polluted with dissolved tetrachloroethylene by an array of wells filled with activated carbon. J Hazard Mater 260:914–920

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coulon F, Pelletier E et al (2005) Effects of nutrient and temperature on degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated sub-Antarctic soil. Chemosphere 58(10):1439–1448

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dong J, Zhao YS et al (2009) Laboratory study on sequenced permeable reactive barrier remediation for landfill leachate-contaminated groundwater. J Hazard Mater 161(1):224–230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Erto A, Bortone I et al (2014) Permeable Adsorptive Barrier (PAB) for the remediation of groundwater simultaneously contaminated by some chlorinated organic compounds. J Environ Manag 140:111–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gore DB, Heiden ES et al (2006) Grain size of activated carbon, and untreated and modified granular clinoptilolite under freeze-thaw: applications to permeable reactive barriers. Polar Record 42(221):121–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerin TF, Horner S et al (2002) An application of permeable reactive barrier technology to petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater. Water Res 36(1):15–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson AD, Demond AH (2007) Long-term performance of zero-valent iron permeable reactive barriers: a critical review. Environ Eng Sci 24(4):401–423

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hornig G, Northcott K et al (2008) Assessment of sorbent materials for treatment of hydrocarbon contaminated ground water in cold regions. Cold Reg Sci Technol 53:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang G, Liu F et al (2015) Ammonium-nitrogen-contaminated gourndwater remediation by a sequential three-zone permeable reactive barrier (multibarrier) with oxygen releasing compound (ORC)/clinoptilolite/spongy iron: column studies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:3705–3714

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig RD, Smyth DJA et al (2009) Treatment of Arsenic, Heavy Metals, and Acidity Using a Mixed ZVI-Compost PRB. Environ Sci Technol 43(6):1970–1976

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre CP, Harvey PM et al (2007) Determining the extent of biodegradation of fuels using the diastereomers of acyclic isoprenoids. Environ Sci Technol 41(7):2452–2458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morkin M, Devlin JF et al (2000) In situ sequential treatment of a mixed contaminant plume. J Contam Hydrol 45(3–4):283–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford KA, Northcott KA et al (2008a) Comparison of amberlite IRC-748 resin and zeolite for copper and ammonium ion exchange. J Chem Eng Data 53(9):2012–2017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford KA, Shallcross DC et al (2008b) Application of a temperature-dependent semiempirical thermodynamic ion-exchange model to a multicomponent natural zeolite system. Ind Eng Chem Res 47(21):8347–8354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford KA, Rayner JL et al (2013) Design, installation and preliminary testing of a permeable reactive barrier for diesel fuel remediation at Casey Station, Antarctica. Cold Reg Sci Technol 96:96–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford KA, Pitt B et al (2014a) Long-Term Acid-Generating and Metal Leaching Potential of a Sub-Arctic Oil Shale. Minerals 4(2):292–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford KA, Rayner JL et al (2014b) Hydraulic performance of a permeable reactive barrier at Casey Station, Antarctica. Chemosphere 117:223–231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Plagentz V, Ebert M et al (2006) Remediation of ground water containing chlorinated and brominated hydrocarbons, benzene and chromate by sequential treatment using ZVI and GAC. Environ Geol 49(5):684–695

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Powell SM, Ferguson SH et al (2006a) Using real-time pcr to assess changes in the hydrocarbon-degrading microbial community in Antarctic soil during bioremediation. Microb Ecol 52:523–532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Powell SM, Ferguson SH et al (2006b) Fertilisation stimulates anaerobic fuel degradation of Antarctic soils by denitrifying microorganisms. Environ Sci Technol 40:2011–2017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Powell SM, Ma WK et al (2006c) Isolation of denitrigying bacteria from hydrocarbon-contaminanted Antarctic soil. Polar Biol 30:69–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roling WFM, Milner MG et al (2002) Robust hydrocarbon degradation and dynamics of bacterial communities during nutrient-enhanced oil spill bioremediation. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:5537–5548

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Snape I, Ferguson SH et al (2006) Investigation of evaporation and biodegradation of fuel spills in Antarctica: II - Extent of natural attenuation at Casey Station. Chemosphere 63(1):89–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Statham T, Mason L, et al. (2015) “The specific reactive surface area of metal contaminant removal by granular zero-valent iron.” Water Researchaccepted

  • Statham T, Mumford KA et al (2015b) Removal of copper and zinc from ground water by granular zero-valent iron: a dynamic freeze-thaw permeable reactive barrier laboratory experiment. Cold Reg Sci Technol 110:120–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statham T, Mumford KA, et al. (2015) “A permeable reactive media sequence for the remediation of heavy metal and hydrocarbon contaminated water: a field assessment at Casey Station, Antarctica.” in final preparation.

  • Statham T, Mumford KA, et al. (2015) “Removal of copper and zinc from ground water by granular zero-valent iron: a study of kinetics.” Separation Science and Technologyaccepted

  • Vazquez S, Nogales B et al (2013) Characterization of bacterial consortia from diesel-contaminated antarctic soils: towards the design of tailored formulas for bioaugmentation. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 77:22–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wrenn BA, Venosa AD (1996) Selective enumeration of aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbon degrading bacteria by a most probably number procedure. Can J Microbiol 42:252–258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou D, Li Y et al (2014) Column test-based optimization of the permeable reactive barrier (PRB) technique for remediating groundwater contaminated by landfill leachates. J Contam Hydrol 168:1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Particulate Fluids Processing Centre, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    K. A. Mumford & G. W. Stevens

  2. School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    S. M. Powell

  3. CSIRO Land and Water, Private Bag No. 5, Wembley, WA, 6913, Australia

    J. L. Rayner

  4. Australian Antarctic Division, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 203 Channel Highway, Kingston, TAS, 9050, Australia

    G. Hince & I. Snape

Authors
  1. K. A. Mumford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. M. Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. L. Rayner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Hince
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I. Snape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. W. Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. A. Mumford.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Robert Duran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mumford, K.A., Powell, S.M., Rayner, J.L. et al. Evaluation of a permeable reactive barrier to capture and degrade hydrocarbon contaminants. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 12298–12308 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4438-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4438-2

Keyword

Search

Navigation