Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 74, Issue 6, pp 5211–5219 | Cite as

Enhanced in situ bioremediation of groundwater contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons at the location of the Nitex textiles, Serbia

  • Nenad MarićEmail author
  • Mila Ilić
  • Srđan Miletić
  • Gordana Gojgić-Cvijović
  • Vladimir Beškoski
  • Miroslav M. Vrvić
  • Petar Papić
Original Article

Abstract

This study provides insight into the enhanced in situ bioremediation applied for remediation of groundwater contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons. Activities prior to the application of this remediation approach included removal of the source of groundwater contamination—an underground storage tank and contaminated sediments—from the unsaturated zone. The hydraulic feasibility of this remediation approach was proved by hydraulic conductivity characterization of the site. Enhanced in situ bioremediation was performed by a combination of biostimulation and bioaugmentation within the closed bipolar system (one extraction and two injection wells). Biostimulation was conducted by addition of nutrients, and stimulation of oxidation processes by injection of H2O2, into the aquifer. Bioaugmentation/re-inoculation was achieved by injection of a zymogenous consortium of hydrocarbon degrading microorganisms isolated from the contaminated groundwater. The average extraction capacity was 0.5 l/s, with an average injection capacity of 0.25 l/s per well. The efficiency of the remediation approach was measured by changes in the content of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), total chemoorganoheterotrophic (TC) and hydrocarbon degrading (HD) microorganisms. After biostimulation and bioaugmentation, the number of TC and HD microorganisms started to increase. This was followed by a decrease of TPH concentration in the groundwater from an initial 6.8–0.5 mg/l at the end of the bioremediation. The applied remediation approach was highly efficient and very effective in reducing TPH to acceptable levels. Together, these facts provide strong evidence of its potential for remediation of groundwater contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons.

Keywords

Groundwater Petroleum hydrocarbons Bioremediation In situ 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia under Grant No. 43004.

References

  1. Alvarez JP, Illman AW (2006) Bioremediation and natural attenuation: process fundamentals and mathematical models. John Willey & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin EI, Alan Jacobs M (2013) A study of the contaminated banks of the Mahoning River, Northeastern Ohio, USA: characterization of the contaminated bank sediments and river water–groundwater interactions. Environ Earth Sci 70:3237–3244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 17th edn. APHA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Babič D (2012) Report on the grain size and mineralogical analyzes of alluvial clastic sediments of locality Nitex in Nis. Faculty of Mining and Geology, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedient P, Rifai H, Newell C (1999) Ground water contamination-transport and remediation, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper SaddleGoogle Scholar
  6. Beškoski VP, Gojgić-Cvijović G, Milić J, Ilić M, Miletić S, Šolević T, Vrvić MM (2011) Ex situ bioremediation of a soil contaminated by mazut (heavy residual fuel oil)—a field experiment. Chemosphere 83:34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bossert ID, Shor LM, Kosson DS (2002) Methods for measuring hydrocarbon biodegradation in soils. Manual of environmental microbiology, 2nd edn. ASM Press, Washington, pp 934–943Google Scholar
  8. Cunningham AJ, Hopkins DG, Lebron AC, Reinhard M (2000) Enhanced anaerobic bioremediation of groundwater contaminated by fuel hydrocarbons at Seal Beach, California. Biodegradation 11:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DIN EN 14345 (2004) International standard: characterization of waste. Determination of hydrocarbon content by gravimetry. DIN, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Dinić S, Punišić Z (2011) Study on performed geotechnical works for the purpose of soil remediation at the site Nitex in Nis. Geoengineering, NisGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeze R, Cherry J (1979) Groundwater. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilchrist S, Gates A, Gorring M, Elzinga EJ (2011) Metal contamination and filtering in soil from an iron (magnetite) minesmelter complex in the critical Hudson Highlands watershed, New York. Environ Earth Sci 63(5):1029–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gojgic-Cvijovic DG, Milic SJ, Solevic MT, Beskoski PV, Ilic VM, Djokic SL, Narancic MT, Vrvic MM (2012) Biodegradation of petroleum sludge and petroleum polluted soil by a bacterial consortium: a laboratory study. Biodegradation 23(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hatzinger PB, Whittier MC, Arkins MD, Bryan CW, Guarini WJ (2002) In situ and ex situ bioremediation options for treating perchlorate in groundwater. Remed J 12:69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ilić M, Antić M, Antić V, Schwarzbauer J, Vrvić M, Jovančićević B (2011) Investigation of bioremediation potential of zymogenous bacteria and fungi for crude oil degradation. Environ Chem Lett 9:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 16703 (2004) Soil quality—determination of content of hydrocarbon in the range C10–C40 by gas chromatography. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 9377–2 (2000) International standard: water quality—determination of hydrocarbon oil index—Part 2: method using solvent extraction and gas chromatography, First edition 2000-10-15. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeevanandam M, Nagarajan R, Manikandan M, Senthilkumar M, Srinivasalu S, Prasanna MV (2012) Hydrogeochemistry and microbial contamination of groundwater from lower Ponnaiyar Basin, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Earth Sci 67:867–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jordan C, Smith RV (2005) Methods to predict the agricultural contribution to catchment nitrate loads: designation of nitrate vulnerable zones in Northern Ireland. J Hydrol 304:316–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kehew AE, Lynch PM (2011) Concentration trends and water-level fluctuations at underground storage tank sites. Environ Earth Sci 62:985–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly J, Thornton I, Simpson PR (1996) Urban geochemistry: a study of the influence of anthropogenic activity on the heavy metal content of soils in traditionally industrial and nonindustrial areas of Britain. Appl Geochem 11:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knapp RB, Faison BD (1997) A bioengineering system for in situ bioremediation of contaminated groundwater. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 18:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mackay DM, Cherry JA (1989) Groundwater contamination: pump-and-treat remediation. Environ Sci Technol 23:630–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1994) Alternatives for ground water cleanup. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Polomčić D, Ristic Vakanjac V (2011) Groundwater in water supply of Serbia—current state and perspectives. Faculty of Mining and Geology, Beograd, pp 45–77Google Scholar
  26. Regulation for systematic quality monitoring, indicators for risk assessment of soil degradation and remediation methodology (2010) Official Gazette, no. 88, Belgrade, p 8 (in Serbian)Google Scholar
  27. Saha D, Sarangam SS, Dwived SN, Bhartariya KG (2010) Evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes in arsenic-contaminated alluvial aquifers in parts of Mid-Ganga Basin, Bihar, Eastern India. Environ Earth Sci 61(4):799–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Studio Geotecnico dott. Luciano Baratti (2011) Report on the preliminary assessment of soil and aquifer pollution in the industrial complex of Nitex in Nis, MACE, SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  29. Takem GE, Chandrasekharam D, Ayonghe SN, Thambidurai P (2010) Pollution characteristics of alluvial groundwater from springs and bore wells in semi-urban informal settlements of Douala, Cameroon, Western Africa. Environ Earth Sci 61(2):287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Talley WF, Sleeper PM (2006) Roadblocks to the implementation of biotreatment strategies. Annu NY Acad Sci 829:16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Travis CC, Doty CB (1990) Can contaminated aquifers at superfund sites be remediated? Environ Sci Technol 24:1464–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. EPA (1995) How to evaluate alternative cleanup technologies for underground storage tank sites: a guide for corrective action plan reviewers. (EPA 510-B-94-003; EPA 510-B-95-007; and EPA 510-R-04-002)Google Scholar
  33. Uzochukwu CU, Jones DM, Head MI, Manning ACD, Fialips IC (2014) Biodegradation of crude oil saturated fraction supported on clays. Biodegradation 25. Issue 1:153–165Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nenad Marić
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mila Ilić
    • 3
  • Srđan Miletić
    • 3
  • Gordana Gojgić-Cvijović
    • 3
  • Vladimir Beškoski
    • 2
  • Miroslav M. Vrvić
    • 2
  • Petar Papić
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mining and GeologyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of ChemistryUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Center of Chemistry, IChTMUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations