Assessing detoxification of a complex hazardous waste, using the Microtoxbioassay

  • Brian D. Symons
  • Ronald C. Sims
Article

Abstract

Research has demonstrated the usefulness of the Microtoxbioassay in assessing the acute toxicity of organic compounds. Recently, the use of the Microtoxbioassay has been extended to applications in hazardous waste management. The rapidity of the test, low sample requirements, and low cost provide several advantages over chemical analysis, especially for complex waste mixtures. Microtoxbioassay results correlate closely with results from rainbow trout bioassays, and are more sensitive to inhibitory chemicals than activated sludge organisms. An experimental approach using batch reactors and soil columns was implemented in the laboratory to evaluate the detoxification and mobility of a toxic complex hazardous waste in soil. The objective of the study reported here was to quantify the extent and rate of detoxification of a complex hazardous waste as affected by soil type and waste application rate. The extent and rate of detoxification was directly related to waste loading rate for both soil types investigated, in both batch reactors and soil column reactors. Analysis of the toxicity of aqueous soil extracts at incremental depths through soil columns and of soil columnn leachate indicated a low leaching potential for the complex petroleum refinery waste.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beckman Instruments, Inc. (1982) Beckman Microtox Systems Operating Manual, Microbial Operations, Carlsbad, CA 92008Google Scholar
  2. Black, CA (1965) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Properties, Including Statistics of Measurement and Sampling. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  3. Boerger H, Mackinnan M, Aledsiuk M (1984) Use of toxicity tests in studies of oil sands tailings water detoxification. Eleventh Annual Toxicity Workshop. Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  4. Burks SL, Amalon M, Stebler EF, Harmon J, Leach F, Sanborn M, Matthews J (1982) Comparison of acute response of Microtox,Daphnia magna, and fathead minnows to oil refinery wastewaters. Progress Report to Oil Refiners' Waste Control Council by Oklahoma State University Water Quality Research Laboratory, Stillwater, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  5. Calleja A, Baldasana JM, and Mulet A (1986) Toxicity analysis of leachates from hazardous wastes via Microtox andDaphnia magna. Toxicity Assessment 1:73–83Google Scholar
  6. Casseri NA, Ying W, Soiyka SA (1983) Use of a rapid bioassay for assessment of industrial wastewater treatment effectiveness. In: Bell JM (ed) Proceedings of the 38th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University. Ann Arbor Science, Boston, Massachusetts, pp 867–878Google Scholar
  7. Indorato AM, Snyder LB, Usinowicz PJ (1984) Toxicity screening using Microtox analyzer, In: Lui DL, Dutka BJ (eds) Toxicity screening procedures using bacterial systems. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 37–53Google Scholar
  8. King EF (1984) A comparative study of methods assessing the toxicity to bacteria of single chemicals and mixtures. In: Lui DL, Dutka BJ (eds) Toxicity screening procedures using bacterial systems. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 175–194Google Scholar
  9. Mackinnon MD, Ratlock JT (1982) Preliminary characterization and detoxification of tailings pond water at the Syncrude Canada Ltd oil sands plant. In: Pearson JG (ed) American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA, pp 170–178Google Scholar
  10. Matthews JE, Bulich AA (1984) A toxicity reduction test system to assist in predicting land treatability of hazardous organic wastes. Presented to the ASTM Committee on Solid Waste Treatment (ASTM Committee D-34). Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. McDowell AS, Boardman GD (1986) Three screening tests for the evaluation of ground water quality. (In press)Google Scholar
  12. McTernan WF, Kocornik DJ, Pedram EO (1983) Physical-chemical approaches for the environmentally sound disposal of oil shale retort water. Liquid Fuels Technol 1:335–354Google Scholar
  13. Page AL (1982) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Second Edition. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  14. Peake E, Maclean A (1983) The toxicity of waters produced duringin-situ recovery of oil from the Athabasca oil sands as determined by the Microtox bacterial system. Ninth Annual Toxicity Workshop, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Nov. 2–5, 1983Google Scholar
  15. Qureshi AA, Flood KW, Thompson SR, Janhurst SM, Inniss CS, Rokosh DA (1982) Comparison of a luminescent bacterial test with other bioassays for determining toxicity of pure compounds and complex effluents, In: Pearson J G, Foster RB, Bishop ME (eds) Aquatic toxicology and hazard assessment: Fifth conference. ASTM STP 766. American Society for Testing and Materials, pp 179–195Google Scholar
  16. Strosher MT (1984) A comparison of biological testing methods in association with chemical analysis to evaluate toxicity of waste drilling fluids in Alberta, Vol. I. Canadian Petroleum Association Report, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  17. US Environmental Protection Agency (1986a) Permit guidance manual on hazardous waste land treatment demonstrations. EPA-530/SW-86-032 Office of Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. — (1986b) Waste/soil treatability studies for four complex wastes. EPA/600/6-86/003a. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  19. Vasseur P, Ferod JF, Rost C, Larbaight G (1984) Luminescent marine bacteria in ecotoxicity screening tests of complex effluents, In: Lui DL, Dutka BJ (eds) Toxicity screening procedures using bacterial systems. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 23–37Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian D. Symons
    • 1
  • Ronald C. Sims
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Environmental EngineeringUtah State UniversityLogan

Personalised recommendations