Advertisement

Biodegradation

, Volume 11, Issue 2–3, pp 159–170 | Cite as

Enhanced anaerobic bioremediation of groundwater contaminated by fuel hydrocarbons at Seal Beach, California

  • Jeffrey A. Cunningham
  • Gary D. Hopkins
  • Carmen A. Lebron
  • Martin Reinhard
Article

Abstract

Enhanced anaerobic biodegradation of groundwater contaminated by fuel hydrocarbons has been evaluated at a field experiment conducted at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California. This experiment included the establishment of three different remediation zones in situ: one zone was augmented with sulfate, one was augmented with sulfate and nitrate, and the third was unaugmented. This enables a comparison of hydrocarbon biodegradation under sulfate-reducing, sequential denitrifying/sulfate-reducing, and methanogenic conditions, respectively. In general, the results from the field experiment are: (1) Certain fuel hydrocarbons were removed preferentially over others, but the order of preference is dependent upon the geochemical conditions; and (2) In the zones that were augmented with sulfate and/or nitrate, the added electron acceptors were consumed quickly, indicating that enhancement via electron acceptor injection accelerates the biodegradation process. More specifically, in the sulfate-reducing zone, sulfate was utilized with an apparent first-order rate coefficient of approximately 0.1 day-1. In the combined denitrifying/sulfate-reducing zone, nitrate was utilized preferentially over sulfate, with an apparent first-order rate coefficient of 0.1–0.6 day-1. However, the data suggest that slow sulfate utilization does occur in the presence of nitrate, i.e., the two processes are not strictly sequential. With regard to the aromatic BTEX hydrocarbons, toluene was preferentially removed under intrinsic conditions; biodegradation of benzene was slow if it occurred at all; augmentation with sulfate preferentially stimulated biodegradation of o-xylene; and ethylbenzene appeared recalcitrant under sulfate-reducing conditions but readily degradable under denitrifying conditions.

anaerobic biodegradation BTEX fuel hydrocarbons Seal Beach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball HA & Reinhard M (1996) Monoaromatic hydrocarbon transformation under anaerobic conditions at Seal Beach, California: Laboratory studies. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15: 114-122Google Scholar
  2. Ball HA, Johnson HA, Reinhard M & Spormann AM (1996) Initial reactions in anaerobic ethylbenzene oxidation by a denitrifying bacterium, strain EB1. J. Bacteriol. 178: 5755-5761Google Scholar
  3. Beller, HR, Ding W-H & Reinhard M (1995) Byproducts of anaerobic alkylbenzene metabolism useful as indicators of in situ bioremediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29: 2864-2870Google Scholar
  4. Beller HR, Spormann AM, Sharma PK, Cole JR & Reinhard M (1996) Isolation and characterization of a novel toluenedegrading, sulfate-reducing bacterium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62: 1188-1196Google Scholar
  5. Chapelle FH (1999) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarboncontaminated ground water: The perspectives of history and hydrology. Ground Water 37: 122-132Google Scholar
  6. Edwards EA & Grbic-Galic D (1992) Complete mineralization of benzene by aquifer microorganisms under strictly anaerobic conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58: 2663-2666Google Scholar
  7. Edwards EA, Wills LE, Reinhard M & Grbic-Galic D (1992) Anaerobic degradation of toluene and xylene by aquifer microorganisms under sulfate-reducing conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58: 794-800Google Scholar
  8. Frazer AC, Coschigano PW & Young LY (1995) Toluene metabolism under anaerobic conditions: a review. Anaerobe 1: 293-303Google Scholar
  9. Haag F, Reinhard M & McCarty PL (1991) Degradation of toluene and p-xylene in anaerobic microcosms: Evidence for sulfate as a terminal electron acceptor. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10: 1379-1389Google Scholar
  10. Mackay DM & Cherry JA (1989) Groundwater contamination: Pump-and-treat remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23: 630-636Google Scholar
  11. National Research Council (1993) In situ bioremediation: When does it work? National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. National Research Council (1994) Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Phelps CD & Young LY (1999) Anaerobic biodegradation of BTEX and gasoline in various aquatic sediments. Biodegradation 10: 15-25Google Scholar
  14. Rabus R & Widdel F (1995) Anaerobic degradation of ethylbenzene and other aromatic hydrocarbons by new denitrifying bacteria. Arch. Microbiol. 163: 96-103Google Scholar
  15. Reinhard M, Shang S, Kitanidis PK, Orwin E, Hopkins GD & Lebron CA (1997) In situ BTEX biotransformation under enhanced nitrate-and sulfate-reducing conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31: 28-36Google Scholar
  16. Schroeder, RA (1991) Delineation of a hydrocarbon (weathered gasoline) plume in shallow deposits at the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4203, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Travis CC & Doty CB (1990) Can contaminated aquifers at Superfund sites be remediated? Environ. Sci. Technol. 24: 1464-1466Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey A. Cunningham
    • 1
  • Gary D. Hopkins
    • 1
  • Carmen A. Lebron
    • 2
  • Martin Reinhard
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Restoration Development BranchNaval Facilities Engineering Service CenterPort HuenemeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA.

Personalised recommendations