Field Study VII: Field Study of Three Different Injectable Oxygen Sources to Enhance Mono-Aromatic Solvents In Situ Biodegradation

  • Ondřej LhotskýEmail author
Part of the Applied Environmental Science and Engineering for a Sustainable Future book series (AESE)


The present field study describes a pilot remediation test of calcium peroxide, modified calcium peroxide, and gelatinous hydrogen peroxide as oxygen sources to enhance mono-aromatic solvents in situ biodegradation. The field study was carried out in well permeable aquifer contaminated mainly by benzene, toluene, and chlorobenzene. Three different Oxygen Release Compounds (ORCs) were injected near three different monitoring wells situated in the center of the contamination plume. The injections were performed via direct push top-down method. Each oxygen source tested was injected into two direct push probes in close vicinity of respective monitoring well. Membrane interface probe (MIP) investigation was utilized for targeting of the oxygen sources injections into most contaminated layers in the subsurface. Although there was a high heterogeneity of the conditions prevailing in the respective injection areas, it can be stated that the injection of all the materials enhanced the in situ biodegradation and led to significant drops in the concentrations of the contaminants. Therefore, in situ biodegradation without bioaugmentation can be considered a feasible method for the clean-up of the tested site.


Biodegradation ORC Direct-push MIP 


  1. ASTM (1998) Standard guide for direct push soil sampling for environmental site characterizations. ASTM D6282–98. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bombach P, Richnow HH, Kästner M, Fischer A (2010) Current approaches for the assessment of in situ biodegradation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86(3):839–852. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chery L, de Marsily G (eds) (2007) Aquifer systems management: Darcy’s legacy in a world of impending water shortage. Selected papers on hydrogeology 10, 1st edn. CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. ISO (2009) Water quality—sampling—part 11: guidance on sampling of groundwaters. ISO 5667-11:2009Google Scholar
  5. Kao CM, Huang WY, Chang LJ, Chen TY, Chien HY, Hou F (2006) Application of monitored natural attenuation to remediate a petroleum-hydrocarbon spill site. Water Sci Technol 53(2):321–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lhotský O, Krákorová E, Linhartová L, Křesinová Z, Steinová J, Dvořák L, Rodsand T, Filipová A, Kroupová K, Wimmerová L, Kukačka J, Cajthaml T (2017a) Assessment of biodegradation potential at a site contaminated by a mixture of BTEX, chlorinated pollutants and pharmaceuticals using passive sampling methods – case study. Sci Total Environ 607–608:1451–1465. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lhotský O, Krákorová E, Mašín P, Žebrák R, Linhartová L, Křesinová Z, Kašlík J, Steinová J, Rødsand T, Filipová A, Petrů K, Kroupová K, Cajthaml T (2017b) Pharmaceuticals, benzene, toluene and chlorobenzene removal from contaminated groundwater by combined UV/H2O2 photo-oxidation and aeration. Water Res 120:245–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nijenhuis I, Stelzer N, Kästner M, Richnow H-H (2007) Sensitive detection of anaerobic monochlorobenzene degradation using stable isotope tracers. Environ Sci Technol 41(11):3836–3842. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. US EPA (2012) A citizen’s guide to bioremediation. In: A citizen’s guide to cleanup technologies, 2nd ed.; US EPA: EPA 542-F-12-003Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DEKONTA a.s.PragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations