Field Study IX: Pilot-Scale Composting of PAH-Contaminated Materials: Two Different Approaches

  • Petra InnemanováEmail author
  • Tomáš Cajthaml
Part of the Applied Environmental Science and Engineering for a Sustainable Future book series (AESE)


Results of this field study describe composting of two different PAH-contaminated materials (soils originated from four industrial sites and creosote-treated railway crossties). Sequential mild supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) was employed to estimate the fast-release fractions (F) of PAHs in order to predict bioaccessible portion of PAHs in the materials. These values were consequently compared with the real biodegradation data obtained from the two pilot-scale experiments in order to investigate whether the bioaccessible data can be used as a prediction parameter of the degradation efficiency. The final results of the PAH elimination ranged between 62.4% and 92.9% in the case of the soil samples and between 81.4% and 97.0% for two different treatments of contaminated railway crossties. The results showed that the elimination efficiency decreased with the increasing number of aromatic rings in the PAH molecules. Estimation of the bioaccessible fraction of PAHs using the SFE method has been proven to be a useful tool for prediction of the bioremediation process efficiency. This fact is particularly important because if the composting method is employed in the full scale, any addition of the necessary bulking agent leads to the final increase in the total amount of the treated hazardous wastes if the remediation process fails.


Composting Bioremediation PAHs Supercritical fluid extraction Bioavailability 


  1. Cajthaml T, Šašek V (2005) Application of supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) to predict bioremediation efficacy of long-term composting of PAH-contaminated soil. Environ Sci Technol 39(21):8448–8452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. CEN (2002) Characterization of waste – digestion for subsequent determination of aqua regia soluble portion of elements. EN 13657:2002Google Scholar
  3. Covino S, Fabianová T, Křesinová Z, Čvančarová M, Burianová E, Filipová A, Vořísková J, Baldrian P, Cajthaml T (2016) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons degradation and microbial community shifts during co-composting of creosote-treated wood. J Hazard Mater 301:17–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Čvančarová M, Křesinová Z, Cajthaml T (2013) Influence of the bioaccessible fraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on the ecotoxicity of historically contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 254–255:116–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hawthorne SB, Grabanski CB (2000) Correlating selective supercritical fluid extraction with bioremediation behavior of PAHs in a field treatment plot. Environ Sci Technol 34(19):4103–4110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ISO (1986) Water quality—determination of cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, cadmium and lead—flame atomic absorption spectrometric methods. ISO 8288:1986Google Scholar
  7. Šašek V, Bhatt M, Cajthaml T, Malachová K, Lednická D (2003) Compost-mediated removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from contaminated soil. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 44(3):0336–0342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DEKONTA a.sStehelčevesCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Institute of Microbiology of the Czech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations