Advances in engineered remediation for use in the Arctic and Antarctica

Abstract

Creative remediation schemes have been implemented with success at petroleum-contaminated sites in Alaska and Canada during the past decade. Contaminated media have been landfarmed, amended with fertilizers, augmented with microbial products, and manipulated with engineered systems. Phytoremediation developments and use of biodegradable synthetic and polymeric resins for potential use with petroleum and xenobiotic contaminants are on the horizon. Treatment of supra-permafrost water and melt-water runoff with permeable reactive barriers and partitioning bioreactors is now possible. Cost and time limitations will likely continue to drive remediation decisions in the Arctic. Environmental policy, environmental constraints, and cost will dictate what technologies are appropriate for Antarctic clean-up, although the pressure of time is less acute because land transfer and liability are not drivers. This paper discusses some recent advances in remediation engineering for use in polar regions. Conceptual models are presented, and case study treatment costs and durations are highlighted to aid environmental decision-making.

On-site and in situ remediation technologies applicable to petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites in the Antarctic and Arctic

“…The management of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites is an ongoing environmental, scientific and engineering issue Filler et al 2006). Petroleum products are the principal energy source in the Antarctic and Arctic and represent the primary source of hydrocarbon contamination in these regions (Snape et al 2001;Poland et al 2003;Filler et al 2006).…”

“…Petroleum products are the principal energy source in the Antarctic and Arctic and represent the primary source of hydrocarbon contamination in these regions (Snape et al 2001;Poland et al 2003;Filler et al 2006). Petroleum hydrocarbons exist as light and dense non-aqueous phase liquids and are introduced into the environment through natural seepage and fuel spills (Leewis et al 2013).…”

“…The environmental effects of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination are well understood in temperate regions but remain understudied in cold regions (Filler et al 2006;Yang et al 2009). Managing petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil in remote, cold regions such as the Antarctic and Arctic can often be confounded by a lack of infrastructure, logistical constraints and extreme weather (see Poland et al 2003;Filler et al 2006 Camenzuli et al 2013 for detailed reviews).…”

“…Managing petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil in remote, cold regions such as the Antarctic and Arctic can often be confounded by a lack of infrastructure, logistical constraints and extreme weather (see Poland et al 2003;Filler et al 2006 Camenzuli et al 2013 for detailed reviews). The financial expense associated with implementing traditional remediation approaches in remote, cold regions can also be significant Camenzuli et al 2013; Leewis et al 2013).…”

“…The financial expense associated with implementing traditional remediation approaches in remote, cold regions can also be significant Camenzuli et al 2013; Leewis et al 2013). These obstacles have the potential to lengthen timeframes for remediation or entirely prevent the commencement of remediation operations at petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites in the Antarctic and Arctic Filler et al 2006;Camenzuli et al 2013).…”