Fate of Treated and Weathered Hydrocarbons in Soil—Long-Term Changes

Loehr, Raymond C.; Webster, Matthew T.; Smith, J. R.

doi:10.1061/(asce)1090-025x(2000)4:2(53)

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The total chemical concentration present in a soil does not indicate the potential for the chemical to be released. Factors that affect chemical release and ultimate receptor impact include chemical hydrophobicity, soil organic carbon content, type and degree of treatment that may have occurred, and weathering of the chemicals in the soil ( − ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PAH Release during Water Desorption, Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction, and Field Bioremediation

Hawthorne

Poppendieck

Grabanski

et al. 2001

Environ. Sci. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Removal rates of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from manufactured gas plant (MGP) soils were determined using water desorption for 120 days and mild supercritical carbon dioxide extraction (SFE) for 200 min. Both techniques were used to compare the changes in desorption rates for individual PAHs from untreated and treated soils that were obtained from a field biotreatment unit after 58, 147, and 343 days. Water desorption profiles (plotted in days) and SFE profiles (plotted in minutes) were very similar regardless of whether a PAH was rapidly or slowly removed. Water and SFE profiles were fit with a simple two-site (fast and slow) model to obtain the fraction of each PAH that was rapidly released (F). There was agreement between the F values obtained from water desorption and SFE for PAHs ranging from naphthalene to benzo[a]pyrene from all soils, with an overall correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.81. F values from water desorption and SFE also agreed with the actual removal of PAHs obtained after 147 and 343 days of field remediation (r2 ca. 0.80). The use of shorter desorption times (2-4 days for water and 20-40 min for SFE) allowed F values to be estimated for all PAHs and showed excellent agreement with the removal of individual PAHs obtained with 147-343 days of field remediation (r2 > 0.9). The comparisons indicate that short-term SFE can provide a reasonable estimate of the fraction of a PAH that is readily released and available for microbial treatment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PAH Release during Water Desorption, Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction, and Field Bioremediation

Hawthorne

Poppendieck

Grabanski

et al. 2001

Environ. Sci. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The environmental influences of hydrocarbon contamination on our ecosystem have been suitably distinguished so far, and several protocols have been established by authorities in order to mitigate their short-and long-term consequences (Durand and Liss 2002;Loehr et al 2000). Moreover, soil is a vital element in construction industry, and the effects of hydrocarbon contaminations on engineering properties of soil should be considered (Das 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geotechnical properties of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils: a comprehensive review

Rajabi

Sharifipour

2018

Bull Eng Geol Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The geotechnical characteristics of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils have been concentrated heretofore due to the alarming frequency of hydrocarbon contaminations and also their significant consequences. Over the past three decades, numerous research studies have been conducted in order to investigate hydrocarbon-induced changes in geotechnical properties of soils. The present article is aimed at extensively reviewing almost all relevant academic literature to this subject, and, due to various kinds of soils and hydrocarbon compounds, it tries to provide a brief summary of each research study along with its key findings as well. By this review, it was revealed that geotechnical characteristics of soils such as particle size distribution, Atterberg limits, permeability, optimum moisture content, maximum dry density, compression index, coefficient of consolidation, over-consolidation ratio, cohesion, angle of internal friction, unconfined compression strength, shear strength, and so on can be remarkably influenced by hydrocarbon contaminations. However, the amount of these hydrocarbon-induced changes were highly dependent on various factors including soil and hydrocarbon properties, environmental and operation conditions, weathering process, etc. so that, for each specific geotechnical property, various alterations were reported in scientific literature.Response: With regard to this reviewer's comment ("years from old to new"), it should be stated that the authors used EndNote X8 software for organizing the references along with the specific EndNote style available in the journal's website (www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/engineering+geology/journal/1006 4?detailsPage) which determines/implements all the references automatically. However, the reference of UNEP was corrected throughout the manuscript.2. P5L31-32, why a symbol (a) here?Response: "Benzo (a) pyrene" was replaced by "benzo[a]pyrene". Benzo[a]pyrene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon with the formula of C20H12 which is one of the benzopyrenes, formed by a benzene ring fused to pyrene.3. P6L29-30, delete the term "by the authors" and "Precisely speaking" in L34.Response: These phrases were omitted. 4. P7L46-47, delete the sentence "Based on the information presented by Chang et al. (2014)" and add the referee (Chang et al. 2014) at the end of the sentence.Response: Thanks to this reviewer's comment, the mentioned phrase was deleted, and the relevant reference was embedded at the end of the paragraph. 5. P8L7-15, try to simply this long sentence here.Response: The long sentence was properly outlined. 6. P11L2-3, do not use the term "something along those lines." Response: The phrase was deleted. 7. P24, please number the equations and add () for the unit (%). Response: The number and parentheses were added. 8. P26L34-36, delete "see also," and replace (Jia et al. 2010) by (2010).Response: The mentioned corrections were implemented 9. P27L53-54, delete "see also," and the outer ().

show abstract

“…If indeed mass‐transfer rate limitations are responsible for the slow or incomplete biodegradation in aged soils, it follows that the residual hydrocarbons that remain in the soil after bioremediation treatment are not very bioavailable to potential receptors and thus pose no significant risks to the environment. Consequently, it might be argued that environmentally acceptable endpoints have been reached and that these soils, despite the presence of residual contaminants, can be left in place without further treatment [34–40]. It is the objective of this study to directly compare biodegradation and desorption rates for PAHs and alkanes at different times during biore‐mediation treatment and thereby determine whether bioavailability limitations are responsible for the slow or incomplete biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in aged soils.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of bioavailability limitations during slurry biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in aged soils

Huesemann

Hausmann

Fortman

2003

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an effort to determine whether bioavailability limitations are responsible for the slow or incomplete hydrocarbon biodegradation in aged soils, both the rate of desorption (rdes) and biodegradation (rbio) was measured for n-alkanes and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at different times during the slurry biotreatment of six different soils. While all n-alkanes were biodegraded to various degrees depending on their respective carbon number and the soil organic matter content, none of them were desorbed to a significant extent, indicating that these saturated hydrocarbons do not need to be transferred from the soil particles into the aqueous phase in order to be metabolized by microorganisms. Most two- and three-ring PAHs biodegraded as fast as they were desorbed (rbio = rdes); that is, desorption rates controlled biodegradation rates. By contrast, the biodegradation kinetics of four-, five-, and six-ring PAHs was limited by microbial factors during the initial phase (rbio < rdes) while becoming mass-transfer rate limited during the final phase of bioremediation treatment (rbio = rdes). Whenever PAH biodegradation stalled or did not occur at all (rbio = 0), it was never due to bioavailability limitations (rdes >> 0) but was more likely caused by microbial factors. such as the absence of specific PAH degraders or cometabolic substrates. Consequently, PAHs that are found to be microbially recalcitrant in aged soils may not be so because of limited bioavailability and thus could pose a greater risk to the environment than previously thought.

show abstract

Fate of Treated and Weathered Hydrocarbons in Soil—Long-Term Changes

Cited by 9 publications

References 16 publications

PAH Release during Water Desorption, Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction, and Field Bioremediation

PAH Release during Water Desorption, Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction, and Field Bioremediation

Geotechnical properties of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils: a comprehensive review

Assessment of bioavailability limitations during slurry biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in aged soils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About