Eco-efficiency analysis of a fungal bioremediation method. PIMA-FUN: Bioremediation of contaminated soil with fungi

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Eco-efficiency analysis of a fungal bioremediation method. PIMA-FUN: Bioremediation of contaminated soil with fungi"

Gerald Cross
8 years ago
Views:

1 Eco-efficiency analysis of a fungal bioremediation method PIMA-FUN: Bioremediation of contaminated soil with fungi Markus Räsänen Aalto University, Finland

2 Contents Introduction PIRTU -eco-efficiency analysis tool Examined treatment methods Field experiment (PAH-contaminated soil) Eco-efficiency analysis, calculations and results Conclusions

3 Introduction Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, PAHs TOXIC PERSEVERENT E.g. imperfect burning of fossil fuels, petrochemical industry, filling stations, sawmills ACCUMULATE TO ENVIRONMENT

4 Introduction Some fungi, especially white-rot fungi, can degrade PAHs FUNGAL ENZYMES PAH- Degradation CO2 Phanerochaete velutina

5 Introduction Eco-efficiency is a concept that describes effect of human activities from an environmental and economic point of view With less raw-materials, costs and negative impacts maximum benefit is achieved = eco-efficient Can be used as a tool for example in risk management for comparing remediation methods Still fairly new approach and not widely used in practise

6 Introduction 1) Field experiment with PAH-contaminated soil was carried out fungal bioremediation (cleaning of the soil with fungi) 2) Eco-efficiency analysis was carried out Using results from the field experiment, eco-efficiency calculations were made for fungal bioremediation method Using literature and other information sources, eco-efficiencies were calculated also for some other, more conventional remediation methods 3) Using eco-efficiencies different methods could be compared with each other Focus was on fungal remediation method and its potential in remediation of contaminated soil

7 PIRTU -eco-efficiency analysis tool Microsoft Excel -based eco-efficiency analysis tool developed in Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE, Sorvari and Seppälä 2010*) 4 main sections: Risks health risks and environmental risks in soil Environmental effects energy consumption, emissions to air, waste formation, soil utilization Costs total costs Other effects e.g. psychosocial effects Eco-efficiencies were calculated for each chosen, examined treatment method individually and were then compared with each other * Sorvari J. and Seppälä J., A decision support tool to prioritize risk management options for contaminated sites, Sci Tot Environ 408 (2010)

8 Examined treatment methods Alt-0 Usually this alternative corresponds as no treatment (control) but in this case we used hazardous waste landfilling Alt-1 Thermal treatment Process is based on thermal desorption Alt-2 Bitumen stabilization

9 Examined treatment methods Alt-3 Aerated fungal treatment Data for the eco-efficiency analysis was compiled from a field experiment carried out in year 2011 Alt-4 Fungal treatment without aeration (passive aeration) Purely hypothetical method and no experiments were carried out It was assumed that same results as in Alt-3 could be obtained without aeration How aeration affects? Alt-5 Aerated garden waste compost treatment (GWC-treatment) Equivalent to Alt-3, except without the fungus The main focus was to compare the fungal methods, Alt-3 and Alt-4, to other more conventional remediation methods using eco-efficiency analysis

10 Field experiment with PAH-contaminated soil 2011 Fungal pile (Alt-3 aerated fungal treatment) 1 ton of original PAH-soil (16 EPA-PAH 2800 mg / kg) 1 ton of GWC Fungal inoculum: Phanerochaete velutina white-rot fungus grown on pine bark Control pile (Alt-5 aerated GWC-treatment) 1 ton of original PAH-soil (16 EPA-PAH 2800 mg / kg) 1 ton of GWC Aeration aproximately 70 l / min / pile using rotary vane pump Experiment lasted 5 months (May October)

11 Total PAH-cocnentration mg/kg Total PAH-concentration mg/kg Field experiment with PAH-contaminated soil 2011 Fungal pile (fungus/gwc/+o2) PAH-concentrations 1600,0 1400,0 1200,0 1000,0 800,0 600,0 400,0 200,0 0, Month 0 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Time of sample 1600,0 1400,0 1200,0 1000,0 800,0 600,0 400,0 200,0 0,0 Control pile (GWC/+O2) PAH-concentrations Month 0 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Time of sample

12 Eco-efficiency analysis flow diagram

13 Alt-0 Landfilling Alt-1 Thermal treatment Alt-2 Stabilization Alt-3 Aerated fungal treatment Alt-4 Fungal treatment without aeration Eco-efficiency calculations PAH-reductions in different alternative methods 3000,0 2500,0 2000,0 1500,0 1000,0 500,0 0,0 Alt-5 Aerated GWCtreatment PAHconcentration before treatment (mg/kg) PAHconcentration after treatment (mg/kg) Reduction (%)

14 Relative RRE % risk / d reduction % Eco-efficiency calculations RISKS 120,00 Risk reduction Risk reduction efficiency (RRE) 1,40 100,00 1,20 80,00 1,00 0,80 60,00 0,60 40,00 0,40 20,00 0,20 0,00 0,00 Alt-0 Landfilling Alt-0 Landfilling Alt-1 Thermal Alt-1 Thermal treatment treatment Risk reduction, RVT, health health risks risks Risk reduction, ecological risks RVT, in soil ecological risks in soil Alt-2 Alt-3 Aerated Alt-4 Fungal Alt-5 Aerated Alt-2 Stabilization Alt-3 Aerated Alt-4 Fungal Alt-5 Aerated Stabilization fungal treatment treatment without GWC-treatment fungal treatment treatment without GWC-treatment aeration aeration

15 ieq ieq Eco-efficiency calculations ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Waste formation Amount of utilized soil ,3 2500, ,25 Emissions to air Energy consumption As pre-cover layer of conventional mixed waste landfills Amount m ,4 0,2 As sealing structure in hazardous Hazardous waste waste landfills 1500,3 0, [m3] , ,1 100 As pre-cover Conventional layer solid of all 0,1 0,05 50 landfills; waste also [m3] as filling in remediation sight Alt-0Landfilling Alt-1 Alt-1 Thermal Alt-2 Alt-3a Alt-2FungalAlt-3b Alt-3a Fungal Alt-4a Alt-3b Fungal Fungal Alt-4b Fungal Alt-4a Alt-5 Fungal Aerated Alt-4b Fungal Alt-5 Aerated 0 Alt-0 Alt-1 Thermal Alt-2 Alt-3a Fungal Alt-3b Fungal Alt-4a Fungal Alt-4b Fungal Alt-5 Aerated Landfilling Thermaltreatment Stabilization Stabilization treatment treatment +O2, treatment - +O2, treatment treatment - GWCtreatment SMALL -O2, treatment -O2, GWC-treatment Landfilling Alt-0 Alt-1 treatment Thermal Stabilization Alt-2 Alt-3a treatment Fungal +O2, treatment +O2, treatment -O2, treatment -O2, GWC-treatment treatment +O2, LARGE LARGE +O2, Alt-3b Fungal O2, LARGE Alt-4a SMALL Fungal Alt-4b LARGE Fungal Alt-5 Aerated As pre-cover layer of O2, SMALL Landfilling treatment Stabilization treatment LARGE treatment SMALL treatment -LARGE treatment - SMALL SMALL GWCtreatment hazardous waste landfills +O2, LARGE +O2, SMALL O2, LARGE O2, SMALL Amount m 3

16 Scaled cost % Part cost % Eco-efficiency calculations COSTS Total costs of the alternative methods Partial costs of the biological treatment methods % 56 % % 68 % 100 % 4,7 5,2 8,8 10, , After monitoring (%) Fungal inocula (%) ,2 84,1 93,8 87, , ,3 0 10,3 5,9 Alt-0 0 Landfilling 0,9 Alt-1 Thermal 1,8 Alt-2 Alt-3a 1,0 Fungal Alt-3b Fungal 2,2 Alt-4a Fungal Alt-4b Fungal Alt-3a Fungal treatment treatment Alt-3b Fungal Stabilization treatment Alt-4a treatment Fungal treatment +O2, treatment Alt-4b Fungal +O2, treatment treatment Alt-5 -O2, Aerated treatment GWCtreatment -O2, +O2, LARGE +O2, SMALL -O2, LARGE SMALL -O2, SMALL LARGE SMALL Aeration electricity (%) GWC (%) Alt-5 Aerated GWC-treatment

17 Quality factors Overall quality factor Quality factor, Costs Quality factor, Environmental effects Quality factor, Risks 0 Alt-0 Landfilling Alt-1 Thermal treatment Alt-2 Stabilization Alt-3a Fungal treatment +O2, LARGE Alt-3b Fungal treatment +O2, SMALL Alt-4a Fungal treatment -O2, LARGE Alt-4b Fungal treatment -O2, SMALL Alt-5 Aerated GWCtreatment Not completely reliable, because no factor weighing was done Nevertheless indicative towards the difference between the alternatives

18 Conclusions In eco-efficiency analysis, the weighing of separate factors or sections that have effect on eco-efficiency, has a significant influence to the results In practise for example costs and risk reduction have significant influence to the decision making in risk management This was only a simple and hypothetical examination, where many assumptions and simplifications were made Despite the theoretical character of eco-efficiency analysis, it can be used to support desicion making in contaminated soil risk management

19 Conclusions Thermal treatment is fast and efficient way to remediate contaminated soil Can be expensive Capacity in Finland is not sufficient for treating all heavily contaminated soils Landfilling is a poor alternative and this day s politics for example in EU aim to get out of it more and more Nevertheless easy to execute In fungal treatment, the inoculum price has to be lowered In biological methods active aeration is expensive and consumes lots of energy passive aeration

20 Summary In the eco-efficiency analysis, thermal treatment turned out as the most ecoefficient method, which lowered the risks effectively and economically, without significant environmental effects The second most eco-efficient method was bitumen stabilization, quite questionable method regarding sustainability because stabilization doesn t remove the pollutants from the soil, and it always requires a disposal Aerated garden waste compost treatment and fungal treatment without aeration with low inoculation ratio did also well in the eco-efficiency comparison

Acknowledgements Aalto University Erika Winquist Finnish Environment Institute Jaana Sorvari Katarina Björklöf Kirsten Jörgensen Eija Schultz

21 Acknowledgements Aalto University Erika Winquist Finnish Environment Institute Jaana Sorvari Katarina Björklöf Kirsten Jörgensen Eija Schultz Finnish Defence Forces City of Helsinki Soilrem Oy Ekokem-Palvelu Oy Niska & Nyyssönen Oy Mzymes Oy Ramboll Finland Oy University of Helsinki Marja Tuomela

Brown University School of Engineering Office Phone: (401) 863 1073 182 Hope St. Box D Mobile Phone (617) 877 4843

JAMES W. RICE, PH.D. Brown University School of Engineering Office Phone: (401) 863 1073 182 Hope St. Box D Mobile Phone (617) 877 4843 Providence, RI 02912 Email: James_Rice@brown.edu EDUCATION PhD Brown