4.5 Article

Enhanced biodegradation by hydraulic heterogeneities in petroleum hydrocarbon plumes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTAMINANT HYDROLOGY
卷 105, 期 1-2, 页码 56-68

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2008.11.004

关键词

Biodegradation; Contaminant plume; Natural attenuation; Sediment heterogeneity; Toluene oxidation; Transverse dispersion

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [ME 2049/2-1, GR 2107/1-2, BA 3564/1-1, GR 971/18-1, GR 971/18-3]
  2. BMBF [02WN0357]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In case of dissolved electron donors and acceptors, natural attenuation of organic contaminant plumes in aquifers is governed by hydrodynamic mixing and microbial activity. Main objectives of this work were (i) to determine whether aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation in porous sediments is controlled by transverse dispersion, (ii) to elucidate the effect of sediment heterogeneity on mixing and biodegradation, and (iii) to search for degradation-limiting factors. Comparative experiments were conducted in two-dimensional sediment microcosms. Aerobic toluene and later ethyl benzene degradation by Pseudomonas putida strain F1 was initially followed in a plume developing from oxic to anoxic conditions and later under steady-state mixing-controlled conditions. Competitive anaerobic degradation was then initiated by introduction of the denitrifying strain Aromatoleum aromaticum EbN1. In homogeneous sand, aerobic toluene degradation was clearly controlled by dispersive mixing. Similarly, under denitrifying conditions, microbial activity was located at the plume's fringes. Sediment heterogeneity caused flow focusing and improved the mixing of reactants. Independent from the electron accepting process, net biodegradation was always higher in the heterogeneous setting with a calculated efficiency plus of 23-100% as compared to the homogeneous setup. Flow and reactive transport model simulations were performed in order to interpret and evaluate the experimental results. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据