4.8 Article

A Pilot-Scale Field Study: In Situ Treatment of PCB-Impacted Sediments with Bioamended Activated Carbon

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 2626-2634

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05019

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program [ER-201215]
  2. Argonne National Laboratory Director's Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A combined approach involving microbial bioaugmentation and enhanced sorption was demonstrated to be effective for in situ treatment of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A pilot study was conducted for 409 days on PCB impacted sediments in four 400 m(2) plots located in a watershed drainage pond in Quantico, VA. Treatments with activated carbon (AC) agglomerate bioamended with PCB dechlorinating and oxidizing bacteria decreased the PCB concentration in the top 7.5 cm by up to 52% and the aqueous concentrations of tri- to nonachlorobiphenyl PCB congeners by as much as 95%. Coplanar congeners decreased by up to 80% in sediment and were undetectable in the porewater. There was no significant decrease in PCB concentrations in non-bioamended plots with or without AC. All homologue groups decreased in bioamended sediment and porewater, indicating that both anaerobic dechlorination and aerobic degradation occurred concurrently. The titer of the bioamendments based on quantitative PCR of functional marker genes decreased but were still detectable after 409 days, whereas indigenous microbial diversity was not significantly different between sites, time points, or depths, indicating that bioaugmentation and the addition of activated carbon did not significantly alter total microbial diversity. In situ treatment of PCBs using an AC agglomerate as a delivery system for bioamendments is particularly well-suited for environmentally sensitive sites where there is a need to reduce exposure of the aquatic food web to sediment-bound PCBs with minimal disruption to the environment.

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

4.8
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