4.8 Article

Electrokinetically-enhanced emplacement of lactate in a chlorinated solvent contaminated clay site to promote bioremediation

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 201, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117305

关键词

Electrokinetics; Bioremediation; Lactate; Clay; Chlorinated solvents; field Study

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  2. Australian Research Council
  3. Dow Chemical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrated that electrokinetically-enhanced bioremediation can improve the delivery of lactate in chlorinated solvent contaminated soil, leading to the stimulation of bacterial populations and significant reductions in contaminant concentrations through biodegradation.
Bioremediation through the injection of electron donors and bacterial cultures is effective at treating chlorinated solvent contamination. However, it has had limited application in low permeability zones where amendments cannot be delivered successfully. This field-scale study investigated the application of electrokinetics to enhance the delivery of lactate at a clay site contaminated with chlorinated solvents. Groundwater and soil samples were collected before, during and for 1 year after the 71-day field test and analyzed for a wide suite of chemical and biological parameters. Lactate was successfully delivered to all monitoring locations. Lactate emplacement resulted in the stimulation of bacterial populations, specifically within the phylum Firmicutes, which contains fermenters and strict anaerobes. This likely led to biodegradation, as the field trial resulted in significant decreases in both soil and aqueous phase chlorinated solvent concentrations. Contaminant decreases were also partially attributable to dilution, given evidence of some advective lactate flux. This research provides evidence that electrokinetically-enhanced bioremediation has potential as a treatment strategy for contaminated low permeability strata.

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