SOIL BIOREMEDIATION: How Long Does It Take?

CUTTING THROUGH THE CONFUSION AND HYPE

The idea that one might be able to spray a simple liquid across contaminated soil to make hydrocarbon pollution disappear is an alluring one--particularly for building owners seeking to avoid otherwise massive cleanup costs. And, it is an allure that has been widely abused. Over the years, numerous short-lived bioremediation contracting companies have made all manner of ridiculous claims as they've conducted bioremediation projects that have been complete disasters.

Bioremediation Scams
During the early 1980s the financial press was filled with hyper-excited reports about the profit-making potential of the oil-eating "super bugs" that they predicted would be perfected by the emerging new "biotechnology" business. Throughout the rest of the decade legions of fly-by-night local entrepreneurs sought to exploit this publicity by offering all manner of treatments they called "bioremediation." However, these treatments--usually sold for tens of thousands of dollars by individuals who demanded advance payment from owners of heavily-polluted industrial and commercial properties--often involved little more than water and a cheap surfactant sprayed across the surface of the ground. Many scam artists claimed their "treatments" would eliminate all petroleum pollution in a few days. Some even promised "overnight" results. This sort of unscrupulous hucksterism resulted in a large number of failed bioremediation projects and a growing sense of general skepticism about the process. Ironically, at the same time, the legitimate microbiological scientific community was achieving the major breakthroughs that actually made industrial-grade bioremediation a practical reality.

Science, Not Magic
Bioremediation is a scientific procedure, not a magical cure-all. No bioremediation material or method can eliminate a petroleum pollution problem overnight or in a few days. Bioremediation is a process with variables and limitations that must be appreciated before it can be used successfully. One major reason for failure in the past has been the use of ineffective materials. Another has been unrealistic expectations.

What to Expect
How long does it really take to lower petroleum pollution levels? In a properly executed soil bioremediation project, you should generally be able to document dramatic reductions in Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) levels in a period of time ranging from 90 to 150 days. Bioremediation moves much quicker in a water environment where significant reductions can often be documented in a few weeks.

But the exact time it takes to lower a given parts-per-million (ppm) level of hydrocarbon pollution to an acceptable level varies widely. It depends on the type, concentration, viscosity and age of the hydrocarbon pollutant as well as specific site conditions, including temperature, weather and soil or water chemistry. It also depends on what "acceptable" means. For instance, for owners trying to sell a downtown commercial site in some states, the only "acceptable" level might be less than 10 parts-per-million of TPH. On the other hand, petroleum refineries in heavy industrial areas may need to lower very high levels of soil pollution, say 60,000 parts per million, to a moderate level, say 10,000 parts per million, to meet minimal site closure requirements.

Actual Project Results
Here are four examples of real time results achieved in recent typical soil projects with standard commercial materials and methods:

Continuing Controversies: Augmented versus Non-Augmented Bioremediation
It's important to point out that the above results were achieved with bioremediation mixes that included concentrated, broad spectrum hydrocarbon-oxidizing microbes as well as nutrients and biological catalysts. Further confusion about bioremediation has recently been introduced as a growing number of companies offer "bioremediation" materials that contain no microbes. These materials consist of various sorts of chemicals, like surfactants, solvents and industrial-grade fertilizers, that are sprayed into the ground and are supposed to facilitate action by "indigenous" microbes already present in the soil.

These non-microbial methods have several serious drawbacks. For one thing, they assume that a broad-spectrum of specialized hydrocarbon-oxidizing microbes are hibernating in soil everywhere. This is not the case. For another thing, the actual chemical substances can be dangerous to humans. For instance, during the clean up of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, a major test of such materials resulted in chemical burns and blisters on the arms and faces of the workers who applied them to polluted beaches.

Some officials now speak of "augmented" and "non-augmented" bioremediation systems. "Augmented" bioremediation is the same as that described in this Web Site--it involves adding substantial quantities of concentrated, broad spectrum hydrocarbon-oxidizing microbes to the soil, or biologically "augmenting" the soil.

"Non-augmented" bioremediation involves various experimental chemical systems that do not include microbes. Instead, they attempt to activate whatever colonies of local microorganisms might be present in the soil in the hopes that some of those may be able to degrade some portions of the hydrocarbon pollution.


© 1995, Oettco
levins@tigger.jvnc.net