Kansas State University - clu-in.org · 4 Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003...
Transcript of Kansas State University - clu-in.org · 4 Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003...
1
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
RTDF TPH Subgroup Phytoremediation Field Trials:
Results and Preliminary Conclusions
Peter Kulakow and Xiujuan FengKansas State University
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Acknowledgements
• RTDF Cooperators under the leadership of– Steve Rock– Lucinda Jackson– Phil Sayre
• USEPA Technology Innovation Office• Environment Canada• Great/Plains Rocky Mountain HSRC• Midwest HSRC• Henry Camp - ICF Consulting
2
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
RTDF Partners
• US Environmental Protection Agency• Environment Canada• Major Oil Corporations
– Petroleum Environmental Research Forum• Public Utility Corporations• US Department of Defense• Universities• Environmental Consultants
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
ACCORDING TO: www.epa.gov/greenacres/8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Feet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Feet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Root Systems of Prairie Plants - From the U.S. EPA Handbook on Natural Landscapes
KentuckyBluegrass
LeadPlant
MissouriGoldenrod
IndianGrass
CompassPlant
PorcupineGrass
HeathAster
PrairieCordgrass
Big BlueStem
PalePurple
Coneflower
PrairieDropseed
Side OatsGrama
FalseBoneset
SwitchGrass
WhiteWild Indigo
LittleBlue Stem
RosinWeed
PurplePrairieClover
JuneGrass
CylindricBlazing
Star
BuffaloGrass 15 ft
TypicalLawnGrass
EfficientRoot
Producer
Deep-Rooted Species 4
3
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Goal
• Assess the efficacy of vegetation to enhance degradation of aged petroleum hydrocarbons in soil
• Is there evidence that vegetation enhances progress toward practical environmental management objectives for petroleum sites within 3 years?
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Rationale for Approach
• Hydrocarbon degradation – Changes are slow and subtle
• Monitoring is needed for a long period• Contaminant distribution in soil is
variable• Standard protocol facilitates
comparisons among locations – allowing for site specific adjustments
4
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
• Experimental Design– Randomized complete block design with
four replications– Treatments with site specific adjustments
–Standardized grass/legume mixture–Local-optimized treatment–Unvegetated/unfertilized Control
– Minimum plot size: 20 x 20 ft.
Standardized Protocol
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site I
110 ft
185 ft20 ft100 ft
X
35 ft
70 ft
140 ft
125 ft
225 ft
HEAVIERFORESTED
AREA100 ft
PONDED AREA
ROADWAYBERM
AccessRamp
Hydrant
SurfacePipe
SurfacePipe
ROADWAYBERM
ROADWAYBERM
A
C
A
B
CD
A
B
C
D
A
BC
DSTAGING AREA
FOR FIELDACTIVITIES
BD
REVISEDLAYOUT
GravellyArea
RTDF: 40 lbs fescue / 10 lbs p.rye / 5 lbs cloverPrairie: 10 lbs prairie / 25 lbs fescue
A = Do NothingB = Fertilizer OnlyC = RTDF MixD = Prairie Mix
5
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
• Soil– Composite 8 soil cores/plot – Two depths: 0 – 15 cm and 15 – 45 cm– Sample Annually for 3 growing seasons
• Vegetation– Above ground biomass production – Plant species composition – Root growth– Hydrocarbon uptake at final sampling
Sampling Plan
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site A – May 2001Hydrocarbon Uptake Sampling
6
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Sample Preparation and Analysis Flow
10 grams of sample is Soxhlet
extracted
OIL & GREASE (GRAV)OIL & GREASE (GRAV)
Weight measured
gravimetrically
Extract column cleanup
Weight measured
gravimetricallySplit for
instrument analyses
TPH (GRAV)TPH (GRAV)
TPH (GC/FID)TPH (GC/FID)
PAH (GC/MS)PAH (GC/MS)
HOPANE (GC/MS)HOPANE (GC/MS)
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Example GC/FID Chromatogram Output
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
Time
Response_
03070025.D\FID2B
Resolved Components (TPH RES)
Unresolved Components (TPH)
7
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Nap
htha
lene
C1-
Nap
htha
lene
s
C2-
Nap
htha
lene
s
C3-
Nap
htha
lene
s
C4-
Nap
htha
lene
s
Acen
apht
hyle
ne
Acen
apht
hene
Biph
enyl
Fluo
rene
C1-
Fluo
rene
s
C2-
Fluo
rene
s
C3-
Fluo
rene
s
Anth
race
ne
Phen
anth
rene
C1-
Phen
anth
rene
s/an
thra
cene
s
C2-
Phen
anth
rene
s/an
thra
cene
s
C3-
Phen
anth
rene
s/an
thra
cene
s
C4-
Phen
anth
rene
s/an
thra
cene
s
Dib
enzo
thio
phen
e
C1-
Dib
enzo
thio
phen
es
C2-
Dib
enzo
thio
phen
es
C3-
Dib
enzo
thio
phen
es
Fluo
rant
hene
Pyre
ne
C1-
Fluo
rant
hene
s/py
rene
s
C2-
Fluo
rant
hene
s/py
rene
s
C3-
Fluo
rant
hene
s/py
rene
s
Benz
o[a]
anth
race
ne
Chr
ysen
e
C1-
Chr
ysen
es
C2-
Chr
ysen
es
C3-
Chr
ysen
es
C4-
Chr
ysen
es
Benz
o[b]
fluor
anth
ene
Benz
o[k]
fluor
anth
ene
Benz
o[e]
pyre
ne
Benz
o[a]
pyre
ne
Pery
lene
Inde
no[1
,2,3
,-c,d
]pyr
ene
Dib
enzo
[a,h
]ant
hrac
ene
Benz
o[g,
h,i]p
eryl
ene
C om poun ds
Con
cent
ratio
n ug
/Kg
" 20A 4455: G 11T 1A S O IL "Analyte P ro file H istogram
Example Expanded PAH OutputPAH Homologous
SeriesSulfur-containing
Heterocyclics 5- and 6-Ring PAH
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
TPHCWG Sample Preparation and Analysis Flow
10 grams of sample is
vortex extracted in
pentane
Extract is fractionated and cleaned
Each fraction submitted for
instrument analyses
Aliphatic TPH Ranges (9)Aliphatic TPH Ranges (9)
Aromatic TPH Ranges (9)Aromatic TPH Ranges (9)
8
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Example TPHCWG Chromatogram Output
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
85000
90000
95000
Time
Response_
08300121.D\FID2B
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
Time
Response_
08300122.D\FID1A
Quantitation divided in ranges related to
boiling point
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
TPH-CWGM
Total Resolved 210Total PHC 2000
Aliphatic Total Resolved 180Aliphatic TPH 1500Aliphatic TPH>nC6-nC8 NDAliphatic TPH>nC8-nC10 1.3 JAliphatic TPH>nC10-nC12 10 JAliphatic TPH>nC12-nC16 120Aliphatic TPH>nC16-nC21 210Aliphatic TPH>nC21-nC25 240Aliphatic TPH>nC25-nC30 500Aliphatic TPH>nC30-nC35 280Aliphatic TPH>nC35+ 140
Aromatic Total Resolved 33Aromatic TPH 480Aromatic TPH>nC6-nC7 (B) NDAromatic TPH>nC7-nC8 (T) NDAromatic TPH>nC8-nC10 NDAromatic TPH>nC10-nC12 0.15 JAromatic TPH>nC12-nC16 26Aromatic TPH>nC16-nC21 90Aromatic TPH>nC21-nC25 74Aromatic TPH>nC25-nC30 120Aromatic TPH>nC30-nC35 98Aromatic TPH>nC35+ 70
TPH-CWGM
Total Resolved 210Total PHC 2000
Aliphatic Total Resolved 180Aliphatic TPH 1500Aliphatic TPH>nC6-nC8 NDAliphatic TPH>nC8-nC10 1.3 JAliphatic TPH>nC10-nC12 10 JAliphatic TPH>nC12-nC16 120Aliphatic TPH>nC16-nC21 210Aliphatic TPH>nC21-nC25 240Aliphatic TPH>nC25-nC30 500Aliphatic TPH>nC30-nC35 280Aliphatic TPH>nC35+ 140
Aromatic Total Resolved 33Aromatic TPH 480Aromatic TPH>nC6-nC7 (B) NDAromatic TPH>nC7-nC8 (T) NDAromatic TPH>nC8-nC10 NDAromatic TPH>nC10-nC12 0.15 JAromatic TPH>nC12-nC16 26Aromatic TPH>nC16-nC21 90Aromatic TPH>nC21-nC25 74Aromatic TPH>nC25-nC30 120Aromatic TPH>nC30-nC35 98Aromatic TPH>nC35+ 70
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
85000
90000
95000
Time
Response_
08300121.D\FID2B
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
Time
Response_
08300122.D\FID1A
TPHCWGData
9
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Thirteen RTDF Field Site Locations
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
April 1999
May 2001June 2000
Site A – Refinery Site
Three Complete Growing Seasons
10
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site B - Closed RefineryRTDF Mix
Poplar/Willow Hackberry
Unvegetated
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
1/1/98 4/1/98
7/1/98
10/1/98 1/1/99
4/1/99 7/1/99
10/1/99 1/1/00
4/1/00 7/1/00
10/1/00 1/1/01
4/1/01 7/1/01
10/1/01 1/1/02
4/1/02 7/1/02
10/1/02 1/1/03
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Tem
p era
ture
(oC
)
Pre
cipi
tatio
n (c
m)
Time (month)
Site B, OH (1998Site B, OH (1998--2002)2002)
Planting
11
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Three Alaskan Sites – Cold Regions
Site C Site E
Site D
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
1/1/98 4/1/98
7/1/98
10/1/98 1/1/99
4/1/99 7/1/99
10/1/99 1/1/00
4/1/00 7/1/00
10/1/00 1/1/01
4/1/01 7/1/01
10/1/01 1/1/02
4/1/02 7/1/02
10/1/02 1/1/03
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Tem
p era
ture
(oC
)
Pre
cipi
tatio
n (c
m)
Time (month)
Site C (1998Site C (1998--2002)2002)
TMax
TMin
Pcp
Planting
12
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
1/1/98 4/1/98
7/1/98
10/1/98 1/1/99
4/1/99 7/1/99
10/1/99 1/1/00
4/1/00 7/1/00
10/1/00 1/1/01
4/1/01 7/1/01
10/1/01 1/1/02
4/1/02 7/1/02
10/1/02 1/1/03
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (month)
Pre
cipi
tatio
n (c
m)
Tem
p era
ture
(oC
)TMax
TMin
Pcp
Site E (1998Site E (1998--2002)2002)
Planting
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site F – Manufactured Gas PlantWillow/Poplar Mix
RTDF Mix
13
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Willow Willow
Willow
Willow
Grass
Grass
Grass
Grass
Volunteer
Volunteer
Volunteer
Volunteer
NoVegetation
NoVegetation
NoVegetation
No Vegetation
North
Water tank
Gravel road
Gate
Rep. 1 Rep. 2
Rep. 3Rep. 4
Site F – New York
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site G – Kansas – Motor Pool Waste Lagoon Sediments
14
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
1/1/98 4/1/98
7/1/98
10/1/98 1/1/99
4/1/99 7/1/99
10/1/99 1/1/00
4/1/00 7/1/00
10/1/00 1/1/01
4/1/01 7/1/01
10/1/01 1/1/02
4/1/02 7/1/02
10/1/02 1/1/03
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40Te
mp e
ratu
re (o
C)
Pre
cipi
tatio
n (c
m)
Time (month)
Site G (1998Site G (1998--2002)2002)
TMax
TMin
Pcp
Planting
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site I – Closed RefineryIllinois
October 2001 May 2002
15
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site H – Closed Distribution FacilityRhode IslandOctober 2002
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site J – Production SiteArkansas
16
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site K – Manufactured Gas Plant, Indiana
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site L – SK, Canada – Buried Flare Pit
Planted June 2002
17
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Results
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Status of Field Sites – 36 Data Sets
Oct-05May-03May-03Site M, AL Canada
Oct-04Oct-02Jun-02Jun-02Site L, SK Canada
May-99Site K, IN
May-02Oct-01Oct-99Site J, AR
Nov-03Oct-02Nov-00Site I, MO
Nov-03Oct-02May-01May-01Site H, RI
Oct-02Oct-99Site G, KS
Oct-02Jun-99Site F, NY
Aug-98Site E, AK
Aug-98Aug-98Site D, AK
Jun-99Site C, AK
Nov-02Apr-99Site B, OH
Dec-98Site A, CA
Year 4Year 3Year 2Year 1Time 0Date
Sampling EventsPlanting
18
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Dealing with the Data
• Nondetect data– Used a nonzero substitution
• Numerous derived variables such as Total PAHs– >100 variables analyzed
• Analyzed– Original data– Hopane normalized data
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Statistical Analysis
• Randomized Complete Block Design• Soil depth usually analyzed separately• Time is a repeated measure
– Derived variables approach– Each time interval analyzed separately
• Considered assumptions of analysis of variance– Homogeneity of variances most important
• Treatment differences tested by analysis of variance and lsd tests.
19
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Site A
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
StandardReferenceSampleSite A
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
95% Confidence Ellipses for RTDF Data
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
High Variability in TPH and PAH Concentrations• Between locations
– Original composition of contaminants– Previous degradation– Climate
• Within locations– Spatial variation
• some accounting for in blocking of experiments– Time, Depth, and Treatment effects– Management Decisions
• Within samples– Sample heterogeneity– Analytical Variation
• Instrumentation• Laboratory Procedures
20
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
95% Confidence Ellipses for RTDF Data
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Site A
Site B
TPH (mg/Kg)
TPH (mg/Kg)
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Site GTo
tal P
AH
sm
g/K
g
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Site F
TPH (mg/Kg)
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
95% Confidence Ellipses for RTDF Datax2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
Site D
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
Site C
Site E
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
21
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Site H
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
95% Confidence Ellipses for RTDF Data
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Site I
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Site J
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
x2
-1500
-900
-300
300
900
1500
2100
2700
3300
3900
4500
-20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
TPH (mg/Kg)
Tota
l PA
Hs
mg/
Kg
StandardReferenceSample
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site F Treatment Means for Total PAHs for 0 to 15 cm Depth
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 6 18 30Months
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
)
Volunteer RTDF Mixture Unvegetated Willow/Poplar
22
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Site F PAH Treatment Means18 Months, Depth 0 to 15 cm
0
5
10
15
20
25C
0N
C1N
C2N
C3N
C4N
AC
EY
AC
E
BIP
C0F
C1F
C2F
C3F
C0A
C0P
C1P
_A
C2P
_A
C3P
_A
C4P
_A
C0D
C1D
C2D
C3D
FLA
NT
PY
R
C1F
_P
C2F
_P
C3F
_P BA
A
C0C
C1C
C2C
C3C
C4C BBF
BKF
BE
P
BAP
PER
IND
EN
O
DA
H
BGP
PAH
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
)
Volunteer Standard Unvegetated Willow
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Treatment Differences for 41 PAHs>25% of PAHs different by ANOVA (P<0.05)
Site MSite LSite K
Site JSite ISite H
0.630.390.510.44Site G0.61Site F
Site ESite DSite CSite B
0.290.24Site ABA BA BA BA Depth
Year 3Year 2Year 1Time 0Sampling Events
23
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Treatment Differences for 41 Normalized PAHs>25% of PAHs different by ANOVA (P<0.05)
Site MSite LSite KSite JSite ISite H
0.800.560.710.46Site GSite FSite ESite DSite CSite B
0.420.540.39Site ABA BA BA BA Depth
Year 3Year 2Year 1Time 0Sampling Events
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 12 24Months
PAH
to H
opan
e R
atio
Native Standard Unvegetated
Site G – Hopane Normalized Total PAHs0 – 15 cm Depth
T1-T0 T2-T0
24
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003Site MSite LSite KSite JSite ISite H
0.510.460.440.44Site G0.34Site F
Site E0.53Site D
Site CSite B
0.56.49.42.370.390.29Site A
BA BA BA BA Depth
Time 3-Time 1Time 3-Time 0Time 2-Time 0Time 1-Time 0Interval
Treatment DifferencesChange in 41 Normalized PAHs
>25% of PAHs different by ANOVA (P<0.05)
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 12 24Months
PAH
to H
opan
e R
atio
Native Standard Unvegetated
Site G – Hopane Normalized Total PAHs15 – 45 cm Depth
25
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -- Plot G11, 0-15 cm Depth
0-months
24-months
12-months
TPH13,000 mg/kg
9,500 mg/kg
3,900 mg/kg
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
AliphaticAromatic
Time 0
Site G – 0 to 15 cm Depth
No Vegetation24 months
RTDF MixVegetation24 months
22%
78%
23%
77%
30%
70%
26
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
C6-8C8-10C10-12C12-16C16-21C21-35C35+
Aliphatic Fractions Time 0
Site G – 0 to 15 cm Depth
No Vegetation24 months
RTDF MixVegetation24 months
77%70%
62%
70%
14%
11%9%
8%13%12%
74%
10% 7%
3%
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
C8-10C10--12C12-16C16-21C21-35C35+
Aromatic Fractions Time 0
Site G – 0 to 15 cm Depth
No Vegetation24 months
RTDF Mix24 months
77%70%
5%
14%17% 15%
69% 60%
20%
24%46%
7%
17%
27
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
RTDF Trial Site A -- Hopane Normalized Total PAHs 15 to 45 cm
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 6 18 30Months
PAH
to H
opan
e R
atio
Native Standard Unvegetated
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
RTDF Trial Site A -- Hopane Normalized Total PAHs 0 to 15 cm
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 6 18 30Months
PAH
to H
opan
e R
atio
Native Standard Unvegetated
28
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
RTDF Trial Site J -- Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons0 to 15 cm
02000400060008000
10000120001400016000
0 9 19Months
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
)
Bermudagrass Standard Unvegetated
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Status of Project
• 75% data available• 4 new datasets within next month• 7 of 13 locations are finished
– 5 have data for 3 growing seasons • Site F will continue for 3 more years
– less than 3 growing seasons for 2 sites• Additional results expected for 7 locations• 2 new locations in Canada• More data analysis
29
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Primary Results to Date
– evidence of negative vegetation effectin surface soil only
A
– evidence of emerging vegetation effect- Needs confirmation over longer period
A,D,F
– strong evidence of positive vegetationeffect only with an alternativesampling method
J
– strong evidence of positive vegetationeffect- Highly degradable source, lower variation
GEvidenceSites
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Preliminary Conclusions
• Is there evidence that vegetation enhances progress toward practical environmental management objectives for petroleum sites within 3 years?
• Yes, at some locations. • Use site specific
30
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Preliminary Conclusions
• Best locations -- Highly degradable source material with low to moderate hydrocarbon concentrations near risk-based levels.
– Site characterization important– Net environmental benefits and cost may
support use of phytotechnologies.
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Preliminary Conclusions• Highly weathered sites
– Evidence of vegetation effect difficult to demonstrate.
– High variability from multiple sources obscures potential treatment effects.
– Initial composition and aging limits potential for further degradation.
– Effects are long term and three years not always sufficient.
– Vegetation has both positive and negative effects on bioavailability.
31
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
Preliminary Conclusions
• Highly weathered sites– Phytotechnologies may be part of a long
term ecological restoration strategy.– Phytorestoration that includes continued
slow remediation and stabilization processes.
– Need to understand bioavailability and risk.
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
The Future
• Improvements to the protocol• Additional results and analyses• Final report• Results on RTDF website
32
Kulakow, Int. App. Phytotechnologies Conf., 5 March 2003
TPH In Soil Subgroup
www.rtdf.org