the treatment of contaminats or waste by using microorganisms such as bacteria to clean them up and become less hazardous to human

2. Bioremediation Technologies
*Phytoremediation.
*Bioaugmentation.
*Biostimulation.
*Bioreactors.
*Land-based Treatments.
*Fungal Remediation.
Remediation : Mean clean or stopping of
damage to the environment .
& Bioremediation :means the
treatment of contaminats or waste by using
microorganisms such as bacteria to clean them up
and become less hazardous to human
They run in to two catigories forms techniques:-
*In situ treatment :bioventing*In situ biodegradation*Bio
stimulation*Bio augmentation
*Natural attention
*Ex situ treatment : 1*Land form 2*Composting 3*Bioreactor
cost

3. 1.Phytoremediation ( in soil and groundwater)
use of plants to
Remediation also occurs when bacteria on the roots of the
plant degrade the contamination,
The plant tissue, which is rich in accumulated contaminants, can
be harvested and safely processed.
remove the contaminats
degradation of contaminants
to a less toxic form.

4. 2003

5. Types of Phytoremediation:
A * Phyto extraction
B * Phytostabilization
C * Phytostimulation
D * Phytotransformation

6. a) Phytoextraction:
concentrate the contaminants in above
ground plant tissue
Applicability
Phytoextraction was primarily employed to recover heavy metals from soils.
Limitations
- It is limited to shallow soil depths of up to 24 inches.
Cost : $60,000 to $100,000 per acre.This includes maintenance, monitoring,
verification testing, and $10,000 per acre for planting.
Impact soil
Soil beginning
remedation contaminant
contaminant
taken up into
plant tissue

7. b)Phytostabilization
involves the reduction of the mobility of heavy metals in soil.
The mobility of contaminants is reduced by the accumulation of contaminants by
plant roots
Limitations
effective at depths of up to 24 inches
Applicability
to remediate large-scale areas having low contamination are not
feasible.
Field work has shown that phytostabilization is efficient at lowering
levels of Pb in a sand.
Studies also suggest that phytostabilization may reduce metal
leaching by converting metals from a soluble oxidation state to an
insoluble oxidation state.
Plants have reduced available and toxic Cr(VI) to unavailable and
less toxic Cr(III) .
Cost: cost efficient method when compared to other technologies.

8. Exudates(Enzymes,
Alcohol,Phenols,
Carbohydrates&
acids)
Precipitation in soil
Reduce
Surface
erosion
Contaminant plume
mycorrhizo
Phytostabilization

9. c)Phytostimulation:
is the breakdown of organic contaminants in the soil via
microbial activity in the plant root zone.
Microbial activity is stimulated in several ways:
(1) sugars, carbohydrates, amino acids, acetates,
and enzymes
(2) root systems bring oxygen
Limitations
levels of contamination in shallow areas.
Cost:
more cost effective than many other technologies.
phytostimulation ranges from $10 to $35 per ton of soil. Other
technologies, such as incineration, range from $200 to $1,000 per ton
of soi

11. dehalogenase
O
o
phosphotase
O
peroxidase
O
O
nitroredutase
O
nitrilase
herbicides
PSPS,
PCBs
Chlorinated
solvent
d)Phytotransformation,
is the breakdown of organic contaminants
Direct uptake of chemicals into
Plant tissue.
Limitations
• Soil must be less than 3 ft in depth
• Contaminants may still enter
the food chain through animals
or insects that eat plant material
Applicability
to remove contaminants
from petrochemical sites
and storage areas, fuel
spills, landfill leachates,
and agricultural
chemicals .

12. 2.Bioaugmentation
introduction of genetically engineered strains of microbes to a contaminated site .
can be introduced to successfully degrade specific waste compounds.
Biodegradation refers to the degradation of organic contaminants in
soil by indigenous or transplanted microorganisms, primarily bacteria and fungi.
Limitations
Certain characteristics in the soil matrix preferential
may result in poor contact between
microbes and
contaminants.
flow paths of
injected fluids

13. Biostimulation:
Biostimulation refers to the addition of oxygen and/or
inorganic nutrients to indigenous microbial populations in
soils. In situ or ex situ methods can be employed to
stimulate biodegradation of contaminants.
*Bioventing*

14. Bioventing
is a process of stimulating the natural in situ biodegradation of
contaminants in soil by providing
Applicability
Bioventing is applicable to any chemical that can be aerobically biodegraded. Techniques
have been successfully used to remediate soils contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons,
non-chlorinated solvents, some pesticides, wood preservatives
Limitations
Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process include:
(1) low permeability soils (reduce bioventing performance);
(2) monitoring of off-gases at the soil surface may be required;
(3) low soil moisture content, which may be caused by bioventing, limits
biodegradation .
air
oxygen
to existing soil
microorganisms
microbial activity
to sustain

15. Two basic criteria have to be satisfied for successful
bioventing:
1- air must be able to pass through the soil in sufficient
quantities to maintain aerobic conditions.
2- microorganisms must be present in concentrations large
enough to obtain reasonable biodegradation rates.
Cost:
ranges from $10 to $60 per cubic yard. At sites with over 10,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil
Bioreactors:r
highly controlled methods of treating contaminated soils.
Because temperature, pH, nutrient levelscan be controlled in
constructed batch- or continuously-fed reactors, microbial
activity, and thus contaminant degradation,it can be optimized
in:*Slurry-based reactors.

16. Slurry-based Reactors
Slurry-phase biological treatment is performed in a reactor to remediate a
mixture of water and excavated soil.
The soil is suspended in a reactor vessel and mixed with nutrients
and oxygen. Microorganisms, acid, or alkali may be added
depending on treatment requirements.
used to remediate soils contaminated by hydrocarbons,
petrochemicals, solvents, pesticides and other organic
chemicals.
Bioreactors are more suitable for soils with low permeability
Limitations
treatment can be expensive
When biodegradation is
complete
the soil slurry is
dewatered
Applicability:

17. *Fungal Remediation:
use of fungi to remediate organic soil contaminants,
primarily hydrocarbons.
Remediation of soil using white-rot fungus has been tested
in both in situ and reactor-based systems.
Limitations
A major limitation of white-rot fungus is its sensitivity to
biological process operations. It has been observed that the
fungus does not grow well in suspended cell systems,
enzyme induction is negatively affected by mixing action;
and the ability of the fungus to effectively attach itself to
fixed media is poor
Cost
$75 per cubic yard of contaminated soil .

18. Applicability&Cost. Cunningham, S.D., J.R. Shann, D.E. Crowley, and T.A. Anderson, 1997, Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and
Water, in Phytoremediation of Soil and Water Contaminants, E.L. Kruger, T.A. Anderson, and J.R. Coats, Eds., ACS Symposium Series 664,
American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
2. Schnoor, J.L., 1997, Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Series
E, Vol. 1, October.
Limitations
3. Huang, J.W, J. Chen, and S.D. Cunningham, 1997, Phytoextraction of Lead from Contaminated Soils, in Phytoremediation of Soil and
Water Contaminants, E.L. Kruger, T.A. Anderson, and J.R. Coats, Eds., ACS Symposium Series 664, American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC.
*Phytostabilization
Applicability
1. Blaylock, M., B. Ensley, D. Salt, N. Kumar, V. Dushenkov, and I. Raskin, 1995, Phytoremediation: A Novel Strategy for the Removal of
Toxic Metals from the Environment Using Plants, Biotechnology, 13 (7), pp.468-474.
2. Miller, R., 1996, Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Series O,
Vol. 3, October.
Cost
3. Schnoor, J.L., 1997, Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Series
E, Vol. 1, October.
*Phytostimulation
Definition &Applicability
1. Anderson, T.A., E.A. Guthrie, and B.T. Walton, 1993, Bioremediation in the Rhizosphere, Environmental Science and Technology 27
(13), pp. 2630-2636.
Applicability&cost
2. Miller, R., 1996, Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Series O,
Vol. 3, October.
Limitations
3. Schnoor, J.L., 1997, Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Series
E, Vol. 1, October
*Phytoextraction
References:-

19. *Phytotransformation
Definition &Applicability&Cost
1. EPA, 1998, A Citizen's Guide to Phytoremediation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
EPA 542-F-98-011, August.
Limitations3. Miller, R., 1996, Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediatoin Technologies Analysis Center,
Series O, Vol. 3, October.
*Biodegradation
1 Kumar, R. and C.B. Sharma, 1992, Biodegradation of Carbamate Pesticide Propoxur in Soil, in Environment and Biodegradation, V.P. Agrawal and S.V.S.
RanaIndia eds., Society of Biosciences, India, pp. 137-148.
2. Ward, F.P., Military Applications of Biodegradation, in Biotechnology and Biodegradation, Advances in Applied Biotechnology Series, Vol. 4, A. Chakrabarty, D.
Kamely, and G. Omenn eds., Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX, pp. 147-154.
*Biostimulation
Bioventing
Definition &Applicability
1. U.S. Air Force Environics Directorate of the Armstrong Laboratory, U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, 1995, Manual: Bioventing Principles and
Practices, EPA/540/R-95/534a.
2. U.S. Air Force Environics Directorate of the Armstrong Laboratory, U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, 1995, Manual: Bioventing Principles and
Practices, Volume II, EPA/540/R-95/534b.
Limitations
3. Hinchee, R.E., 1993, Bioventing of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, in Handbook of Bioremediation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
4. Office of Research and Development, EPA, ATTIC Downloadable Documents, available at http://www.epa.gov/bbsnrmrl/attic/documents.html.
Slurry-based Reactors
1. Cookson, J.T. Jr, 1995, Bioremediation Engineering Design and Application, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
2. EPA, 1990, Slurry Biodegradation, Engineering Bulletin, EPA/540/2-90/016.
3. EPA, 1991, Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Slurry-Phase Biological Reactor for Creosote-Contaminated Wastewater, EPA RREL, Series includes Technology
Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-91/009; Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5-91/009, PB93-205532; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5 91/009; and
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-91/009.
4. Office of Research and Development, EPA, ATTIC Downloadable Documents, available at http://www.epa.gov/bbsnrmrl/attic/documents.html.
*Land-based Treatments
Land Farming
1. Cookson, J.T., Jr., 1995, Bioremediation Engineering Design and Application, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
2. Office of Research and Development, EPA. ATTIC Downloadable Documents, available at http://www.epa.gov/bbsnrmrl/attic/documents.html.
3. Alexander, M., 1994, Biodegradation and Bioremediation, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
*White-rot Fungus
1. Cookson, J.T., 1995, Bioremediation Engineering: Design and Application, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
2. Suthersan, S., 1997, Remediation Engineering Design Concepts, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
3. The EPA Office of Research and Development, 1999, Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) database