When is a soil remediated?

Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial

Frederic Coulon, Mohammed Al Awadi, William Cowie, David Mardlin, Simon Pollard, Colin Cunningham, Graeme Risdon, Paul Arthur, Kirk T. Semple, Graeme I. Paton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A six month field scale study was carried out to compare windrow turning and biopile techniques for the remediation of soil contaminated with bunker C fuel oil. End-point clean-up targets were defined by human risk assessment and ecotoxicological hazard assessment approaches. Replicate windrows and biopiles were amended with either nutrients and inocula, nutrients alone or no amendment. In addition to fractionated hydrocarbon analysis, culturable microbial characterisation and soil ecotoxicological assays were performed. This particular soil, heavy in texture and historically contaminated with bunker fuel was more effectively remediated by windrowing, but coarser textures may be more amendable to biopiling. This trial reveals the benefit of developing risk and hazard based approaches in defining end-point bioremediation of heavy hydrocarbons when engineered biopile or windrow are proposed as treatment option. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3032-3040
Number of pages9
JournalEnvironmental Pollution
Volume158
Issue number10
Early online date24 Jul 2010
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2010

Fingerprint

Soil
Hydrocarbons
Soils
Nutrients
Hazards
Textures
Fuel Oils
Food
Environmental Biodegradation
Bioremediation
Fuel oils
Remediation
Risk assessment
Assays

Keywords

  • Bunker fuel
  • Windrows
  • Biopiles
  • Bioremediation
  • Soil ecotoxicology
  • Sub-Antarctic soils
  • Petroleum-hydrocarbons
  • Ecotoxicity assessment
  • Toxicity tests
  • Biodegradation
  • Degradation
  • Crude
  • Environment
  • Fertilizer

Cite this

When is a soil remediated? Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial. / Coulon, Frederic; Al Awadi, Mohammed; Cowie, William; Mardlin, David; Pollard, Simon; Cunningham, Colin; Risdon, Graeme; Arthur, Paul; Semple, Kirk T.; Paton, Graeme I.

In: Environmental Pollution, Vol. 158, No. 10, 10.2010, p. 3032-3040.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Coulon, F, Al Awadi, M, Cowie, W, Mardlin, D, Pollard, S, Cunningham, C, Risdon, G, Arthur, P, Semple, KT & Paton, GI 2010, 'When is a soil remediated? Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial', Environmental Pollution, vol. 158, no. 10, pp. 3032-3040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.06.001
Coulon, Frederic ; Al Awadi, Mohammed ; Cowie, William ; Mardlin, David ; Pollard, Simon ; Cunningham, Colin ; Risdon, Graeme ; Arthur, Paul ; Semple, Kirk T. ; Paton, Graeme I. / When is a soil remediated? Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial. In: Environmental Pollution. 2010 ; Vol. 158, No. 10. pp. 3032-3040.
@article{70cf3430ca204468ba86e9212c17ba95,
title = "When is a soil remediated?: Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial",
abstract = "A six month field scale study was carried out to compare windrow turning and biopile techniques for the remediation of soil contaminated with bunker C fuel oil. End-point clean-up targets were defined by human risk assessment and ecotoxicological hazard assessment approaches. Replicate windrows and biopiles were amended with either nutrients and inocula, nutrients alone or no amendment. In addition to fractionated hydrocarbon analysis, culturable microbial characterisation and soil ecotoxicological assays were performed. This particular soil, heavy in texture and historically contaminated with bunker fuel was more effectively remediated by windrowing, but coarser textures may be more amendable to biopiling. This trial reveals the benefit of developing risk and hazard based approaches in defining end-point bioremediation of heavy hydrocarbons when engineered biopile or windrow are proposed as treatment option. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Bunker fuel, Windrows, Biopiles, Bioremediation, Soil ecotoxicology, Sub-Antarctic soils, Petroleum-hydrocarbons, Ecotoxicity assessment, Toxicity tests, Biodegradation, Degradation, Crude, Environment, Fertilizer",
author = "Frederic Coulon and {Al Awadi}, Mohammed and William Cowie and David Mardlin and Simon Pollard and Colin Cunningham and Graeme Risdon and Paul Arthur and Semple, {Kirk T.} and Paton, {Graeme I.}",
note = "A paid open access option is available for this journal. Voluntary deposit by author of pre-print allowed on Institutions open scholarly website and pre-print servers Voluntary deposit by author of authors post-print allowed on institutions open scholarly website including Institutional Repository Deposit due to Funding Body, Institutional and Governmental mandate only allowed where separate agreement between repository and publisher exists Set statement to accompany deposit Published source must be acknowledged Must link to journal home page or articles' DOI Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge NIH Authors articles will be submitted to PMC after 12 months Authors who are required to deposit in subject repositories may also use Sponsorship Option Pre-print can not be deposited for The Lancet",
year = "2010",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.envpol.2010.06.001",
language = "English",
volume = "158",
pages = "3032--3040",
journal = "Environmental Pollution",
issn = "0269-7491",
publisher = "ELSEVIER APPL SCI PUBL LTD",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When is a soil remediated?

T2 - Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial

AU - Coulon, Frederic

AU - Al Awadi, Mohammed

AU - Cowie, William

AU - Mardlin, David

AU - Pollard, Simon

AU - Cunningham, Colin

AU - Risdon, Graeme

AU - Arthur, Paul

AU - Semple, Kirk T.

AU - Paton, Graeme I.

N1 - A paid open access option is available for this journal. Voluntary deposit by author of pre-print allowed on Institutions open scholarly website and pre-print servers Voluntary deposit by author of authors post-print allowed on institutions open scholarly website including Institutional Repository Deposit due to Funding Body, Institutional and Governmental mandate only allowed where separate agreement between repository and publisher exists Set statement to accompany deposit Published source must be acknowledged Must link to journal home page or articles' DOI Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge NIH Authors articles will be submitted to PMC after 12 months Authors who are required to deposit in subject repositories may also use Sponsorship Option Pre-print can not be deposited for The Lancet

PY - 2010/10

Y1 - 2010/10

N2 - A six month field scale study was carried out to compare windrow turning and biopile techniques for the remediation of soil contaminated with bunker C fuel oil. End-point clean-up targets were defined by human risk assessment and ecotoxicological hazard assessment approaches. Replicate windrows and biopiles were amended with either nutrients and inocula, nutrients alone or no amendment. In addition to fractionated hydrocarbon analysis, culturable microbial characterisation and soil ecotoxicological assays were performed. This particular soil, heavy in texture and historically contaminated with bunker fuel was more effectively remediated by windrowing, but coarser textures may be more amendable to biopiling. This trial reveals the benefit of developing risk and hazard based approaches in defining end-point bioremediation of heavy hydrocarbons when engineered biopile or windrow are proposed as treatment option. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - A six month field scale study was carried out to compare windrow turning and biopile techniques for the remediation of soil contaminated with bunker C fuel oil. End-point clean-up targets were defined by human risk assessment and ecotoxicological hazard assessment approaches. Replicate windrows and biopiles were amended with either nutrients and inocula, nutrients alone or no amendment. In addition to fractionated hydrocarbon analysis, culturable microbial characterisation and soil ecotoxicological assays were performed. This particular soil, heavy in texture and historically contaminated with bunker fuel was more effectively remediated by windrowing, but coarser textures may be more amendable to biopiling. This trial reveals the benefit of developing risk and hazard based approaches in defining end-point bioremediation of heavy hydrocarbons when engineered biopile or windrow are proposed as treatment option. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Bunker fuel

KW - Windrows

KW - Biopiles

KW - Bioremediation

KW - Soil ecotoxicology

KW - Sub-Antarctic soils

KW - Petroleum-hydrocarbons

KW - Ecotoxicity assessment

KW - Toxicity tests

KW - Biodegradation

KW - Degradation

KW - Crude

KW - Environment

KW - Fertilizer

U2 - 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.06.001

DO - 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.06.001

M3 - Article

VL - 158

SP - 3032

EP - 3040

JO - Environmental Pollution

JF - Environmental Pollution

SN - 0269-7491

IS - 10

ER -