Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
3457384
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
Sustainability assessment of electrokinetic bioremediation compared with alternative remediation options for a petroleum release site
Author(s)
Gill, RT; Thornton, SF; Harbottle, MJ; Smith, JW
Year
2016
Is Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Journal
Journal of Environmental Management
ISSN:
0301-4797
EISSN:
1095-8630
Publisher
ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
Location
LONDON
Volume
184
Issue
Pt 1
Page Numbers
120-131
Language
English
PMID
27511828
DOI
10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.036
Web of Science Id
WOS:000388547300013
Abstract
Sustainable management practices can be applied to the remediation of contaminated land to maximise the economic, environmental and social benefits of the process. The Sustainable Remediation Forum UK (SuRF-UK) have developed a framework to support the implementation of sustainable practices within contaminated land management and decision making. This study applies the framework, including qualitative (Tier 1) and semi-quantitative (Tier 2) sustainability assessments, to a complex site where the principal contaminant source is unleaded gasoline, giving rise to a dissolved phase BTEX and MTBE plume. The pathway is groundwater migration through a chalk aquifer and the receptor is a water supply borehole. A hydraulic containment system (HCS) has been installed to manage the MTBE plume migration. The options considered to remediate the MTBE source include monitored natural attenuation (MNA), air sparging/soil vapour extraction (AS/SVE), pump and treat (PT) and electrokinetic-enhanced bioremediation (EK-BIO). A sustainability indictor set from the SuRF-UK framework, including priority indicator categories selected during a stakeholder engagement workshop, was used to frame the assessments. At Tier 1 the options are ranked based on qualitative supporting information, whereas in Tier 2 a multi-criteria analysis is applied. Furthermore, the multi-criteria analysis was refined for scenarios where photovoltaics (PVs) are included and amendments are excluded from the EK-BIO option. Overall, the analysis identified AS/SVE and EK-BIO as more sustainable remediation options at this site than either PT or MNA. The wider implications of this study include: (1) an appraisal of the management decision from each Tier of the assessment with the aim to highlight areas for time and cost savings for similar assessments in the future; (2) the observation that EK-BIO performed well against key indicator categories compared to the other intensive treatments; and (3) introducing methods to improve the sustainability of the EK-BIO treatment design (such as PVs) did not have a significant effect in this instance.
Tags
IRIS
•
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME)
Initial Litsearch 6/2018
Pubmed
Toxline
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity