An overview of the work carried out by Remedios

1. RemediosRemedios
Technology Solutions to Environmental ProblemsTechnology Solutions to Environmental Problems
Graeme Paton, Technical Director

2. Remedios BackgroundRemedios Background
4E t bli h d i A t 19994Established in August 1999
4Spin-out from University of Aberdeen
4Exclusive access to all University IP relating toExclusive access to all University IP relating to
environmental biosensors
4Multi-disciplinary team (7) with international reputations
44Deploys biosensors to complement traditional
approaches in the diagnosis, remediation and monitoring
of pollution and contaminationp
4Access to high quality recruits through University
connection
4Unique access to laboratory facilities4Unique access to laboratory facilities
4Utilisation of multi-million environmental technology
resource

3. Awards/Recognition/ AchievementsAwards/Recognition/ Achievements
4Sir Ian Wood Award for Innovation 1999
4SMART Award for product development 1999SMART Award for product development 1999
4Millennium Product status- biosensors
4Best new Biotech Company 2000 – industry peersBest new Biotech Company 2000 industry peers
42004- selected by BP for exploring sustainable
remediation of hydrocarbon wastesremediation of hydrocarbon wastes
42005- core founders of DTI, KTN-Net (FirstFaraday)
42007- DTI Promise Bioremediation Programme2007 DTI Promise Bioremediation Programme
42007- Scottish Environmental Technology Network,
Board

4. The Technology PlatformThe Technology Platform
Contaminant concentrationContaminant concentration
Leading lights in environmental technology and solutions

5. Remedios and the Environmental
Protection Act
4Since 1999, new Policy and Guidelines have
transformed environmental protectionp
4The biosensor is applied in parallel with chemical
analysis and hazard/ risk assessment as required
4Remedios perform complete contaminated land studies
from desktop to intrusive investigation and remediation
4Remedios retain a close and complementary relationship
with regulators
44Remedios have acted with regulators and as policy
advisors

6. Remedios
The Case Studies:
f i k di ifrom Risk Assessment to Remediation

7. Risk management = risk assessment + risk reduction
selection
of actions

8. Risk management = risk assessment + risk reductionimplementation
of actions

9. Remediation Decision Support ToolRemediation Decision Support Tool
4 Developed support tool based on 3 tiers designed to reduce uncertainty in Developed support tool based on 3 tiers, designed to reduce uncertainty in
technology selection.
4 The tool assists in the decision making process of remediation
technologies:
• Enabling transparent justification of selection
• Gives focussed and streamlined support for targeting best options.
• Interfaces with web to enable continual updating as practices become
established and lessons are learned

10. Predicting Hydrocarbon Remediation?
• Empirical data from thirty sites have been generated & applied to appraise and
lid t
Predicting Hydrocarbon Remediation?
validate.
Resp [TPH]
BF = bioremediation function
I = induction
[TPH] =TPH concentration
(I x [TPH]
[ ]
log (MPN)
BF = x x Inhibition
[TPH] =TPH concentration
MPN = most probable number
Resp = respiration

12. BF & Rate of Degradation
10000
1000
Rate(mg/kg
100
g/day)
1
10
BF
1e+1 1e+2 1e+3 1e+4 1e+5 1e+6 1e+7 1e+8
1

13. Decision Support BiosensingDecision Support Biosensing
Diplock et al., 2009. Environmental Pollution
Volume 157, Issue 6, 1831-1840

14. Cement FactoryCement Factory

15. Cement FactoryCement Factory
4Long term spillLong term spill
4Generator oils
4Extensive areaExtensive area
4Local complaints
4Remedios trained theRemedios trained the
environmental staff

16. Compressor Area, Novi Popovac Cement Factory
Soil Hydrocarbon Contamination, 0-1m bgl
1300
1400
PC1
PC2
PC9
mg/kg
1000
1100
1200
1300
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC10
SB1
SB2
600
700
800
900
PC6PC11
PC12
200
300
400
500
PC7
0
100
PC8
Not To ScaleNot To Scale

17. Compressor Area, Novi Popovac Cement Factory
Soil Hydrocarbon Contamination, 2-3m bgl
1300
1400
PC1
PC2
PC9
mg/kg
900
1000
1100
1200PC3
PC4
PC5
PC10
SB1
SB2
500
600
700
800PC6PC11
PC12
100
200
300
400PC7
0
100
PC8
Not To Scale

18. Compressor Area, Novi Popovac Cement Factory
Soil Hydrocarbon Contamination, 4-6m bgl
1300
1400
PC1
PC2
PC9
mg/kg
1000
1100
1200
1300
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC10
SB1
SB2
600
700
800
900
PC6PC11
PC12
200
300
400
500
PC7
0
100
PC8
Not To ScaleNot To Scale

19. Compressor Area, Novi Popovac Cement Factory
Groundwater Hydrocarbon Contamination
PC1
PC2
PC9
0.14
mg/l
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC10
SB1
SB2
0.1
0.12
0.14
PC6PC11
PC12
0.06
0.08
PC7
0.02
0.04
PC8 0
0.01
N t T S lNot To Scale

20. Cement FactoryCement Factory
4Hydrocarbons are localised
4Other measures reveal attenuationOther measures reveal attenuation
4Monitoring strategy to reflect this
4SI led to cost effective sustainable remediation4SI led to cost effective sustainable remediation

21. Case Study 4 Hilden locationCase Study 4 Hilden location

22. An overview of the Hilden site
4 A 8 ha working site with complex pollution problems paints and4 A 8 ha working site with complex pollution problems, paints and
coatings produced for over 100 years
4 Contamination of both surface soils and groundwater
4 O i i l ti t f di ti i t d d l4 Original estimate for remediation using standard clean-up
technologies was £40 million in 1991

23. Aerial Photo 1997
TF5TF5
TF1/C-B
A/BA/B
TF2/F-B
Project Rheingold KCL 18j g KCL 18

24. Plan of Hilden site

25. Toxicity map of Hilden site today
85
90
High toxicity
55
60
65
70
75
80
g y
30
35
40
45
50
55
0
5
10
15
20
25
Low toxicity0 y

26. 90
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2004
0
5
10
15
20
1200
85
90
95
100
1998
800
1000
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
400
600
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
200
0
5
10
15

27. Benzene specific Biosensor result
80
High Response
55
60
65
70
75
2
30
35
40
45
50
0
5
10
15
20
25
Low Response0
p

28. BTEX Analysis
13
14
8
9
10
11
12
Total
BTEX
(mg/l)
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
1
2
3

29. Comparison between maps
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
General toxicity
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50 General toxicity
60
65
70
75
80
0
5
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
TVA8 Response
0
5
10
15
10
11
12
13
14
Total BTEX analysis
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
1
2

30. A i C t i tAssessing Constraints
Air sparging
Charcoal pH adjustment
(resuspension)
Removal of
volatile
organic
Removal
of non-volatile
organic
d
Removal of
adverse pH
( p )
compounds compounds
high low high low high low
Further sample
manipulation
Inorganic Further sample
manipulationpH constraint
VOC’s
constraint
manipulation constraint manipulation
non-VOC’s
constraint
p

31. Bioremediation stage 1
Total toxicityTotal toxicity
1000
1200
75
80
85
90
95
100
Low toxicity
600
800
50
55
60
65
70
75
400
600
20
25
30
35
40
45
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
200
0
5
10
15 High toxicity

32. Bioremediation stage 2
Toxicity after spargingToxicity after sparging
100
Low toxicity
1000
1200
75
80
85
90
95
100
600
800
45
50
55
60
65
70
400
600
20
25
30
35
40
45
High toxicity
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
200
0
5
10
15

33. Bioremediation stage 3
1200
100
Toxicity after pH adjustmentToxicity after pH adjustment
1000
1200
70
75
80
85
90
95 Low toxicity
600
800
45
50
55
60
65
70
400
20
25
30
35
40
45
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
200
0
5
10
15
High toxicity

34. C St d 4Case Study 4
Railway Yard Development

39. Excavation area 1 exposure of underlying clay at
3.2mbgl

40. Excavation area 2 – exposure of hydrocarbon
contaminated soils, confirmed by elevated FID readings

41. Conclusions 5Conclusions 5

43. Conclusions 5Conclusions 5

44. Data Collection Material Being Excavated
Assess against Risk
Nutrient level
Moisture
pH
TPH
MPN
Biosensor
CO2
TPH Characterisation
On site FID
Off site analysis
FID low levels
Assess against Risk
Pass- then stockpile
Fail- then biopile
2
O2
End-point Criteria
Olfactory
Risk-based
Off site analysis Group material and send to AlControl
Phase material
Group material; do not add to biopiles
Non-TPH
G t i l d d t AlC t l
TPH levels
If TPH between 0.05 and 10 g/kg
Consider for biopiling
Physical/ engineering Group material and send to AlControl
Excessive TPH
Levels exceeding 10 g/kg
Difficult Substances
Group and stockpile
For decision later
Site Status
Base of biopile area
Made ready as Page 6
Material Management
Data collection for characterisation
Nutrient Amendment
If trace levels are present,
use 100:10:1
Select N source to suit pH
(urea, ammonium nitrate)
Add before biopiling and mix
well.
MPN
A count of less than
104 is too low and
augmentation is
requirted
TPH
Calibrate FID with AlControl/
lab data and record for site
characterisation
pH of soil
Amend with lime or
sulphur to reach pH of 6-
7.5.
Use standard agricultural
calculation but remember
CEC will be low
Moisture
Determine the water
holding capacity of the soil
and maintain at levels as
per manual.
Biosensor
Use MeOH and
water to assess
bioavailability of co-
pollutant and TPH
Biopile Algorithm
Put derived data into equation (p29)
and calculate decay
Amend and Optimise before biopiling
Verify Algorithm
Use microcosm to check algorithm
prediction- max 2 weeks

45. Algorithm calculated
to assess most
suitable set-up
Microcosm
Microcosm
experiment used to
verify algorithm
Defined Targets
Olfactory
Risk-based
Physical/ engineering
Constructed Biopile
TPH Measurements
Analysis carried out
with calibrated FID
Levels change as
t d b
YES Continue monitoring
Routine Analysis
CO2 Measurements
Gas Analysis
O2 Measurements
Gas Analysis
Specific Analysis
expected by
algorithm
NO Plot data
To assess trends
WHC
Confirm the values are
Nutrient Amendment
Verify bioavailable status in KCl
Percent WHC
Derived from
moisture
pH
In water
Confirm the values are
between 60 and 80%
Turning
If the system is air
limited then turn
Moisture
Add/ remove as
i d
pH
Make sure 6-7.5 or
amend: check buffering
Biosensor
Use MeOH
and water to
assess
bioavailability
of co-pollutant
Analysis
Verify presence of toxic
metabolites or co-pollutant
Physical constraints
Temperature
Using probe
required
pH
Trickle filter to adjust
Temperature
If the temp is too low
(<10) then add steam; too
high (>40) remove
covers.
T t
None of the above
MPN
A count of
less than 104
is too low and
and TPH
Physical constraints
Trial pits to make sure the
biopile is homogenised
Assessment of Bioaugmentation
If the biopile was amended or
not,there should be a minimum
number of degraders present Temperature
Assess site weather
and forecasts
The cause of
reduced degradation
rate cannot be
related to one of the
above factors
re-
augmentation
is requirted
number of degraders present

46. Biopile 1 - view to westBiopile 1 view to west

47. Gantt Chart for Biopile ProgressGantt Chart for Biopile Progress
18/07 25/07 01/08 08/08 15/08 22/08 29/08 05/09 12/09 19/09 26/09 03/10 10/10 17/10 24/10 31/10 07/11 14/11 21/11 28/11
Biopile 1
2
3
Biopile 1A pH, N
t
A
t t t t t t t te te t t t t
2A pH, N
t
A
t t t t t t t te te t t t t
3A pH, N
t
A
t t t t t t t te te t t t t
4A pH, N
t
A
t t t t t t t te te t t t t
4A pH, N A
slippage pH adjust/ optimise pH
impact of slippage N add nutrientsimpact of slippage N add nutrients
t turning
sampling (week start) e excavator for sampling
sign off (week end) A Addition of inoculum
back fill (week start)

49. Backfilling of Excavation (under buildings)Backfilling of Excavation (under buildings)

50. Compaction of Material in Backfill AreaCompaction of Material in Backfill Area

51. EconomicsEconomics
d
ostin£cum
nd,silt,clay,
diments,peat
OC
alogenated
AH
CDD
emi-Volatile
on-halogenated
CB
est/Herb
eavymetals
sbestos
onmetal
yanides
orrosives
xplosives
Co
sa
se
VO
Ha
PA
TC
Se
No
PC
Pe
He
As
No
Cy
Co
Ex
Surface Amendments 20-35 all x x x x
Biopile 40-70 s, s, -, s, - x x x x x
Windrow turning 50-110 s, s, -, s, - x x x x x xWindrow turning 50 110 s, s, , s, x x x x x x
Bioventing and Air Sparging 80-85 s, s, -, s, - x x x x x
Landfarming 80-180 s, s, -, s, - x x x x x x x
Cement and Pozzolan-based 40-171 s, s, c, s, - x x x
Pump and Treat 65 170 s s s x x x x x x x x xPump and Treat 65-170 s, s, -, s, - x x x x x x x x x
Soil washing 80-370 s, s, -, s, p x x x x x x x
Solvent Extraction 90-600 s, s, -, s, - x x x x x x x x
Slurry Phase Bioreactor 110-140 all x x x x x x x x
Th l D ti 115 400 llThermal Desorption 115-400 all x x x x x
Chemical Dehalogenation 150-370 s, s, c, s, - x x x x x x
Incineration 140-400 all x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

52. General ConclusionsGeneral Conclusions
4Bioremediation being more widely used4Bioremediation- being more widely used
4End-point issues are important as is the re-use potential ofp p p
the material
4Many techniques to tailor to sites4Many techniques to tailor to sites
4Regulator inclusionRegulator inclusion
4Algorithm has great potential
4Integrated mechanisms and approaches