BY: CARLOS QUIROZ & AL I MEHDAWIINSTRUCTOR: EL IZABETH PILON – SMITHS

NOVEMBER , 2010

Leachate’s Phytoremediation at the

Fort Collins Landfill

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background

Basic concepts

Landfill

Leachate

Background

Fort Collins Landfill

Background

Operation

Leachate Management

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background

Fort Collins Landfill

Background

Operation

Recycling

Hazardous management

Leachate Management

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background

Fort Collins Landfill

Background

Operation

Recycling

Hazardous management

Leachate Management

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background

Fort Collins Landfill

Background

Operation

Recycling

Hazardous management

Leachate Management

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background

Fort Collins Landfill

Background

Operation

Recycling

Hazardous management

Leachate Management

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background

Fort Collins Landfill

Background

Operation

Recycling

Hazardous management

Leachate Management

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background• Using Popular Trees to Remove Contaminants

Scientific facts

• Che et al, (2006)

• Danha et al, (2006)

• El Gendy, (2008)

• Nagendran et al, (2008)

• Jones et al, (2005)

• Justin et al, (2010)

• Kang et al, (2008)

• Zalesny et al, (2006)

• Zalesny et al, (2007)

Scientific facts

• Using Popular Trees

• Using Popular Trees to Remove Contaminants

Background

Scientific facts

• (PRS)

• Passive Remediation Systems. (PRS) Background

Background

Scientific facts

• PRS irrigates hybrid poplar with the landfill leachate

Background

Scientific facts

Increasing of poplar trees biomass.

Objectives

Evaluate the current risk in the landfill.

Evaluate the current phytoremediation on the landfill.

Recommend suitable options to enhance the current situation.

Method

Topography, hydrogeology and heavy metals in ground water.

Heavy metals in plant tissues. Proposals to situation.

Method

Topography, hydrogeology and Heavy Metals in ground water.

Source: Larimer County Landfill.

Results

Geology & hydrogeology

Source: Larimer County Landfill.

Results

Geology & hydrogeology

Source: Larimer County Landfill.

Results

Geology & hydrogeology

Source: Larimer County Landfill.

Native Plants (North)Method

Heavy metals in plant tissues.

Control Samples (South)

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Method

Heavy metals in plant tissues.

Sunflower

Smooth brome

Cottonwood Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Method

Heavy metals in plant tissues.

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Method

Proposals to situation

- Buffer strip.

- Remediation of ground-water through the irrigation of plants.

Licht & Isebrands (2005).

Results

Results

Metals in plant tissues.

North Samples

Metal

Cotton Wood Smoothbrome Sunflower

PPMStand. Desv

% Dry Mass PPM

Stand. Desv

% Dry Mass PPM

Stand. Desv

% Dry Mass

Arsenic 0 0 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0 0.00000

Cadmium 5.10 4.16 0.00051 0.15 0.19 0.000015 0.47 0.33 0.00005

Chromium 0.12 0.12 0.00001 0.20 0.30 0.00002 0.39 0.88 0.00004

Copper 4.63 2.77 0.00046 5.67 2.51 0.00057 45.31 41.15 0.00453

Iron 27.44 5.10 0.00274 51.06 22.16 0.00511 128.07 106.77 0.01281

Lead 2.21 1.65 0.00022 1.55 2.27 0.00015 2.59 0.73 0.00026

Magnesium 3670.60 1001.48 0.36706 2357.01 558.61 0.23570 3330.80 604.23 0.33308

Manganese 67.69 26.67 0.00677 33.88 15.48 0.00339 15.14 6.24 0.00151

Mercury 0.44 0.69 0.00004 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00000

Molybdenium 0.37 0.83 0.00004 1.42 1.40 0.00014 1.47 2.15 0.00015

Nickel 0.13 0.19 0.00001 0.09 0.20 0.00001 0.03 0.06 0.00000

Sulfur 11858.60 6014.05 1.18586 4255.66 1590.24 0.42557 7092.00 2457.91 0.70920

Selenium 19.22 3.31 0.00192 18.54 13.28 0.00185 20.69 4.59 0.00207

Tellurium 50.86 56.76 0.00509 78.49 134.63 0.00785 94.84 56.21 0.00948

Vanadium 0.00 0.00 0.00000 6.62 13.58 0.00066 0.41 0.91 0.00004

Tungsten 1.23 2.70 0.00012 0.33 0.74 3.3111E-05 1.84 1.62 0.00018

Zinc 119.88 216.72 0.01199 0.00 0.00 0 88.06 173.49 0.00881

Results

Metals in plant tissues.

South Samples (Control)

Metal

Cotton Wood Smoothbrome Sunflower

PPM Stand. Desv

% Dry Mass PPM Stand.

Desv% Dry Mass PPM Stand.

Desv% Dry Mass

Arsenic 0 0 0.00000 0 0 0.00000 0 0 0.00000

Cadmium 0.32 0.17 0.00003 0 0 0.00000 0.25 0.09 0.00003

Chromium 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0.32 0.45 0.00003 0.01 0.01 0.00000

Copper 4.55 0.66 0.00046 8.07 6.12 0.00081 41.33 24.77 0.00413

Iron 33.30 4.76 0.00333 70.30 13.46 0.00703 125.06 34.28 0.01251

Lead 1.74 1.53 0.00017 3.97 4.81 0.00040 2.44 2.30 0.00024

Magnesium 2457.00 736.92 0.24570 2315.17 1365.92 0.23152 3009.00 427.98 0.30090

Manganese 16.94 4.45 0.00169 11.35 6.60 0.00114 6.62 1.59 0.00066

Mercury 0.22 0.50 0.00002 3.00 3.82 0.00030 0.00 0.00 0.00000

Molybdenium 1.09 1.13 0.00011 1.56 1.17 0.00016 0.20 0.42 0.00002

Nickel 0.75 0.89 0.00008 0.08 0.18 0.00001 0.74 1.17 0.00007

Sulfur 5125.00 2651.79 0.51250 6126.73 3061.60 0.61267 10310.20 3316.54 1.03102

Selenium 12.76 4.85 0.00128 23.14 14.77 0.00231 13.55 6.21 0.00135

Tellurium 107.43 29.04 0.01074 59.60 81.73 0.00596 33.53 43.64 0.00335

Vanadium 5.37 12.00 0.00054 0.35 0.78 0.00004 0.00 0.00 0.00000

Tungsten 1.23 0.64 0.00012 0.85 1.90 0.00009 0.55 0.81 0.00006

Zinc 114.68 92.24 0.01147 2.85 6.38 0.00029 82.18 112.82 0.00822

Results

Current Remediation of Groundwater by Native Plants

Metal Guideline Value PPM*

Groundwater Plant Tissue Plant with Highest Concentration of Metal

PPM** Stand. Desv. PPM*** Stand. Desv.Antimony 0.02 0.020 0.025 NE    Arsenic 0.01 0.019 0.023 0    Barium 0.70 0.824 0.243 NE    Beryllium   0.001 0.0004 NE    Cadmium 0.003 0.001 0.0003 5.104 4.162 CottonwoodCalcium   215.842 47.934 NE    Chromium 0.05 0.021 0.008 0.394 0.881 SunflowerCobalt   0.011 0.005 NE    Copper 2.00 0.014 0.015 45.306 41.152 SunflowerIron   14.766 16.249 128.068 106.766 SunflowerLead 0.01 0.014 0.013 2.594 0.73 SunflowerMagnesium   282.263 41.793 3670.6 1001.48 CottonwoodManganese 0.40 NE   67.688 26.667 CottonwoodMercury 0.001 0.0002   0.442 0.692 CottonwoodMolybdenium 0.07 NE   1.47 2.151 Smoothbrome / SunflowerNickel 0.02 0.026 0.014 0.126 0.194 CottonwoodPotassium   149.821 72.167 NE    Selenium 0.01 0.028 0.034 20.688 4.588 SunflowerSilver   0.014 0.021 NE    Sodium   742.053 205.658 NE    Sulfur   NE   11858.6 6014.05 CottonwoodTellurium   NE   94.84 56.21 SunflowerThallium   0.013 0.010 NE    Tin   0.1   NE    Vanadium   0.029 0.047 6.617 13.581 SmoothbromeTungsten   NE   1.840 1.619 SunflowerZinc   0.06 0.198 119.876 216.717 Cottonwood

Results

Proposals to situation

Option 1Solution: Buffer strip.Plants: Cottonwood, sunflower, smoothbrome & vetiver.Perimeter: 2.35 milesPlantation density: 10,000 plants / ha. (Sebastian et al. 2004)

Buffer strip Area

Results

Proposals to situation

Option 2Solution: Buffer strip plus irrigation system to remediate polluted groundwater.Plants: Cottonwood, sunflower, smoothbrome, vetiver.Perimeter: 2.35 milesPlantation density: 10,000 plants / ha. (Sebastian et al. 2004)Irrigation: Wells located on the landfill.

Buffer strip Area

Conclusions

Conclusions

Current Risk: Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Lead, Nickel, and Selenium are still over the guideline value.

Current Phytoremediation: Cadmium and Mercury by Cottonwood. Chromium by Sunflower.

0.17 Acres on the north side (0.09% of area)

0.57 Acres on the south side (0.32% of area)

Suitable Options:

Buffer strip around the landfill perimeter to prevent pollution of water resources. Determine the groundwater flow to evaluate the feasibility of plant’s irrigation with leachate.

Conclusions

None of the plants evaluated showed absortion of As. Thus, Vetiver could be applied. L.T. Danh et Al (2009)

More researches are needed to remediate antimony and barium on leachate.

The buffer strip around the landfill could reduce the concentration of lead, nickel and selenium.

Acknowledgments

Steve Harem, Environmental Specialist of Larimer County Landfill.

Colin Quinn, Post-Doc, Biology Department

Elizabeth Pilon – Smiths, Professor, Biology Department.

References

Barazani, O., Sathiyamoorthy, P., Manandhar, U., Vulkan, R. & Golan-Goldhirsh, A., 2004. Heavy metal accumulation by nicotiana glauca graham in a solid waste disposal site. Chemosphere, 54 (7), 867-872.

Che, D., Meagher, R.B., Heaton, A.C.P., Lima, A., Rugh, C.L. & Merkle, S.A., 2003. Blackwell publishing ltd. Expression of mercuric ion reductase in eastern cottonwood (populus deltoides) confers mercuric ion reduction and resistance. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 1, 311-319.

Danh, L.T., Truong, P., Mammucari, R., Tran, T. & Foster, N., 2009. Vetiver grass, vetiveria zizanioides: A choice plant for phytoremediation of heavy metals and organic wastes. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 11 (8), 664-691.

Dimitriou, I., Aronsson, P. & Weih, M., 2006. Stress tolerance of five willow clones after irrigation with different amounts of landfill leachate. Bioresource Technology, 97 (1), 150-157.

Eberts, S.M. & Shalk, C.W., 1999. Hydrologic effects of cottonwood trees on a shallow aquifer containing trichloroethene. U.S. Geological Survey.

El-Gendy, A., 2008. Modeling of heavy metals removal from municipal landfill leachate using living biomass of water hyacinth. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 10 (1), 14-30.

Jones, D., Williamson, K. & Owen, A., 2006. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate. Waste Management, 26 (8), 825-837.

Justin, M.Z., Pajk, N., Zupanc, V. & Zupančič, M., 2010. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate and compost wastewater by irrigation of populus and salix: Biomass and growth response. Waste Management, 30 (6), 1032-1042.

Justin, M.Z. & Zupančič, M., 2009. Combined purification and reuse of landfill leachate by constructed wetland and irrigation of grass and willows. Desalination, 246 (1-3), 157-168.

Kang, D.-H., Tsao, D., Wang-Cahill, F., Rock, S., Schwab, A.P. & Banks, M.K., 2008. Assessment of landfill leachate volume and concentrations of cyanide and fluoride during phytoremediation. Bioremediation Journal, 12 (1), 32-45.

References

Kim, K.-R. & Owens, G., 2010. Potential for enhanced phytoremediation of landfills using biosolids – a review. Journal of Environmental Management, 91 (4), 791-797.

Lee, R.W., Jones, S.A., Kuniansky, E.L., Harvey, G., Lollar, B.S. & Slater, G.F., 2000. Phreatophyte influence on reductive dechlorination in a shallow aquifer contaminated with trichloroethene (tce). International Journal of Phytoremediation, 2 (3), 193-211.

Nagendran, R., Selvam, A., Joseph, K. & Chiemchaisri, C., 2006. Phytoremediation and rehabilitation of municipal solid waste landfills and dumpsites: A brief review. Waste Management, 26 (12), 1357-1369.

Sang, N., Han, M., Li, G. & Huang, M., 2010. Landfill leachate affects metabolic responses of zea mays l. Seedlings. Waste Management, 30 (5), 856-862.

Sebastiani, L., 2004. Heavy metal accumulation and growth responses in poplar clones eridano (populus deltoides $times; maximowiczii) and i-214 (p. $times; euramericana) exposed to industrial waste. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 52 (1), 79-88.

Shen, C., Tang, X., Cheema, S.A., Zhang, C., Khan, M.I., Liang, F., Chen, X., Zhu, Y., Lin, Q. & Chen, Y., 2009. Enhanced phytoremediation potential of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soil from e-waste recycling area in the presence of randomly methylated-β-cyclodextrins. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 172 (2-3), 1671-1676.

Zalesny, J., Zalesny, R., Wiese, A. & Hall, R., 2007. Choosing tree genotypes for phytoremediation of landfill leachate using phyto-recurrent selection. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9 (6), 513-530.

Zalesny, R. & Bauer, E., 2007. Selecting and utilizing populus and salix for landfill covers: Implications for leachate irrigation. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9 (6), 497-511.

Zalesny, R.S. & Bauer, E.O., 2007. Evaluation of populus and salix continuously irrigated with landfill leachate i. Genotype-specific elemental phytoremediation. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9 (4), 281-306.

Zalesny, R.S. & Bauer, E.O., 2007. Evaluation of populus and salix continuously irrigated with landfill leachate ii. Soils and early tree development. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9 (4), 307-323.

Zalesnyjr, R., Wiese, A., Bauer, E. & Riemenschneider, D., 2006. Sapflow of hybrid poplar (populus nigra l.×p. Maximowiczii a. Henry ‘nm6’) during phytoremediation of landfill leachate. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30 (8-9), 784-793.

Zalesnyjr, R., Wiese, A., Bauer, E. & Riemenschneider, D., 2009. Ex situ growth and biomass of populus bioenergy crops irrigated and fertilized with landfill leachate. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33 (1), 62-69.

QUESTIONS?

Leachate’s Phytoremediation at the

Fort Collins Landfill

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010