Aquatic sediments form the ultimate repositories of past and ongoing
discharges of hydrophobic organic compounds (HOCs) such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), many pesticides, and dioxins, as well as mercury
(Hg) and methylmercury (MeHg). These sediment-bound pollutants serve
as long-term exposure sources to aquatic ecosystems. Approximately
10% of the sediment underlying the United States' surface water is
sufficiently contaminated with toxic pollutants to pose potential
risks to fish and fish-eating wildlife and humans.(1) Remediation of contaminated sediments remains a technological
challenge. Traditional approaches do not always achieve risk reduction
goals for human health and ecosystem protection and can even be destructive
for natural resources. Though removal of contaminated sediment by
dredging and disposal in a secure landfill can be effective under
certain conditions, a recent study by the National Research Council
found a wide range of outcomes.(2) Among
the problems with dredging are unfavorable site conditions, resuspension
of contaminated sediment into the water column, and contaminated sediment
residuals. While capping contaminated sediment with clean sand may
be a viable remedial option at some sites, often the alteration of
sediment bathymetry may not be acceptable and the control of contaminant
transport through the cap can be a challenge. In addition, both dredging
and conventional capping result in the destruction of existing benthic
ecosystems. Therefore, development of new techniques offering greater
flexibility in contaminated sediment management and avoiding some
of the problems with conventional dredging and capping is highly desirable.This feature article summarizes research by several groups in the
U.S. and Europe to develop a novel approach for in situ sediment remediation
that minimizes or eliminates some of the problems with traditional
technologies. The efforts involve introducing sorbent amendments into
contaminated sediments that alter sediment geochemistry, increase
contaminant binding, and reduce contaminant exposure risks to people
and the environment. We present here a description of recently concluded
laboratory studies and a brief outline of ongoing pilot-scale trials,
field challenges, regulatory issues, and further research needs.
Bioavailability of Sediment-Bound Legacy Contaminants
Sediment HOCs can be taken up by aquatic or benthic organisms through
ingestion and dermal absorption, and subsequently passed on to higher
organisms and humans. For both of these pathways, the uptake depends
on the bioavailability of contaminants in sediment, which is determined
by how strongly the contaminants are bound to the sediment particles.[3,4] Strong binding in the sediment matrix reduces contaminant bioavailability
to organisms. Work in the last two decades has improved our understanding
of how sediment geochemistry controls contaminant bioavailability.
For example, black carbonaceous particles in sediments such as soot,
coal, and charcoal very strongly bind HOCs, and their presence in
sediments (both natural and anthropogenic) reduces exposure and risk,[5,6] often by one order of magnitude or more compared to natural organic
matter.
Contaminant Sequestration by Active Amendments
“Natural” contaminant sequestration in native carbonaceous
particles can be greatly enhanced by the addition of clean, manufactured
carbonaceous materials into sediments, such as activated carbon (AC).
AC is produced from coal or biomass feedstock and treated at high
temperature to produce a highly porous structure with great sorption
capacity. Activated carbons have been used widely for drinking water
purification and humanpoisoning abatement. McLeod et al (7) showed in clam particle feeding studies that
the biouptake of a tetrachloro-PCB in the gut was only 1−2%
for AC-sorbed PCBs, compared to 90% for diatom-sorbed ones. As illustrated
in Figure 1, amending or thin-capping the bioactive
surface layer of sediment with AC will transfer contaminants from
the sediment to the strongly binding AC particles, reducing bioavailability
to benthic organisms and contaminant flux into the water column, and
thus accumulation in the aquatic food-chain. Sediment turnover by
benthic organisms and other natural mixing processes can further incorporate
the added AC into deeper or newly depositing sediment layers.(11) In depositional sediment environments, where
legacy contaminants are often found, over time new clean sediment
can cover the AC-treated sediment layer (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Conceptual
model of how sorbent amendment of sediment reduces contaminant exposure
pathways of benthic organism accumulation and flux from the sediment
bed.
Conceptual
model of how sorbent amendment of sediment reduces contaminant exposure
pathways of benthic organism accumulation and flux from the sediment
bed.Laboratory tests with contaminated sediment show proof-of-concept
through reductions in HOC bioavailability (Figure 2). These studies evaluated HOC bioavailability through measurement
of equilibrium aqueous concentration and biouptake in a range of benthic
organisms. The study sediments were all field-collected and had aged
for decades in freshwater or marine environments. HOC concentrations
in sediment porewater provide a useful assessment of the potential
sediment-to-water flux, especially when legacy contaminated sediments
are the primary pollution source. Sediment porewater concentration
is also predictive of HOC biouptake in benthic organisms.(19) Tests with a range of field sediments showed
that AC amendment in the range of 1−5% reduces equilibrium
porewater concentration of PCBs, PAHs, DDT, dioxins, and furans in
the range of 70−99%, thus reducing the driving force for the
diffusive flux of HOCs into the water column and transfer into organisms.
Most of the studies using benthic organisms show a reduction of biouptake
of HOCs in the range of 70−90% compared to untreated control
sediment (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Percent
reduction ranges of aqueous equilibrium concentration and contaminant
biouptake in different laboratory studies of activated carbon amendment
to sediments and soils from the field. These studies range from freshwater
to marine sediments and cover a wide range of benthic organisms. The
dose of activated carbon used in these laboratory experiments typically
ranged from 1 to 5% by dry sediment weight (29).
Percent
reduction ranges of aqueous equilibrium concentration and contaminant
biouptake in different laboratory studies of activated carbon amendment
to sediments and soils from the field. These studies range from freshwater
to marine sediments and cover a wide range of benthic organisms. The
dose of activated carbon used in these laboratory experiments typically
ranged from 1 to 5% by dry sediment weight (29).Recent work on metal-contaminated sediments demonstrated reduced
biouptake of cadmium (Cd) (20) and Hg/MeHg (21) after amendment of AC and thiol-functionalized
silica into sediments. Significant reductions in Hg from water may
be feasible with polysulfide-rubber polymer-coated AC.(22) AC mixed into sediment showed about one order of magnitude
weaker sorption than pure AC for HOCs,[13,23] probably attributable
to sorptive competition with native HOCs and/or biomolecules or pore
clogging.(24) In total, the varied laboratory
results demonstrate that the effectiveness of sorbent amendment on
lowering contaminant bioavailability increases with decreasing AC
particle size, increasing dose of AC, greater mixing, and contact
time. Biodynamic modeling with species-specific physiological parameters
was able to describe invertebrate tissue concentrations and response
to reduced uptake efficiency and pore water concentrations for strongly
bound contaminants.[8,23,25] There are many specialty carbons available in the market, but those
most suitable for use in sediment remediation will have good sorption
properties for the target contaminant (PCBs or Hg for example), will
need to have no inherent toxicity, and will need to be low-cost. While
some studies[14,22] have compared different types
of AC for use in sediment remediation, there is potential for more
research in this area.
Current Status of Technology Development: Ongoing Pilot-Scale
Demonstrations
Motivated by encouraging bench-scale results, pilot-scale field
trials were recently conducted at five sites in the U.S. and Norway
as shown in Figure S1 and Table S1 in the Supporting
Information. These field experiments are evaluating different
methods of applying AC to sediments to reduce the bioavailability
of hydrophobic contaminants. The field sites span a range of contaminated
aquatic environments: (1) tidal mudflat, (2) freshwater river, (3)
marine harbor, (4) deep-water fjord, and (5) tidal creek and marsh.
Each site poses varied engineering challenges in the application of
AC and monitoring of the effectiveness. The key objectives of the
pilot-scale experiments are to study the feasibility of application
of AC using large-scale equipment in contaminated field sites, persistence
of the AC and its binding potential after application to sediment
in the natural environment, effectiveness of the AC in reducing contaminant
bioavailability, reductions of sediment porewater contaminant concentrations
and sediment-to-water fluxes, and effects of AC addition on the existing
benthic community.A major challenge in pilot evaluations is accounting for transient
and/or long-term changes that take place naturally in the open environment.
Pilot-studies by design occupy a relatively small footprint in a large
contaminated sediment area that typically is overlain by contaminated
water mass. Thus, in situ measurements of pore water concentrations
at the sediment surface or bioaccumulation assessments using benthic
organisms exposed to contaminants in the water phase (e.g., filter-feeding
bivalves) can be impacted by the contaminated water above the treatment
zone. Finally, over time the small pilot-treatment areas may become
covered with newly deposited, contaminated sediment from the surrounding
area or upstream locations. Some of the challenges in field assessments
can be addressed through appropriate study designs:Observations of changes in bioaccumulation
at treatment sites need to be contrasted to ongoing changes at properly
selected background control sites.Using deposit-feeding organisms for
biomonitoring is preferable to using filter feeders for assessing
pilot-scale remediation.In situ assessments should preferably
have an ex situ laboratory component to delineate overlying water
and depositional impacts.The number of replicate samplings
should be large enough to account for spatial variability at the site.Multiple lines of evidence for exposure
reduction, including physical, chemical, and biological, need to be
pursued to obtain confidence in the observations.
Findings from Hunters Point and Big Picture
Results from the first pilot study at Hunters Point in San Francisco
Bay were recently published.[26,27] The Hunters Point study
found that AC can be placed in sediment in a large scale, is physically
stable in the environment, and remains effective at binding contaminants
in sediments several years after application.(27) The AC applied at Hunters Point did not show a significant impact
on benthic community as judged by the diversity of species and their
overall abundance. This community-level observation from the field
is in contrast to a laboratory study where potential toxic effects
of AC on benthic organisms were indicated.(28)Typical AC dosing at the various test sites was 2−5% by
weight of dry sediment (matching the native organic carbon content
of sediment) in the top 10−30 cm of sediment. Even under poor
mixing conditions, mass transfer of PCBs to a passive sampler in sediment
was greatly reduced in the presence of AC.(29) Homogeniety of AC distribution and mixing regime will influence
the time required to observe full treatment benefits under field conditions
(Figure 3). Small-scale heterogeneity of sorbent
distribution at the scale of 1 cm will extend the time required, whereas
porewater movement by advection or mechanical dispersion and/or bioturbation
will enhance contact between sediment and the added sorbents.
Figure 3
Simulated
decrease in the average aqueous PCB-101 concentration for Hunters
Point sediment amended with 3.4% by weight activated carbon with a
mean particle size of 150 μm. The simulation of the heterogeneous
distribution assumes 1 cm spherical volumes of activated carbon free
sediment surrounded by activated carbon rich sediment.
Simulated
decrease in the average aqueous PCB-101 concentration for Hunters
Point sediment amended with 3.4% by weight activated carbon with a
mean particle size of 150 μm. The simulation of the heterogeneous
distribution assumes 1 cm spherical volumes of activated carbon free
sediment surrounded by activated carbon rich sediment.The amount of AC required to remediate a site with 5% in the top
10 cm of bioactive sediment is 35,000 kg/ha which amounts to about
$75,000/ha at a bulk cost of AC of about $2.2/kg. Cost of AC application
will depend on several factors including the need for mixing into
sediment, and whether the application and mixing can be accomplished
in an exposed sediment surface or needs to be performed underwater.
The full cost of AC application is being evaluated through the ongoing
pilot studies. By comparison, dredging and disposal cost for the Hudson
River cleanup has been projected at $2.5M/ha (30) and reported actual for phase I at $15M/ha.(31) Thus, the material cost of AC required for treatment is at least
an order of magnitude lower than typical full cost of remediation
by dredging and disposal.The technology is especially attractive at locations where dredging
is not feasible or appropriate, such as (i) under piers and around
pilings, (ii) in sediment full of debris, (iii) in areas where overdredging
is not possible, and (iv) in ecologically sensitive sites such as
wetlands. In situ amendments can also be used in combination with
other remedies. For example, sorbent amendments can be applied during
and immediately after a dredging process to minimize aqueous contaminant
release from resuspended sediments and residuals, or as an amendment
to sand caps to enhance retardation capacity.
Potential Use of Biochars and Carbon Sequestration
Charcoals, especially anthropogenic ones created under high-temperature
conditions (“biochar”), are known to persist for thousands
of years in soils and sediments, indicating carbon storage opportunities
for greenhouse gas abatement.[32,33] AC manufactured from
biomass waste products such as pine chips, corn stalk, and poultry
litter thus offer an exciting opportunity for efficient resource utilization
and carbon sequestration along with sediment remediation.(34) New types of ACs made from renewable resources
are being developed and are claimed to have superior metal sorption
characteristics.(35) In addition, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s new Green Remediation strategy
aims to minimize the environmental footprints of a cleanup.(36) Therefore, technologies that can diminish or
reverse the carbon footprint while reducing risks will likely be favored
in the future. Major unknowns are currently whether a technology can
be developed to place (activated) biochars on a sediment bed, and
to what extent these materials can be effective in reducing organic
and metal contaminant bioavailability in sediments.
Potential Barriers to Using in Situ Amendments and Future Research
Needs
Sorbent amendment does not decrease total sediment concentrations
of contaminants. Rather, it decreases contaminants available for biouptake
and transport to surface- and groundwater. Sediment risk management
is often based on bulk total concentrations and chemical mass with
these measures being considered indicative of exposure.[5,37] Although regulatory confidence and comfort are building for the
explicit consideration of bioavailability in assessments and remedial
decisions, there is still a bias against remedies other than removal.
There are also natural perceptions and regulatory precedents to “get
it out”. This surgical view of sediment remediation is appropriate
in many cases but there are numerous situations where removal is not
warranted and can be destructive or potentially ineffective for risk
reduction. A more balanced evaluation of less invasive remedial measures
such as in situ remedies can be achieved by broadening the decision
context to include all relevant factors, such as short- and long-term
ecological impacts and benefits, residual impacts, and performance.
Comparisons of alternatives could involve comparative life cycle assessments.The pilot studies are starting to provide valuable information
to address concerns about long-term effectiveness both in terms of
physical stability of the AC and chemical permanence of the remedy.
To gain acceptance and advance the technology, it is likely that pilot-scale
studies will have to lead to full-scale experimental remedies at a
few sites with long-term monitoring to evaluate effectiveness not
only near the base of the food chain, but also into evaluating recovery
of fish and higher animals that are often the drivers for risk management.To that end, further research is needed in the following areas:development of novel amendments that
can actively bind contaminants of concern other than HOCs;improved fundamental understanding
of mechanisms of HOC binding to AC, especially in the sediment matrix
where fouling can be a concern;development of efficient, low-impact
delivery methods for amendments into sediments;pilot-scale studies at various hydrodynamic
and ecological environments to understand where the technology is
best suited;assessment of ecosystem recovery;potential for microbial processes
to degrade sorbed contaminantsfull-scale demonstration to go beyond
what can be learned through small-scale pilot studies;development of modeling tools to interpret
field results, understand food web transfer, predict long-term performance,
and optimize AC dose and engineering methods of application;life-cycle analyses including carbon
footprints of different sediment remediation technologies.
Authors: Gerard Cornelissen; Orjan Gustafsson; Thomas D Bucheli; Michiel T O Jonker; Albert A Koelmans; Paul C M van Noort Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Rod N Millward; Todd S Bridges; Upal Ghosh; John R Zimmerman; Richard G Luthy Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Gerard Cornelissen; Gijs D Breedveld; Stavros Kalaitzidis; Kimon Christanis; Anne Kibsgaard; Amy M P Oen Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Gerard Cornelissen; Gijs D Breedveld; Kristoffer Naes; Amy M P Oen; Anders Ruus Journal: Environ Toxicol Chem Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.742
Authors: John R Zimmerman; David Werner; Upal Ghosh; Rod N Millward; Todd S Bridges; Richard G Luthy Journal: Environ Toxicol Chem Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.742
Authors: Pamela B McLeod; Martine J van den Heuvel-Greve; Richelle M Allen-King; Samuel N Luoma; Richard G Luthy Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: G Lofrano; G Libralato; D Minetto; S De Gisi; F Todaro; B Conte; D Calabrò; L Quatraro; M Notarnicola Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2016-12-24 Impact factor: 4.223