Leachate’s Phytoremediation
at the Fort Collins Landfill
BY: CARLOS QUIROZ & ALI MEHDAWI
INSTRUCTOR: ELIZABETH PILON – SMITHS
NOVEMBER, 2010
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
 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)
• Using Popular Trees to Remove
Contaminants
Background
 Scientific
facts
• Using
Popular Trees
• Using Popular Trees to Remove
Contaminants
• Passive Remediation Systems. (PRS)
Background
 Scientific
facts
• (PRS)
• PRS irrigates hybrid poplar with the
landfill leachate
Background
Scientific facts
Increasing of poplar trees biomass.
Background
Scientific
facts
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.
Source: Larimer County Landfill.
Results
Geology &
hydrogeology
Source: Larimer County Landfill.
Results
Geology &
hydrogeology
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010
Native Plants (North)
Method
 Heavy
metals in
plant tissues.
Control
Samples
(South)
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 groundwater through
the irrigation
of plants.
Licht & Isebrands (2005).
Results
Cotton Wood
Metal
Smoothbrome
Arsenic
PPM
0
Stand.
Desv
0
% Dry
Mass
0.00000
Cadmium
5.10
4.16
Chromium
0.12
Copper
4.63
Results
Iron
Lead
 Metals
in
27.44
PPM
0
Stand.
Desv
0
% Dry
Mass
0
0.00051
0.15
0.19
0.12
0.00001
0.20
2.77
0.00046
5.10
plant tissues.
2.21
1.65
Magnesium
3670.60
Sunflower
1001.48
North Samples
67.69
26.67
Manganese
PPM
0
Stand.
Desv
0
% Dry
Mass
0.00000
0.000015
0.47
0.33
0.00005
0.30
0.00002
0.39
0.88
0.00004
5.67
2.51
0.00057
45.31
41.15
0.00453
0.00274
51.06
22.16
0.00511
128.07
106.77
0.01281
0.00022
1.55
2.27
0.00015
2.59
0.73
0.00026
0.36706
2357.01
558.61
0.23570
3330.80
604.23
0.33308
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
1.18586
4255.66
1590.24
0.42557
7092.00
2457.91
0.70920
Sulfur
11858.60 6014.05
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
119.88
216.72
0.01199
0.00
0.00
0
88.06
173.49
0.00881
Zinc
Cotton Wood
Metal
Smoothbrome
Sunflower
PPM
Stand.
Desv
% Dry
Mass
PPM
Stand.
Desv
% Dry
Mass
PPM
Stand.
Desv
% Dry
Mass
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
4.76
0.00333
70.30
13.46
0.00703
125.06
34.28
0.01251
0.00017
3.97
4.81
0.00040
2.44
2.30
0.00024
South Samples
Manganese
16.94
4.45
(Control)
0.24570
2315.17
1365.92
0.23152
3009.00
427.98
0.30090
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
Selenium
12.76
4.85
0.00128
23.14
Tellurium
107.43
29.04
0.01074
Vanadium
5.37
12.00
Tungsten
1.23
114.68
Arsenic
Results
 Metals
in
Iron
33.30
Lead
plant tissues.
1.74
1.53
Magnesium
Zinc
2457.00
736.92
0.61267 10310.20 3316.54
1.03102
14.77
0.00231
13.55
6.21
0.00135
59.60
81.73
0.00596
33.53
43.64
0.00335
0.00054
0.35
0.78
0.00004
0.00
0.00
0.00000
0.64
0.00012
0.85
1.90
0.00009
0.55
0.81
0.00006
92.24
0.01147
2.85
6.38
0.00029
82.18
112.82
0.00822
Metal
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium

Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenium
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfur
Tellurium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Tungsten
Zinc
Guideline Value
PPM*
Results
0.02
0.01
0.70
0.003
0.05
Current
Remediation of2.00
Groundwater 0.01
by Native
0.40
0.001
Plants
0.07
0.02
0.01
Groundwater
Plant Tissue
PPM** Stand. Desv. PPM*** Stand. Desv.
0.020
0.025
NE
0.019
0.023
0
0.824
0.243
NE
0.001
0.0004
NE
0.001
0.0003
5.104
4.162
215.842
47.934
NE
0.021
0.008
0.394
0.881
0.011
0.005
NE
0.014
0.015
45.306
41.152
14.766
16.249
128.068
106.766
0.014
0.013
2.594
0.73
282.263
41.793
3670.6
1001.48
NE
67.688
26.667
0.0002
0.442
0.692
NE
1.47
2.151
0.026
0.014
0.126
0.194
149.821
72.167
NE
0.028
0.034
20.688
4.588
0.014
0.021
NE
742.053
205.658
NE
NE
11858.6
6014.05
NE
94.84
56.21
0.013
0.010
NE
0.1
NE
0.029
0.047
6.617
13.581
NE
1.840
1.619
0.06
0.198
119.876
216.717
Plant with Highest
Concentration of Metal
Cottonwood
Sunflower
Sunflower
Sunflower
Sunflower
Cottonwood
Cottonwood
Cottonwood
Smoothbrome / Sunflower
Cottonwood
Sunflower
Cottonwood
Sunflower
Smoothbrome
Sunflower
Cottonwood
Buffer strip Area
Results
 Proposals to
situation
Option 1
Solution: Buffer strip.
Plants: Cottonwood, sunflower, smoothbrome &
vetiver.
Perimeter: 2.35 miles
Plantation density: 10,000 plants / ha. (Sebastian et
al. 2004)
Buffer strip Area
Results
 Proposals to
situation
Option 2
Solution: Buffer strip plus irrigation system to
remediate polluted groundwater.
Plants: Cottonwood, sunflower, smoothbrome, vetiver.
Perimeter: 2.35 miles
Plantation density: 10,000 plants / ha. (Sebastian et
al. 2004)
Irrigation: Wells located on the landfill.
Conclusions
 Current Risk: Antimony, Arsenic,
Barium, Lead, Nickel, and Selenium are still
over the guideline value.
Conclusions
 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.
 None of the plants evaluated
Conclusions
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.
Leachate’s Phytoremediation
at the Fort Collins Landfill
QUESTIONS?
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010
Download

Leachate`s Phytoremediation on Ft Collins` Landfill