Cover Page
Different Soil Decontamination Methods on
Contaminated Soil Mitigation
5th Period – Mr. Hendrix
Myles Ellis Williams
Rockdale Magnet School For Science and Technology
930 Rowland Road Conyers, GA 30012
Page | 1
Table of Contents
Cover Page .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Data Interpretation ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Discussion & Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................... 7
Cited Literature ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 10
Page | 2
Abstract
Soil contamination due to fossil fuels and farms has been a major issue for years. Using
phytoremediation, bioremediation, & soil washing, decontamination of contaminated soils can be
accomplished at contaminated sites. This experiment’s purpose is to determine which of the three
methods listed above is the most efficient and cost effective soil decontamination method. The
research conducted in this experimentation is important because it can lead to the mitigation of
contaminated soil everywhere, which is a very pressing matter in today’s world. Contaminated
soils affect plants, animals, and humans by making it dangerous to be exposed to eat or drink
things from a contaminated area. To conduct this experiment, there will be the three methods
listed above tested on the contaminants; sodium nitrate/phosphate and zinc chloride. These
contaminants were chosen because of their abundance in the pollution world. For the purposes of
data collection and testing, there will be 3 repeated trials for each method and for each
contaminant. Pre-test and posttest will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the
decontamination methods at the end of the testing month. The project was a success and proved
the hypothesis true, which was that phytoremediation would be the most efficient and effective
method.
Page | 3
Introduction
Contamination of soil by hazardous substances poses a significant threat to human,
environmental, and ecological health (Spriggs, Banks & Schwab, 2005) As the world is
becoming more and more contaminated, scientist are running out of solutions, but several
solutions are showing more and more promise, they are phytoremediation, bioremediation, and
soil washing. The purpose of this project is to see which of these decontamination methods will
work best in getting rid of the contaminants sodium nitrate, sodium phosphate, and zinc chloride
from different soils. The independent variables are the decontamination methods used and the
contaminants and the dependent variable is the soil quality. My aim is to find out which of these
methods would be the most cost wise and effective solution. The hypothesis for this project is
that phytoremediation will be the most efficient and cost effective method out of the three listed.
The reason for this hypothesis is because in a study found in the Journal of Critical Reviews in
Plant Science… laboratory tests with alfalfa, reed canary grass, Bermuda grass, and switch grass
to evaluate their ability to remediate nitrate contamination. They have found that all species
remove nitrates effectively when the rate of water movement was not too rapid through the root
zone (Arthur, E. L., Rice, P. J., Anderson, T. A., & Rice, P. J. (2005). Since plants proved to be
very successful in decontamination the proposed hypothesis is very promising. The null
hypothesis of this project is that phytoremediation will be the least successful out of the three
methods. This research can lead to the decontamination of soils, which is becoming a pressing
matter due to increase population and demand. Leaching of pesticides and residues of fertilizers
and transportation activities are the most important factors that affect the quality of soil and
Page | 4
nearby surface water bodies (Ezzat et al., 2002). Predicted outcomes for this project are that all
three of the methods will work very well in decontamination of sodium nitrate, sodium
phosphate, and zinc chloride, but the phytoremediation method with Indian mustard will be the
most successful, with bioremediation coming in second, and soil washing coming in third place.
Data Interpretation
The qualitative observations for this project were plant growth for the phytoremediation
samples. After the first 2 weeks of testing, plants in the sodium nitrate sample were showing
exponential growth, while sodium phosphate samples had minimal growth. The zinc chloride
samples had no growth whatsoever during the entire month and at the end of the testing period
all of the sodium phosphate plants had died.
Results:
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash 3
Sodium Nitrate
Pre-Test (ppm)
Posttest (ppm)
10
5
5
10
10
5
5
10
10
0
10
0
25
25
10
N/A
0
0
Nitrate Change
-10
5
-5
15
15
5
-10
-10
Table 1: Shows the change for sodium nitrate samples.
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Sodium Phosphate
Pre-Test (ppm)
Posttest (ppm)
10
10
10
10
5
0
0
0
0
5
Phosphate Change
-10
-10
-10
-10
0
Page | 5
5
5
5
5
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash 3
0
10
0
0
-5
5
-5
-5
Table 2: Shows the change for sodium phosphate samples, the test for this contaminant were
very positive and showed great promise in the field of phytoremediation.
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash 3
Zinc Chloride
Pre-Test (µs/cm)
Posttest (µs/cm)
762
1312
282
1129
929
2074
1367
1637
2092
1171
2982
1589
187
1294
1952
1837
2010
2582
Zinc Change
550
847
1145
270
-921
-1393
1107
-115
572
Table 3: Shows the zinc chloride conductivity change, many of the methods were unsuccessful in
decontaminating zinc chloride soil.
Discussion & Conclusion
The answer to the research question, which decontamination will work best to mitigate
contaminated soil was phytoremediation, with bioremediation the next best method, and soil
washing being the least successful. Originally the purpose of this project was to determine which
decontamination method would be the most efficient and cost effective for mitigating
contaminated soils, this project proved that phytoremediation was the most cost effective and
efficient method, also proving the hypothesis true. This project’s overall goal was accomplished
and was reasonably reached by the testing deadline.
Page | 6
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements go to Ms. Beach for giving me the idea for my research project and to the
Rockdale Magnet Fund for giving the financial support needed for this project
Cited Literature
"4-19 Soil Washing." Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. N.p., n.d. Web. 16
Apr. 2013. <http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-19.html>.
Abumaizar, R., & Khan, L. I. (2012). Laboratory investigation of heavy metal removal by
soil washing. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 46(8), 765768. Doi: 10.1080/10473289.1996.10467512
Addel-Ghani, N. T., Hegazy, A. K., & El-Chaghaby, B. A. (2009). Typha domingensis
leaf powder for decontamination of aluminum, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech, 6(2),
243-248. Doi: ISSN: 1735-1472
Arthur, E. L., Rice, P. J., Anderson, T. A., & Rice, P. J. (2005). Phytoremediation-an
overview. Journal of Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 24(2), 109-122.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/science/docprintview/199558996/fulltext/1362653B81
E1BC4D
Bennett, L. E., Burkhead, J. L., Hale, K. L., & etal, (2003). Analysis of transgenic Indian
mustard plants for phytoremediation of metal-contaminated mine tailings. Journal
of Environmental Quality, 32, 432-440.
Berken, A., Mulholland, M.M., LeDuc, D.L., Norman, T., (2002). Genetic engineering of
plants to enhance selenium phytoremediation. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,
21(6), 567.
Beth, J.M., (2000). Consider phytoremediation for waste site cleanup. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 96(7), 61. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/science/docview/221578717/136736821F0831A/1?
Ebbs, S. D., & Kochian, L. V. (1997). Toxicity of zinc and copper to brassica species:
Implications for phytoremediation. Journal of Environmental Quality, 26(3), 776.
Evans, L.D., (2002). The dirt on phytoremediation. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 57(1), 12A-15A. Retrieved from
Page | 7
http://search.proquest.com/science/docprintview/220967135/fulltext/1362653B81
E1BC4D
Hegazy, A. K., Abdel-Ghani, N. T., & El-Chaghaby, G. A. (2011). Phytoremediation of
industrial wastewater potentiality by typha domingensis. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, 8(3), 639-648. Retrieved from
httP://search.proquest.com/science/docprintview/876040241/Record/134F185CC
F9299E6
Helmisaari, H., Salemaa, M., Derome, J., Uhlig, C., & et al., (2007). Remediation of
heavy metal-contaminated forest soil using recycled organic matter and native
woody plants. Journal of Environmental Quality, 36(4), 1145-1153. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com/science/docprintview/197397545/fulltext/136264E26B
81913C
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-HNNX200601005.htm
http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/soilwash.pdf
Kulakow, P. A., & Feng, X. (2004). Phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon
contaminated soil: Results from rtdf cooperative field tests. Soil &
SedimentContmanination, 13(2), 218. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/science/docprintview/199474768/Record/134F185CC
F9299E6
Lindblom, S. D., Abdeil-Ghany, S., Hanson, B. R., Hwang, S., & et al., (2006).
Constitutive expression of a high-affinity sulfate transporter in Indian mustard
affects metal tolerance and accumulation. Journal of Environmental Quality,
35(3), 726-733.
Lombi, E., Zhao, F.J., Dunham, S.J., McGrath, S.P. (2001). Phytoremediation of heavy
metal-contaminated soils: Natural hyper-accumulation versus chemically
enhanced phytoextraction. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30(6), 1919
McCutcheon, S. C., & Schnoor, J. L. (2003). Phytoremediation: Transformation and
control of contaminants. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Page | 8
Oades, J. M. (1984). Soil organic matter and structural stability: mechanisms and
implications for management. Plant and Soil, 76(1-3), 319-337. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02205590
Pilon-Smits, E., & Pilon, M. (2002). Phytoremediation of metals using transgenic plants.
Plant Sciences, 21(5), 439-456. Doi: 10.1080/0735-260291044313
Pilon-Smits, E., (2005). Phytoremediation. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 56, 1539.Retrieved
fromhttp://search.proquest.com/science/docprintview/220757936/fulltext/136265
3B81E1BC4D
Raskin, I., & Ensley, B. D. (2000). Phytoremediation of toxic metals: using plants to
clean up the environment. John Wiley.
Rosser, S.J., French, C.E., Bruce, N., (2001). Special Symposium: Phytoremediation:
Engineering plants for the phytodetoxification of explosives. In Vitro Cellular &
Development al Biology, 37(3), 330.
Sierra, C., & Menéndez-Aguado, J. M. (2011). Feasibility study on the use of soil
washing to remediate the as–hg contamination at an ancient mining and
metallurgy area. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 196, 93-100.
Sinha, R., & Valani, D.(2010). Bioremediation of contaminated sites: A low-cost nature’s
biotechnology for environmental clean up by versatile microbes, plants &
earthworms. (pp.1-72). Nova Science. Retrieved
fromhttp://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/handle/10072/38972
Skladany, G. J., & Metting, F. B. ,. J. (1992). Bioremediation of conataminated soil. (pp.
483-513). New York, N.Y.: Marcel Dekker Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19931976438.html;jsessionid=B5D0F0EBC43
C5C2D6B01CEB8B6084447
Spriggs, T., Banks, M. K., & Schwab, P. (2005). Phytoremediation of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in manufactured gas plant–impacted soil. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 34(5), 1755-1762. Doi: 10.2134/jeq2004.0399
Williams, J.B. (2002). Phytoremediation in wetland ecosystems: Progress, problems and
potential. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 21(6), 607.
Page | 9
Wong, J., (2004). Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soils. Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education, 33, 51-53.Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/science/docprintview/194469366/fulltext/1362653B81
E1BC4D
Wu, G., & Kang, H. (2009). A critical review on the bio-removal of hazardous heavy
metals from contaminated soils: Issues, progress, eco-environmental concerns and
opportunities. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 174, 1-8.
Appendices
Experimental Design Diagram:
The Effect of Different Soil Decontamination Methods on Contaminated Soil Mitigation
Hypothesis: Phytoremediation will be the most efficient and cost effective method out of the 3.
None(Control)
Phytoremediation
(Indian Mustard)
3
Bioremediation
(Consortium of
O.anthropi,
P.Flourscecens, &
S.acidophila)
3
Soil Washing
(Dawn Dish Detergent)
3
DV: Levels of Contaminants in Soil,
Constants: Contaminants Used, Growing Conditions, Time, Cleaning Solution Used, Plant used,
& Bacteria used
Materials:
 Analytical Balance
 Beakers
 Conductivity Probe
 Dawn Dish Detergent
 Distilled Water
 Indian Mustard (Brassica Juncea)
 Nitrate/Phosphate Test Strips
 Nutrient Broth
 O.anthropi
 P.floursecens
 Pipettes
 Pots
 Scale
Page | 10








Scoopula
Sodium Nitrate/Phosphate
Soil
Squirt Bottle
S.acidophila
Test Tubes
Vernier Lab Quest
Zinc Chloride
Detailed Procedures:
Contaminating Soil:
1. Obtain contaminants from scientific website.
2. Calculate the level of each contaminant to put into the soil.
3. Mix contaminants and soil by placing soil into container and adding the contaminant and
mix with a scalpel.
a. 0.40g Sodium Nitrate
b. 0.010g Sodium Phosphate
c. 3g Zinc Chloride
Planting Procedures:
1. Get Indian Mustard seeds from Carolina biological.
2. Plant seeds directly into contaminated soil.
3. Allow one month growing period for plants.
4. Water plants every day, and keep them under constant light.
Bacterial Procedures:
1. Subculture O.anthropi, P.Flourscecens, & S.acidophila from Christian Gerner’s samples
using sterile technique, which involves flaming the tips & openings of all test tubes,
beakers etc.
2. Add 5mL of each bacterium into each bioremediation sample using a sterile pipette for
each bacterium this is how they will come together in a consortium.
3. Allow one month period for bacteria to decontaminate the soil.
Soil Washing Procedures:
1. Prepare washing solution by combining 100 mL dawn dish detergent and 50mL distilled
water.
2. Take contaminated soil sample and pour through soil sieve.
Page | 11
3. Take washing solution and pour through the soil sieve so that the soil will break up into
smaller & smaller components until the solution has completely run through the sieve.
Testing for Nitrates:
1. Take 1g of soil from each soil sample containing sodium nitrate.
2. Mix soil with 60ml of FRESH distilled water and allow it to settle for 5 minutes.
3. Take filter paper and form into cone.
4. Push filter paper cone into beaker until it touches the bottom.
5. Wait until a pipette full of the solution has seeped through the filter.
6. Place nitrate strip directly into solution.
7. Wait 5 minutes then remove strip and compare to the bottle’s reference card.
Testing for Phosphates:
1. Take 1g of soil from each soil sample containing sodium phosphate.
2. Mix soil with 60ml of FRESH distilled water and allow it to settle for 5 minutes.
3. Take filter paper and form into cone.
4. Push filter paper cone into beaker until it touches the bottom.
5. Wait until an eye dropper full of the solution has seeped through the filter.
6. Place phosphate strip directly into solution.
7. Wait 5 minutes then remove strip and compare to the bottle’s reference card.
Testing for Zinc:
1. Take 1g of soil from each soil sample containing zinc.
2. Mix soil with 60ml of FRESH distilled water in beaker and allow it to settle for 5
minutes.
3. Place conductivity probe directly into the soil/ water solution. Then let it collect data for
5 minutes.
Definitions:



Phytoremediation – the mitigation of contaminated soil with the use of plants
Bioremediation – the use of natural biological processes to decontaminate contaminated
areas
Mitigation – the act of lessening the force or intensity of something unpleasant
Raw Data Tables:
Pre-Test:
Sodium Nitrate
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Measurement
10ppm
5ppm
5ppm
Page | 12
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash3
10ppm
10ppm
5ppm
5ppm
10ppm
10ppm
Sodium Phosphate
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash 3
Measurement
10ppm
10ppm
10ppm
10ppm
5ppm
5ppm
5ppm
5ppm
5ppm
Zinc Chloride
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash 3
Original Conductivity (in
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Conductivity
780
300
947
1385
2110
3000
205
1970
2028
Posttest:
Sodium Nitrate
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash3
Measurement (in ppm)
0
10
0
25
25
10
N/A
0
0
Page | 13
Sodium Phosphate
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash3
Measurement (in ppm)
0
0
0
0
5
0
10
0
0
Zinc Chloride
Method
Indian Mustard 1
Indian Mustard 2
Indian Mustard 3
Bioremediation 1
Bioremediation 2
Bioremediation 3
Soil Wash 1
Soil Wash 2
Soil Wash 3
Original Conductivity
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Conductivity
1330
1147
2092
1655
1189
1607
1312
1855
2600
Page | 14