Wednesday, November 14, 2012

http://www.environmental-expert.com/articles/ecological-risk-assessment-of-atrazine-in-north-american-surface-waters-327576


Ecological Risk Assessment of atrazine in North American surface waters

Nov. 13, 2012
0.511.522.533.544.55 (0 votes)
0
 
0
 
4
 
The article “The ecological risk assessment of atrazine in North American surface waters” [1] is one of the few among the 100 most cited articles in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry to specifically address risk and/or assessment of risk, and it was the first to use probabilistic approaches for a pesticide. As with all science, it was one of many steps in the refinement of procedures for characterizing and assessing risks. Today, we understand that risk must always be expressed as a probability; but, in the general sense, this concept was a late arrival in the area of ecotoxicology. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. © 2012 SETAC

CAS DataLoggers Provides the Intelligent Automated Solution


CAS DataLoggers Provides the Intelligent Automated Solution
A fruit crop experiment station needed to remotely monitor and control its climate systems in a number of greenhouses.  The proposed system needed to monitor soil moisture content and temperature and actively controlirrigation and airflow by opening and closing windows to ensure that the appropriate temperature was constantly maintained.  Full automation was required to minimize the manual workload, up to the point where data collection had to be automated. The customer contacted CAS DataLoggersto find a wireless network-capable system which needed to include the ability to control relays and solenoids, large data storage, and perform automated data download.
4 dataTaker DT80 Intelligent Data Loggers were used to monitor and control the customer’s 4 respective greenhouses.  Each logger was connected to several environmental sensors including soil water content, temperature and humidity.  The loggers also preformed calculations internally, which algorithmically determined whether to open or close the greenhouse windows for temperature control and when to drive the solenoid valve forirrigation.Each data logger took several measurements every 15 minutes and sent its data to wireless computers while also controlling the ventilation system via the same wireless link.
Each DT80 was connected to a wireless LAN module/access point, which provided wireless network access to data and control systems.  All data, both current and historical, was accessible by a main computer connected to the same computer network. Live data from each greenhouse was visible via the DT80’s internal web server, whereas historical data had been scheduled to automatically download to the computer at regular intervals. It was also possible to control each greenhouse from the main computer using the included dataTaker softwareenabling configuration, real-time data viewing, trend/table generation and analysis. This built-in software ran directly from a web browser and could be accessed locally or remotely, anywhere that a TCP/IP connection was available including globally over the Internet.
The dataTakers’ rugged design and construction protected them despite the greenhouses’ high humidity and heat, providing reliable low-power operation. A cost effective model expandable to 100 channels, 200 isolated or 300 single-ended analog inputs, the DT80 also featured digital channels for connection to most sensors and data measurement sources. Each data logger also included USB memory stick support for easy data and program transfer and could also store as many as 10 million data points in its user-defined memory, offering independent control of schedule size and mode so that users could log only as long as needed.
Using the dataTaker DT80 data loggers, the customer was able to wirelessly monitor the 4 greenhouses while simultaneously controlling their ventilation, demonstrating how these systems could be used for both monitoring and control via a wireless network. This solution also proved to be more affordable than purchasing several differing systems, all with incompatible software.
For more information on the dataTaker DT80 Intelligent Universal Data Logger, other versatile datalogging solutions from dataTaker, or to find the ideal solution for your application-specific needs, contact a CAS Data Logger Applications Specialist at            (800) 956-4437       or visit the website at www.DataLoggerInc.com.

              Contact Information:
                CAS DataLoggers, Inc.
                12628 Chillicothe Road
                Chesterland, Ohio 44026
                            (440) 729-2570      
                            (800) 956-4437      
                sales@dataloggerinc.com
              www.dataloggerinc.com

Analysis of low levels of metals in Drinking Water with a scanning array ICP Emission Spectrometer and ultrasonic nebulization

http://www.environmental-expert.com/articles/analysis-of-low-levels-of-metals-in-drinking-water-with-a-scanning-array-icp-emission-spectrometer-and-ultrasonic-nebulization-263957

Analysis of low levels of metals in Drinking Water with a scanning array ICP Emission Spectrometer and ultrasonic nebulization

Oct. 28, 2011
0.511.522.533.544.55 (1 vote, 5 out of 5)
Drinking water is an important factor in exposure to environmental contaminants and is used in preparing foods and beverages for human consumption. Therefore, great care is used to verify that it is free of or contains acceptable limits of toxic substances. With respect to heavy metalsand other toxicologically relevant elements, atomic spectrometric techniques are frequently used to determine their concentration levels (1). While atomic absorption spectroscopy has been the main technique employed for this application, inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry(ICPOES) has become more important during the past years. National and international agencies set guidelines and methodology for the use of ICPOES for water analysis (e.g., EPA 200.7 (2), ISO 11885 (3), the latter has been adopted by the European Community and its participating states).

ICP emission spectrometers equipped with an array detector show a significant advantage over conventional technology with respect to speed, sensitivity and stability(4). which has produced an ever-growing market for this type of instrumentation. The established analytical advantages of array detectors were transferred to a new scanning arraytype instrument in order to retain the analytical advantages at a reduced instrument cost. The price of the analysis is composed of many different factors. These include the instrument and maintenance costs, the speed of analysis, and system usability. Great care was taken to develop a system that can analyze at a high speed with minimum requirements for maintenance and education.

An ultrasonic nebulizer produces a very fine aerosol, so the sample delivered into the plasma is much greater (about a factor 10) than with a pneumatic nebulizer. The enhanced sensitivity can be utilized for the improvement of detection limits by about the same factor, because the signal stability is comparable to that of pneumatic nebulizers.

This work demonstrates that the new scanning array ICP emission spectrometer in combination with an ultrasonic nebulizer is capable of determining extremely low concentrations of elements in drinking water according to the requirements of the strictest national and international laws and regulations. Major elements, such as Ca, Mg, Na, and K, can be measured in the same analysis run, but was not within the scope of this work.Mercury is often combined in a multielement analysis using ICP-MS, but was not considered within the scope of this work.

Regulatory Aspects
The regulatory aspects are twofold: One aspect are the permissible concentrations in drinking water, the other is the regulation that guides the analyst to use a certain technique and the methodology for an accurate analysis. The issue of setting permissible values is usually a compromise between toxicological and economical issues and is strictly tied to national laws and ordinances. Table 1 lists tolerable concentrations for drinking water in several regions of the world (5-7).

The concentrations given by the World Health Organization (WHO) are recommended values. Similarly, the European Community (EC) suggests concentrations, which are adopted into national laws by the members of the EC. In the EC regulations, there are minimum requirements on the quality of the analytical data generated to verify the quality of thedrinking water (7). The limits for accuracy and precision may not exceed 10%, which means that the systematic and statistical deviation may not be higher than 10% at or above the tolerance level. In addition, the detection limit must be less than 10% of the tolerance level. While normally the detection limits are calculated using 3σ, the EC suggests 5σ when using the blank method.

The Silent Menace that Government Agencies Can No Longer Ignore


The Silent Menace that Government Agencies Can No Longer Ignore
Every day in the United States - and beyond - government agencies, fleet managers, auto mechanics, gas and service stations and hundreds of thousands of consumers violate US hazardous waste laws by throwing clay-based oil spill cleanup products into the trash, bound for a landfill where it will contribute to the pollution of aquifers and underground water resources when it sheds its oil the moment it comes into contact with water.
Distributed under various trade names the companies manufacturing clay-based  products for cleaning up oil are among the most ardent of green washers, clinging to the fact that clay is a “natural product” assiduously avoiding the fact that the mining of clay is no more sustainable than the drilling of oil or any other finite resource.  But the more serious problem with clay comes not before but after it has been used to clean up oil. Contrary to what the manufacturers of these products would like you to think, clay does not absorb oil. Oil clings to the surface of clay. The manufacturers engage in a little sly CYA (cover your assets) by including in their labeling a misleading (but apparently legal) statement that users should check their local waste disposal laws before disposing of the clay mix after it is used to pick up oil. This allows them to avoid the decidedly less desireable alternative of stating that Clay products do not meet US EPA Guidelines for solid waste disposal – UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES – and therefore are required to be treated as a hazardous waste.  In fact they rely on the ignorance of consumers and the shameful blind-eye avoidance of local, state and even federal agencies. After all, if these agencies were to crack down on end users of clay-based products – requiring them to dispose of the  saturated product properly, they  themselves would have to do the same or they would have to switch to a sustainable solution and getting state agencies to do that would surely shake up some important good ol’ boy relationships.
While it would still be distasteful if these agencies were doing this because there was no alternative, it would at least be understandable. The cost of hazardous waste disposal is huge. But the truth is that there are alternatives available and those alternatives will hold the oil long enough for it to biodegrade without being released into the environment. This means that those alternative methods  can be disposed as solid waste in a landfill – though that is still not the preferable or sustainable approach.  Our cMOP, Maximum Oil Pickup, absorbent made from recycled products using hydroelectric energy lays claim to the most sustainable of those products - but is by no means the only alternative. It’s even less expensive and far less bulky than the clay products, Yet today Clay-based products remain the choice of businesses and agencies for no other reason than we continue to ignore and whitewash their rampant misuse.
This cannot continue. This MUST NOT CONTINUE. For all of those who watched in horror as events unfolded in the Gulf of Mexico spill, consider this: Every day the equivalent of a day’s spill from the Macondo Well is going into trash containers and dumpsters – contrary to Federal EPA Law – headed for a landfill or left on the roadside or in the driveway where the first rainstorm will wash it into the water table. Since Water is generally considered to be polluted with oil once it has about 10 mg/L of oil in it , one gallon of oil or gasoline will pollute 100,000 gallons of water – some insist that the figure is more accurately a million gallons.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the collective actions of consumers and local, state and federal agencies threatens the water quality of the entire nation – needlessly.
If we could count on Agencies and enforcement entities to do the right thing and encourage the use of sustainable alternatives while requiring hazardous waste treatment for use of clay-based cleanup agents, it would not be necessary to ban clay-based products entirely. Unfortunately, it seems that we can’t. The only sure way to protect against this silent menace is to make the use of clay for the absorption of Oil, illegal. 
The adverse economic impact of such a ban will be minimal where the companies selling it are concerned because there are plenty of viable markets for the product – and in fact some very promising research being done by companies – including ours - indicate that there are some very promising uses for certain clay compounds in the area of bioremediation of oil spills and of course cat litter alone represents a huge market for clay miners. The economic impact of doing nothing, however, could be devastating. The cost to remediate polluted water, once oil or gas are introduced, is astronomical. The health implications, the loss of value to property, all  these are reasons enough for states to ban clay as a means for cleaning up spilled oil or gas. 
Now I am not a Pollyanna where it comes to moving government to do the right thing, this change will need to begin with a few conscientious legislators and community leaders, but eventually it will take hold and it will happen out of enlightened self interest . . . because doing nothing will cost far more at every level. In the meantime, it falls to us to begin the process. 
Ask the owner of the garage that works on your car or truck what they use to clean up their spilled oil. If they continue to use clay ask them to change and if they persist, change your mechanic. dddfddddfAsk your legislators to make the appropriate inquiries of state agencies and municipal officials to make the same inquiry of local agencies. 
Ask you legislator to sponsor or co-sponsor a ban on the use of clay-based products for oil spill cleanup and to require manufacturers to include a label that properly makes it clear that Hazardous Waste Disposal is Required for Clay-based absorbents. 
When you buy oil spill cleanup products for your own household, make sure that you are purchasing sustainable products containing no clay or chemicals. Through the moral authority of our example we can create a ripple of change that will eventually become a tsunami
If properly disposed at a hazardous waste facility, the cost of clay will be up to 10 times more than other alternatives. As citizens we can strike a blow for the environment  and our respective wallets by boycotting clay-based products right now and demand that state and local governments themselves come into compliance with the law. 
For our part, we are planning to raise sufficient funds to commission a national survey of states to determine the full extent of clay use by State and local government agencies.
Clay is fine for cats, NOT for oil. while there are more sustainable solutions to using clay in the cat box as well, we don’t worry about pollution from the cat litter box. Oil contamination is another matter entirely. 
Its time to ban kitty litter as a solution to oil cleanup.

About the Author
Wayne King is the CEO of MOP Environmental Solutions, Inc.  He has been on every side of these policy discussions - as a NH State Senator and Chair of the NH Senate Environment Committee as well as Editor of several publications including  Heart of New Hampshire magazine  and Going Green Magazine.  MOP Environmental Solutions, Inc. (MOPN) is a publicly traded company engaged in finding solutions to some of the  worlds most challenging environmental problems. MOP Manufactures consumer sized oil-spill absorbents as well as commercial size products. 
King lives in Rumney NH, the Rock Climbing mecca of the eastern US, with his wife Alice, son Zachary and his loyal hounds Boof and Buckminster. He is of Iroquis, Abenaki and Pilgrim decent and flys both the Iroquois and American flags proudly at his home on the Stinson Lake Road. 
MOP is an aggressive oleophillic and hydrophobic (oil attracting and water repelling) sorbent made from recycled and fully biodegradable materials, manufactured using small-scale hydroelectric green energy.  MOPÃ’’s properties are such that it can effectively deal with an oil spill the size of the Exxon Valdez in a 24 hour period, but is just as effective at cleaning up the spill off a garage floor.

Their website is www.MOPEnvironmental.com
Twitter: twitter.com/MOPSolutions

TYPES OF BIOREMEDIATION, CATEGORY DEFINITIONS AND MODE OF ACTION IN OPEN WATER, MARINE AND FRESH WATER ENVIRONMENTS


TYPES OF BIOREMEDIATION, CATEGORY DEFINITIONS
AND MODE OF ACTION IN
OPEN WATER, MARINE AND FRESH WATER ENVIRONMENTS

August 2012

This document supplements NRT, RRT IV and VI Bioremediation Guidance
for the NCP, RCP and ACPs. While covering the essential facts about Bioremediation, the NRT and RRT issued bioremediation guidance materials do not adequately differentiate and define the three primary types of bioremediation categories listed on the NCP Product Schedule and their associated modes of action.

It is important to differentiate the three types of bioremediation processes since their efficacy requires precise application parameters which vary in different types of environments. The limitations and decision points on usage have been covered extensively in previously issued materials but require more simplification, hence this guidance has been provided to simplify the decision making processes.
----
Essential facts stated in the May 2000 NRT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE-Fact Sheet: Bioremediation in Oil Spill Response are:

“Several factors influence the success of bioremediation, the
most important being the type of bacteria present at the site,
the physical and chemical characteristics of the oil, and the
oil surface area….

“Effective bioremediation requires that:
(1) Nutrients remain in contact with the oiled material, and
(2) Nutrient concentrations are sufficient to support the maximal growth rate of the oil-degrading bacteria throughout the cleanup operation.” [i]

NCP PRODUCT TYPES LISTED:

The Bioremediation Agent Types listed on the NCP Product Schedule are deliberately designated and appear as follows:

“1. Microbiological Cultures (MC)
 2. Nutrient Additives (NA)
 3. Enzyme Additive (EA)”
The first type (MC) constitutes a bioremediation process that utilizes non-indigenous (foreign) bacteria. While useful in controlled environments, a prevailing concern with these types of products has been that the introduction of foreign species might cause future problems which may not become apparent for some time. The second type, (NA) is those agents that contain nutrients or fertilizers to support the microorganisms present in the spill environment. Both are designated as not applicable for open water environments.
See 2001 EPA Guidance Guidelines for the Bioremediation of Marine Shorelines and Freshwater Wetlands which extensively covers the usage of these two product types which need not be repeated here.
On the other hand, the third type is appropriate as a first response tool in open water environments. Bioremediation (EA) Type has evolved in recent years and has been the subject of considerable technological advances with wide applicability for oil spill response in fresh, brackish, marine and open water environments with temperature ranges as low as 28 degrees. The mode of action of this type will be covered in detail here.
IMPORTANT CONTEXT
The reason for oil spill cleanup is to reduce or eliminate the toxic components, thus enabling the survival of fauna and flora including single cell organisms in each niche of the food chain. Although today’s dispersants eliminate the visual and other damaging aspects of the spill on the surface, the spill’s toxicity problem has remained in the environment and at times been worsened by the addition of further hydrocarbons in dispersants. The goal of thebioremediation process is to convert oil/hydrocarbon based material to CO2 and water, thereby permanently removing oil/hydrocarbons from the environment and returning the affected spill area to the pre-spill conditions.
Herewith, the three main types of bioremediation are further defined along with their modes of action to help OSC’s, federal, state, and local officials as well as responsible parties to understand and make more informed decisions about bioremediation agents when selecting appropriate oil spill response tools.
CATEGORY TYPE ENZYME ADDITIVE (EA)
As covered, while NRT and RRT guidance addresses the (MC) and (NA) bioremediation types extensively in the 2001 Guidelines for the Bioremediation of Marine Shorelines and Freshwater Wetlands[ii] it does not sufficiently detail the mode of action of BioremediationType EA. [iii] Below are data to remedy this.
ENZYMATIC AGENT DEFINITION:

Bio-catalysts designed to enhance the emulsification and/or solubilization of oil to make it more available to microorganisms as a source of food or energy. These agents are generally liquid concentrates, which may be mixed with surfactants and nutrients that are manufactured through fermentation. This type of agent is intended to enhance biodegradationby indigenous microorganisms.

(EA) TYPE MODE OF ACTION:
Enzyme Additive mode of action is applicable in open/moving water (fresh, salt and brackish), marsh/estuaries, shoreline and soil environments. When applied, the non-toxic converters and bio-surfactants in Bioremediation Agent (EA) Type eliminate the classic appearance of an oil spill by emulsifying and solubilizing the molecular hydrocarbon structure and eliminating the adhesion properties of crude oil. This usually takes place within the first 5 - 30 minutes (depending on temperature). The emulsified oil continues to float near the surface thereby eliminating a secondary impact to the water column and seabed.
With the toxicity and adhesion properties eliminated, wildlife that may come in contact with the broken down hydrocarbons they will not become coated in oil and oil adherence to marsh, shorelines, sands, and manmade structures is eliminated. The flammability is eliminated in a short time (depending on temperature) protecting ports, harbors and drilling rigs from the potential explosion hazards associated with fuel spills.
A further action of bioremediation category EA, (there are numerous enzymes contained in the product’s matrices) is that the enzymes then attach themselves to the hydrocarbons with the biosurfactants, developing protein binding sites, that act as a catalyst to speed up thebioremediation process by inducing enhanced indigenous bacteria to utilize the detoxified oil/hydrocarbons as a food source. The EA category also contains properties that cause all the constituents to remain in contact with the spilled oil/hydrocarbons in moving waters.
Over the next few days or weeks (again, depending on temperature), non-toxic nutrients in the Enzyme Additive type rapidly colonize indigenous bacteria to large numbers. The colonized bacteria consume the detoxified hydrocarbon emulsion, digesting the spill to CO2 and water, thereby permanently removing the oil/hydrocarbons from the environment and resulting in final water clarification. Without category (EA) assistance, this natural process may take up to 20 years based on Ixtoc and the Valdez spill studies.
SHORELINES/MARSHES:
When a spill has already made land fall or contaminated a marsh, category EA can be applied to lift the spill off the marsh grass (or sandy beaches and shorelines), limiting the time the spill can adversely impact these areas. The use of category EA does not deplete the O2 from water since the spill is held on the surface utilizing predominantly atmospheric O2.
With category EA there are no tradeoffs or deleterious effects with this response method.
There is no limited window of opportunity for the application of category EA; it can be used in estuaries, in open (salt) water and, moving fresh water in rivers and soil. It is effective as afirst response tool and/or when applied days or months after a spill. Category EA can even be applied to oil that is lying on the seabed floor as long as the product can be brought into contact with the oil which will eventually lift it to the surface returning the seabed to pre-spill conditions.
At the date of this writing, there is only one product on the NCP list that falls under thisBioremediation Agent Type EA classification: (B53-EA-OIL SPILL EATER II)

CATEGORY TYPE MICROBIOLOGICAL
CULTURE ADDITIVE (MC)
As covered in NRT Science and Technology Guidance;… Bioaugmentationis a process “in which oil degrading bacteria are added to supplement the existing microbial population.”.

MICROBIAL AGENTS DEFINITION:

Concentrated cultures of oil-degrading microorganisms grown on a hydrocarbon-containing medium that have been air- or freeze-dried onto a carrier (e.g., bran, cornstarch, oatmeal). In some cases, the microorganisms may be grown-up in bioreactors at the spill site. All commercially available agents use naturally-occurring microorganisms. Some agents may also contain nutrients to assure the activity of their microbial cultures. This type of agent is intended to provide a massive inoculum of oil degrading microbes to the affected area thereby increasing the oil-degrading population to a level where the spilled oil will be used as a primary source of food for energy. Microbial agents are designed to enhance thebiodegradation of oil at any, location and would be most useful in areas where the population of indigenous oil degraders is small.

(MC) TYPE MODE OF ACTION:
Bioremediation Agent Type (MC) mode of action utilizes non-indigenous bacteria with the objective to digest oil/hydrocarbons to CO2 and water.[iv]

Bioaugmentation is considered a ‘polishing up’ or ‘finishing’ response product in that it cannot be applied to fresh oil because the toxicity levels kill the added oil degrading bacteria.
When non indigenous bacteria are placed on or near weathered oil these bacteria attempt to release enough quantities of biosurfactants to detoxify the spill so the oil-degrading bacteria will not be adversely impacted by the spill’s toxicity, enabling them to use the hydrocarbons as a food source.
The oil degrading bacteria (both indigenous and non indigenous) produce enzymes to develop protein binding sites which permits the bacteria to convert the molecular structure of the hydrocarbons for use as a food source. This process requires a protracted amount of time.
While bioaugmented bacteria acclimate to a spill site, the temperature of the water and or environment, the PH, and the available nutrients, these and other associated and variable environmental conditions may produce adversity that cannot be overcome. These factors along with the unknown time frames associated with their acclamation process are at least partially responsible for the past uncertainty associated bioremediation (MC) type as a viable cleanup methodology.
The application of non-indigenous bacteria generally must be performed where there is very little water movement. Water movement causes the products to dilute to ineffective levels that are unable to stave off the natural competition from indigenous bacteria, and, thus, will not be in sufficient population numbers to produce enough biosurfactants and enzymes to start the breakdown of the molecular structure of the hydrocarbons for a food source. (Lab environments do not emulate this competitive environment; hence, particularly in any area of moving waters, the final outcomes are often uncertain.)
Next to the toxicity of the spill, the most difficult aspect of utilizing non-indigenous bacteria in a foreign environment is the natural competition from the indigenous bacteria that are already acclimated to the spill area; thus, they generally win out.
Bioaugmented bacteria developed specifically for fresh water must be used in fresh water settings only. Products containing salt water bacteria can only be utilized in salt water. (MC) Type is best used on closed and/or controlled environments and is not effective in open water environments.
The use of non indigenous bacteria in most countries is not permitted due to the uncertain effects of allowing non indigenous species in sensitive habits and environments.
CATEGORY TYPE NUTRIENT ADDITIVE (NA)
As covered in NRT Science and Technology Guidance;. . . this next category (NA)--biostimulation is a process “in which nutrients, or other growth limiting substances, are added to stimulate the growth of indigenous oil degraders.”

NUTRIENT AGENTS DEFINITION:

Bioremediation Agents containing nitrogen and/or phosphorous as the primary means to enhance the rate of growth of indigenous oil-degrading microorganisms. This type of agent is intended to increase the oil-degrading biomass already present in an affected area to a level where the oil will be used as a primary source of food or energy. Because the natural environment may not have sufficient nutrients to encourage bacterial metabolism and growth, extra nutrients may be required. The purpose of this type of agent, therefore, is to provide the nutrients necessary to maintain or increase microbial activity and the naturalbiodegradation rate of spilled oil.

(NA) TYPE MODE OF ACTION:
The (NA) mode of action involves the general use of nutrients or fertilizers that contain various volumes of Nitrogen N and phosphorous P. The nutrients are placed in conjunction to a spill, where they are expected to enhance the growth and colonization of indigenous bacteria. These bacteria need time to secrete biosurfactants to attack the molecular structure of the spill by solubilizing the oil/hydrocarbons, then emulsifying the spill, increasing the oil-water interface to detoxify the hydrocarbons to the point the enhanced indigenous bacteria can utilize the spill as a food source.
It can be very difficult to apply nutrients or fertilizer in a spill area with toxic oil and still be able to enhance bacteria. Much of the indigenous bacteria are destroyed by the toxicity of the spill initially. Because of the toxicity of the oil, this situation usually precludes the nutrients or fertilizer being capable of enhancing what is left of the indigenous bacteria.
It is also challenging to supply nutrients or fertilizers in a concentration to enhance bacteria without increasing the nitrogen levels to the point that it becomes deadly toxic to aquatic life. An additional problem is getting the nutrients or fertilizers to stay with the oil especially on or in moving waters.
The process of enhancing indigenous bacteria with nutrients and fertilizer and waiting for them to secrete biosurfactants and enzymes in order to start the bioremediation process takes a protracted period of time making (NA) type inappropriate as a first response agent
Bioremediation category (NA) can be effectively used where there is little tidal flush, and where the oil has weathered so its toxicity is reduced to the point that indigenous bacteria can survive. This requires NA to be used only as a polishing up agent, with limited scope.
A BRIEF NOTE ON PHYTOREMEDIATION
Phytoremediation has been defined as the use of green plants and their associatedmicroorganisms to degrade, contain, or render harmless environmental contaminants.
Phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons generally involves three major mechanisms: (1) degradation, (2) containment and (3) the transfer of contaminants from soil to the atmosphere.

For further information on applicability consult page 87 of http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/oil/edu/bioremed.pdf

SUMMARY
The three types of bioremediation and their mode of actions as described above have been detailed here to help responders understand how these agents will interact with a spill. The different types and their mode of actions are clearly independent of each other, even though their end point in principle is the same; the ability to reach that end point, and the amount of time it takes to do so, is clearly different.


[i] Bioremediation [Types MC and NA] for open water spills is not considered to be appropriate or achievable because of the above two requirements. When nutrients are added to a floating slick, they immediately disperse into the water column, essentially diluting to background levels. [with the exception of NCP Listed Type EA based on extensive field use and testing on fresh and weathered hydrocarbons/oil. It recently demonstrated an 80% rate of PAH degradation on Macondo Block La. sweet crude containing Corexit per March 3 2011- BP BCST D.Tsao , LSU R..J. Portier, L. M. Basirico Laboratory Screening of CommercialBioremediation Agents for the Deepwater Horizon Spill Response.]

[ii] 2001 Guidelines for the Bioremediation of Marine Shorelines and Freshwater Wetlands (http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/oil/edu/bioremed.pdf)

[iii] This description of the EA Type mode of action is based on the NCP listed sole sourced product Oil Spill Eater II’s field use and test documentation on fresh and weathered hydrocarbons/oil in ocean, fresh water and shoreline environments. If another EA Type product is added to the NCP List, these descriptions may not apply and should be validated in field tests with that product.
[iv] As per NRT Science and Technology Committee Bioremediation Fact Sheet: “Added bacteria seem to compete poorly with the indigenous population.” … “and has not been shown to have any long-term beneficial effects in shoreline cleanup”

References:
1. EPA: NRT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Fact Sheet: Bioremediation in Oil Spill Response An information update on the use of bioremediation. May, 2000
2. Zhu X., Venosa A.D., Suidan M.T., (Sept 2001) Guidelines for the Bioremediation of Marine Shorelines and Freshwater Wetlands, U.S. EPA.
3. U.S. EPA (2012) NCP Product Schedule, http://www.epa.gov/oilspill http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/products/oseater.htm
4. BP BCST D.Tsao, LSU R.J. Portier, L. M. Basirico, March 3 2011, Laboratory Screening of Commercial Bioremediation Agents for the Deepwater Horizon Spill Response.
5. Zhu X., Venosa A.D., Suidan M.T., (2004) EPA/600/R-04/075 Literature Review on the use of Commercial Bioremediation Agents for Cleanup of Oil-Contaminated Estuarine Environments. http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/edu/litreviewbiormd.pdf
6. Alleman, B.C., and E.A. Foote. 1997. Evaluation of Amendments for Enhancing
 Microbial Activity in Soils from Site 18 at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms,
 California. Battelle, Columbus, OH. Performing Organization Report
 Number D.O. 1795. Sponsoring Agency Report Number TCN 96-026. Feb. 7, 1997.
7. Zwick, T.C., Foote, E.A., Pollack, A.J., Boone J. L., Alleman, B.C., Hoeppel, R.E., Bowling L. (1997) Effects of nutrient addition during bioventing of fuel contaminated soils in an arid environment. In: In-Situ and On-Site Bioremediation: Volume 1, Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 403-409.
8. Bonner J.S., Autenrieth R.L., Microbial Petroleum Degradation Enhancement By Oil SpillBioremediation Products, (Oct 1995) Report Submitted to Texas General Land Office (Comparative analysis of 13 NCP Listed Bioremediation Products, EA Type PAH reduction efficacy exceeded MC and NA.Types)
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive Cincinnati, OH--added bacteria seem to compete poorly with the indigenous population (Tagger et al., 1983; Lee and Levy, 1989; Venosa et al., 1992)--biostimulation alone had a greater effect on oil biodegradation than the microbial seeding (Jobson et al., 1974; Lee and Levy, 1987; Lee et al., 1997b, Venosa et al., 1996).
10. LSU: Characteristics, Behavior, & Response Effectiveness of Spilled Dielectric Insulating Oil in the Marine Environment, June 2011 For U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau ofOcean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Herndon, VA; By Louisiana State University Department of Environmental Sciences http://www.bsee.gov/uploadedFiles/BSEE/Research_and_Training/Technology_Assessment_and_Research/aa%283%29.pdf
11. A.T. Merski, (1993)-NETAC Oil Spill Response Bioremediation Agents, Evaluation Methods Validation Testing, Discussion of Results.
12. Dr. E. Brown, University of Alaska, Fairbanks (1990) Bioremediation performed on PAH’s shows extreme or great reduction in the target analytes using EA Type. Report of Exxon tested Bioremediation EA Type in 1989 at Florham Park, New Jersey showing effective by a factor of better than 90% on the North Slope Alaskan Crude oil from the Valdez spill.
13. Galen Bartman, Oil Spill Eater Respirocity Evaluation CAI Lab. No. 3265 (July 1990) additive [EA] has a meaningful and significant effect on decreasing the oil concentration and increasing the oxygen take up.
14. US Marine Corps at 29 Palms utilizing EA remediated tank wash out and several types of fuels (including tretra ethal lead) to State of California acceptable levels, DOD Environmental Award Testing and Evaluation of Enzymatic Catalysis for the Remediation of PetroleumContaminated Soils (Oct 93) pg 66 http://osei.us/tech-library-pdfs/2011/OSEI%20Manual_FINAL-2011.pdf
15. State of Alaska, Legal Closure Letter: pg75- 80 http://osei.us/tech-library-pdfs/2011/OSEI%20Manual_FINAL-2011.pdf The soils have been remediated to the most stringent cleanup levels-ADEC
16. State of New York, Groundwater remediation of heating oil by Alpha Geo Science with complete sampling and testing certified by NYSDEC, Summary and Results of In Situ Soil Remediation; No. 95-16786 pg. 80-86 http://osei.us/tech-library-pdfs/2011/OSEI%20Manual_FINAL-2011.pdf
17. R.H. Ward, SRI San Antonio Texas (1999)-EA Type does not sink oil into water column orsediments - Swirl Flask Dispersant Effectiveness Test SwRI Project Number: 08-2326-088 Workorder: 8783
18. Resource Analysts, Inc. Subsidiary of MILLIPORE (June 1990) References: 1) EPA SW 846, 3RD Edition Determination of no Trace Elements and Chlorinated hydrocarbons in EA Product.
19. M.en C. Gabriel Peneda Flores, Q.B.P. Norma Pescador Elizondo, (2002) Ecologia microbian Lab, University of Mexico-Instituto Politecnico Nacional, Escuela Nacional De Ciencias Biologicas – Efficacy test of EA Type on heavy (Maya Crude) and medium weightcrude oil demonstrates significant reduction of PAH’s (54% reduction in 30 days on the Maya crude, and medium crude reduced 80% in 30 days.)
20. Environmental Protection Authority New Zealand, Hazardous Substances Division, Benjamin Sowman, (16 July 2012); SOS # 1001797; Determination of the Status of Oil Spill Eater II-Non Hazardous
21. Bioremediation Agent EA Type Salt/Fresh Water Toxicity Tests



APPENDIX A
Bioremediation Agent EA Type
(US EPA standard for toxicity of >100ppm = non-toxic)
 Salt Water Toxicity Tests
1. Hap Prichard, OSE II LC50 test 96hr mysid (LC50 of >1900) and 7 day
 mysid chronic (LC50 of 2500) tests, EPA/NETAC bioremediation protocol
 development, administrator for NETAC Tom Merski (1992), EPA Research
 and Development Cincinnati Ohio, (www.osei.us/reports)
 2. Lepo, Joe Eugene, and John C Jones, Evaluation of tier III bioremediation
 agent screening protocol for open water using commercial agents :
 preliminary report /toxicity tests1993 OCLC number 206766502 Library
 EKCD Call number EPA/600-X-93, OSE II Mysidopsis bahia static LC50
 48hr 6,698 and 96 hr 5.970 static renewal LC50 48 hr>5700 96Hr >5700 7
 day 2.500, Menidia beryline static LC50 48Hr 8839 and 96Hr 8839mg/l. 7
 separate toxicity tests. (www.osei.us/reports)
 3. Enviro Systems Division Resource Analysts Inc New Hampshire Batch 329,
 OSE II toxicity test Mysidopsis Bahia LC50 96Hr 2100mg/l March 9 1990
 (www.osei.us/reports)
 4. Timothy Ward, Robert Boeri, Enviro Systems Division, Resource analysts
 New Hampshire, batch 9820 for OSE II on the EPA dispersant toxicity test
 Artemia Salina, OSE II LC50 24 Hr .100,OSE II 48Hr LC50 >100mg/l, fuel
 oil 48hr LC50 12.6 mg/l, OSE II and Fuel oil 48hr LC50 29.4mg/l, October
 1990 (www.osei.us/reports)

 EA Type Fresh Water Toxicity Test

 5. Merv Fingas Environment Canada Spilltox Environmental Technology Centre
 OSE II) Environment Canada. OSEII Daphnia magna 48 LC50 >10000
 mg/L Oncorhynchus mykiss 96 LC50 >10000 mg/L Photobacterium
 phosphoreum .5 IC50 = 5109 mg/L Photobacterium phosphoreum .25 IC50
 = 5474 mg/L Photobacterium phosphoreum .083 IC50 = 7952 mg/L
 (May 17, 1993) Biological test method: acute lethality test using rainbow
 trout. Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Ottawa, Ontario.
 Report EPS 1/RM/9, 51 pp.
 6. David Smith Bio-Aquatic Testing Inc Carrolton Tx             (214) 241-5928      , Client
 BO-12-91-2239 OSE II, toxicity test 48Hr LC50 Pimephales Promeles
 9300mg (l, December 1991). (www.osei.us/reports)
 7. Bruce Huther Huther and Associates Denton, Texas             (940) 387-1025       for
 Kwang Keun Kim South Korea project 05457, OSE II LC50 Toxicity test
 Pimephales Promelos (minnows) LC50 5856.34mg (l June 2008)
 (www.osei.us/reports)
 8. Bruce Huther Huther and Associates Denton, Texas             (940) 387-1025       for
 Kwang Keun Kim South Korea project 0S457, OSE II LC50 Toxicity test
 Ceridaphnia Dubia (water flea) 24Hr LC50 >16000mg (l June 2008)
 (www.osei.us/reports)
 (Note: complete copies of all Toxicity Tests are available by contacting: oseicorp@msn.com )

RELATED KEYWORDS

MOST POPULAR RELATED SEARCHES