Wadi Hanifa Bioremediation Project, Riyadh.

http://www.mtplanners.com/M&T%20Wadi%20Hanifah%20Restoration%20Project%20Booklet%20-%202010-03-S.pdf

Bio-remediation Facility

Objectives

The Bio-remediation Facility is designed as habitat and natural structures to support the

biology that will do the work of cleaning the water.

The three main goals of bio-remediation are:

1. Reduction of fecal and total Coliform bacteria to safe levels;

2. Elimination of bad odours; and

3. Prevent cumulative negative impacts of nutrient load through the Wadi.

the bio-remediation Facility is the integral part of the Wadi hanifah restoration project. the main treatment process of the water comprises 3 main functions that will take place in this area:

1. Aeration to kill the coloform bacteria in the water;

2. Development of a food chain to bio-accumulate excessive nutrients derived from urban sewage and wastewater; and

3. De-nitrifying (to metabolize nitrogenous compounds) to reduce odours emanating from the wastewater.

The four components of the Bioremediation Facility are designed to enhance the natural treatment process are:

1. biocells – These are the basic units of the Bio-remediation Facility which are responsible for the bulk of nutrient assimilation. The whole facility consists of 3 biocell groups as follows: Group 2 (20 biocells), Group 3 (34 biocells) and Group 4 (80 biocells);

2. aeration system – This provides sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) to the system killing coliform bacteria and creating favorable conditions to microbes, fish & other aquatic

organisms;

3. artificial periphtyon benthic substrates – Provide substrates for biofilm / periphyton which is essential for bio-accumulating nutrients through the food chain; and

4. Fish (tilapia) – Serving as the top of the food chain and controlling the growth of filamentous algae.

The Bioremediation Sampling Monitoring Program is designed to allow for water sample collection at strategic locations. The data collected is used to determine the treatment efficiency of individual biocells, groups of cells and of the entire facility. There are twenty two (22) water quality parameters being analyzed in each location and grouped under four principal categories: General Variables; Organics; Nutrients; and Microbiology.

The long term purpose in collecting and analyzing data is to compare system performance to the Master Plan design objectives, in addition to developing long term bio-remediation operation and maintenance protocols.

A summary of water quality analyses is presented in the Nelson Environmental

“Bioremediation and Surface Water Monitoring Report” dated February, 2010.

Bio-remediation Facility performance

Based upon early testing and analyses – only five (5) months of data sets from August 2009

to February, 2010 – Nelson Environmental reported conclusive data in several key areas:

• Suspended solid removal rates are high (clear water).

• Ammonia removal rates are high.

• Fecal and total coliform removal rates are significant.

• System is functioning without odours from the water.

• Aquatic higher life forms (fish) are thriving in the Bio-remediation Facility.

• Emergance of a new level of preditors - birds.

• In summary, the Bio-remediation Facility is performing beyond expectations.

Bioremediation using Plankton

http://www.sas.org/conference2003/program.html#hemerick

Glen Hemerick

"Restoring Plankton"

Mr. Hemerick has won local recognition and financial backing for an experiment his is conducting on whether or not local populations of saltwater plankton can be manipulated artificially. His project has also drawn praise for involving local high school science students.

His project involves collecting and cultivating saltwater plankton in a laboratory environment. They are grown and released into Puget Sound, or into streams which flow into lakes, which have a history of toxic, or other undesirable plankton, with the hope that the former may compete with the latter.

Glen Hemerick is an amateur scientist and volunteer with the Clover Park High School Science Club in Tacoma, WA.

Nualgi - Diatom Algae

Nualgi InGreen July 09

Uploaded on authorSTREAM by bhaskarmv | Upload your own presentation

Bioremediation

BIOREMEDIATION

Uploaded on authorSTREAM by benedictpaulc | Upload your own presentation

Can We Save the Ponds by Eating Oysters?

Can Mussels and Oysters be used to consume Nitrogen in ponds.
Swedish experience and proposals from USA.
Diatoms and Fish are a better and simpler option.

News report from Martha's Vineyard

http://www.mvgazette.com/article.php?22098

Can We Save the Ponds by Eating Oysters?

By MIKE SECCOMBE

... a solution to the most pressing environmental problem on Martha’s Vineyard: pollution of our ponds by nitrogen which leaches out of septic systems.

And it’s a solution which is cost effective, creates jobs and is delicious.

We’re talking shellfish, folks.

See, about a decade ago, the Gullmar Fiord on the Swedish west coast had the same problem the ponds on this Island have today. That is, excessive nitrogen fueled excessive growth of algae which in turn led to what they call eutrophication of the water, essentially the removal of oxygen, which makes life untenable for other plants and animals.

Then a team lead by a marine ecologist with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences named Odd Lindahl, began cultivating mussels. They found they could cut the nitrogen load (i.e. the total nitrogen in the water) by 20 per cent, at a lower cost than a standard water treatment plant.

“In one year they removed 39 tons of nitrogen from the fiord,” said Rick Karney, director of the Martha’s Vineyard Shellfish Group.

......

“There are 933 existing residences in the Edgartown Great Pond watershed,” said Mr. Wilcox. “There’s roughly 300 more than the pond can tolerate.

“And we’re looking at a potential 749 extra residences, which could be built under existing zoning,” he said.

Edgartown is currently working to extend sewerage to enough of those currently-existing houses to reduce the nitrogen load by the 30 per cent.

“That can and will address the existing situation,” said Mr. Wilcox, adding:

“But what about future development? Every additional house is in excess of what that threshold number for nitrogen is.”

Of course, the town could just keep extending the sewer system; the town’s wastewater treatment plant has extra capacity. But that is very expensive.

“The areas they are doing now, it comes out to $10,000 to $15,000 for each house, which is actually relatively cheap,” said Mr. Wilcox, pointing out also that those properties now being done were close to the facility.

“But if you have to build a new plant, the cost could be three, four, five times that.

“Who pays that? People have batted around the idea of a nitrogen tax paid by all residents in the watershed. Maybe there could be impact fees for any new development.”

....

“If we don’t do something about growth, the ponds are going to suffer.”