Phytoremediation Rafts with Electrokinetics

Part 5 Plants as Water Protectors blog information series.

Article 5- Phytromediation Rafts with Electrokinetics

Article 4- Plants as Water Protectors

Article 3- Citizen Science Phytoremediation Research StLouis

Article 2- St Louis IKEA Phyto Buffer Zone pt2

Article 1- IKEAs lesser known environmental project

Q: Kimberly asked, “Can ElectroHemp BioRad System remediate hydraulic fracturing chemicals?"

A: Yes the ElectroHemp BioRad System can remediate hydraulic fracturing chemicals in both soil, wastewater, plus water recycling and can be accomplished a few different ways.

1: Phytoremediation Rafts

2: Storage Tank Separation

3: Contain and Control

ElectroHemp 5 stage treatment train speeds up toxic removal process- yes its faster than phytoremediation!

Phytoremediation Raft Infographic- Plants cycle water toxins when grown on Rafts

Phytoremediation Raft with Electrokinetics Infographic by Scotty

Examples of Companies involved in the Remediation of Soil, Water, Sludge, Contamination ponds.

EKG IN SITU DEWATERING

EKG materials formed as prefabricated vertical drains can increase the speed of consolidation of soft ground by employing electroosmotic flow. This may be used for the purpose of dewatering materials for subsequent excavation or in situ ground improvement prior to developing the site.

Abstract: The ElectroKinetic Remediation Technology (EKRT), when applied to an earthy matrix, is generally targeted to the extraction of one or more pollutants, often inorganic and typically belonging to the category of heavy metals. The technique exploits the effects caused by the application of an electric field for allowing the mobilization of the targeted pollutants, whose displacement is often facilitated by the use of suitable chemicals, which act as complexing agents. The EKRT represents a very promising approach, as it is able to produce results comparable to those of other on/off-site interventions, though with appreciably higher levels of acceptability. Moreover, in spite of expectations (which are substantially based on the high use of energy and consumables), we showed that, once properly configured, the EKRT may represent an excellent choice even when judged based on the environmental sustainability. With the present study, we aim at discussing further the plant configuration, with a special focus on the water management. In fact, as anticipated in our previous communications, the modifications that we implemented in our EKRT approach allow presenting it as an electrochemically-assisted soil flushing. Several are the elements of innovation introduced, which proved to increase the effectiveness of the remediation, but at the price of a potentially very high water (and energy) consumption. It is therefore important to have an advanced water management system, preferably coupled with a reliable wastewater recovery system in order to avoid the waste of water resources, and consequently keep down costs as well as the ecological footprint related with the implementation of this technology, thus maximizing its benefits.

Electro-Horticulture aka: “Electrokinetics

Electro-Horticulture aka: “Electrokinetics is a developing technology that is intended to separate and extract heavy metals, radionuclides, and organic contaminants from saturated or unsaturated soils, sludges and sediments, and groundwater. The goal of electrokinetic remediation is to effect the migration of subsurface contaminants in an imposed electric field via electroosmosis, electromigration and/or electrophoresis. These phenomena occur when the soil is electrically charged with a low voltage current. The fundamental configuration for all three processes involves the application of an electrical potential between electrode pairs that have been implanted....”

Principles of Electrokinetics

When a DC electric field is applied to soil, cations begin to move toward the cathode and anions move toward the anode. Since soil typically has a negative surface charge there are more cations than anions in the pore water (conservation of charge). These extra cations, lined up along the pore walls and moving toward the cathode, drag the pore water along causing a net pore water flow to the cathode that is uniform and predictable. In low permeable soils (clays and silts), this process is much more efficient and thorough than conventional hydraulic based processes. The directional movement through the soil allows for the effective use of in-situ capture and/or reduction zones.  The application of DC The application of DC energy also results in the heating of the soil, which is a bonus when dealing with VOC contamination. The soil heating can be harnessed to assist in the efficient mobilization of DNAPL pools and residuals much like a thermal technology. The combination of heat and pore water movement (flushing) gives electrokinetics (EK) a powerful one-two punch dealing with VOC contamination in low permeable soils: Terran Corporation

Article 5- Phytromediation Rafts with Electrokinetics

Article 4- Plants as Water Protectors

Article 3- Citizen Science Phytoremediation Research StLouis

Article 2- St Louis IKEA Phyto Buffer Zone pt2

Article 1- IKEAs lesser known environmental project

Heavy Metal Pollution Nuclear Waste Disposal that Generates Electricity

Diagram ElectroHemp BioRad Hazardous Waste Disposal system that generates Electricity 

I'm going to get honest with this post. I feel that most of the phytoremediation studies and systems fall short on the disposal of the contaminated plant materials which were used to soak up the heavy metals within the plants with or without the assistance of electrokinetics that speed things up.

When the ElectroHemp team was researching and perfecting our system of Heavy Metal removal system- we realized we did not want to add to the growing problem of where to put Radioactive Plant Materials in Long-Term Storage as suggested in 90%+ of all the studies we researched.

There has to be a better way and system for what to do with the toxic plant materials. Since the team is comprised of out-of-the-box thinkers who do not follow those who say it can't be done. We developed the BioRad Disposal tanks that address and solve the Long-Term Storage issue.

Yes, you read that correctly: Long-Term Storage of Radioactive Plant Materials is eliminated with the 5 Stage Hazardous Waste Removal System.

ElectroHemp Nuclear Waste BioRad Disposal-Clean Energy Generator System

ElectroHemp BioRad Nuclear Waste Disposal that  Generates Electricity for Grid Tied or Off-grid Clean Energy from Nuclear Waste and Heavy Metals.

Natural biofilters for toxic metals

The following Science Paper highlights how ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Rafts can be used as Biofilters to clean pollution from water sources.

Phytoremediation Raft Infographic- Plants cycle water toxins when grown on Rafts

a wide variety of agricultural and forestry by products have been used as biosorbents of toxic metals in a bid to develop biofilters for specific applications Electronic Journal of Biotechnology: 

The added benefit of how ElectroHemp equips these rafts with Electrokinetics will actually increase the toxic contamination removal because of the forced migration of the toxins is directed towards the rafts and plants roots which growing on the Phytoremediation Rafts.

ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Raft designs can be designed to remove any number or combination of toxic pollutants found in water sources.

 Real Life Example phytoremediation raft design for the removal of Lead (Pb) from Water

A floating phytoremediation raft constructed of: waste tea leaves, Pinus pinaster bark, Olea europea, Acacia nilotica bark. Which has these plant examples growing on it: Kenaf, Water Lettuce, Alligator Weed create a combination of Natural Solutions in the detoxification of Lead (Pb) from water. Scotty, ElectroHemp 

Phytoremediation Science Paper link

• i) Cotton - Hg; Groundnut skins - Cu; 
• Tree Bark (Pinus, Acacia etc.) - variety of metals; 
• Agrowaste - variery of metals; 
• waste tea leaves - Pb, Cd, and Zn; 
• Pinus radiata -U; 
• Apple waste -Variety of metals; 
• Cellulose - Variety of metals; Rice hulls - Variety of metals; 
• Exhausted coffee grounds - Hg; 
• Pinus pinaster bark - Zn, Cu, Pb. Saw mill dust (wood waste)- Cr; 
• Freshwater green algae - variety of metals; 
• Marine algae- Pb, Ni; 
• ii) Sphagnum (moss peat) - Cr(VI); 
• iii) Immobilized Aspergillus niger, A. oryzae - Cd, Cu, Pb, and Ni ; 
• Olive mill waste Olea europea Cr, Ni, Pb, Cd, and Zn, Cu and Ni; 
• Streptomyces rimosus (bacteria); 
• Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast); 
• Penicillium chrysogenum (fungi), Fuscus vesiculosus and Ascophyllum nodosum (marine algae) Zn, Cu andNi; Phanerochaete chrysosporium, P. versicolar - Pb, Ni, Cr, Cd, Cu; Pinus radiata - U;
• Immobilized Pseudomonas putida 5-X and Aspergillus niger, Mucor rouxxi - Cu; 
• Actionomycetes, Aspergillus niger, A.oryzae, Rhizopus arrhizus, R. nigricans- Cd; Rhizopus arrhizus - Cr(VI), Pb; Rhizopus nigricans, Phanarochaete chrysogenum -Pb; Aspergillus niger and Rhizopus arrhizus - Ni 

Acacia nilotica bark serves as an adsorbent of toxic metals. Bark (1 g) when added to 100 ml of aqueous solution containing 10 mg ml-1 metal solution exhibited different metal adsorption values for different metals. The order of metal adsorption being Cr > Ni > Cu > Cd> As > Pb. A similar trend of metal adsorption was observed when the bark is reused (1strecycle) Cr > Ni > Cu > Cd > Pb and also in the column-sorption. In order to verify the metal removal property of A. nilotica bark, toxicity bioassay with Salix viminalis stem cuttings in hydroponic system augmented with Cd, Cr and Pb together with A. nilotica bark powder was carried out. The results of toxicity bioassay confirmed the metal adsorption property of the bark powder. The functions of toxicity studies include leaf area, root length and number of new root primordia produced per stump. The leaf area, root length and number of new root primordia increased considerably in the presence of A. nilotica bark. The order of metal toxicity for leaf area and new root primordial is Cd > Cr > Pb. However, for root length the order of metal toxicity is Cr > Cd > Pb. The metal budgets of the leaf and root confirmed that the bark powder had adsorbed substantial amount of toxic metals and thus, alleviates the toxicity imposed by the various tested elements (Prasad et al. 2001).

Quercus ilex L. phytomass from stem, leaf and root as adsorbent of chromium, nickel, copper, cadmium and lead at ambient temperature was investigated. The metal uptake capacity of the root for different metals was found to be in the order of: Ni > Cd > Pb > Cu > Cr; stem Ni > Pb> Cu > Cd > Cr and leaf Ni > Cd > Cu > Pb > Cr. The highest amount adsorbed was Ni (root > leaf > stem). Data from this laboratory demonstrated that Ni is mostly sequestered in the roots where concentrations can be as high as 7.30 nmol/g dry weight, when one year old seedlings were treated with Ni (2000 mg/l) in pot culture experiments, compared to 0.13 nmol/g dry weight, in the control. This proves that the root biomass of Q. ilex has the capacity for complexing Ni. Chromium exhibited the least adsorption values for all the three types of phytomass compared to other metals. The trend of adsorption of the phytomass was similar for nickel and cadmium i.e. root > leaf > stem. Desorption with 10 mM Na2 EDTA was effective (55-90%). Hence, there exists the possibility of recycling the phytomass. The biosorption results of recycled phytomass suggests, that the selected adsorbents are reusable (Prasad and Freitas, 2000).

Contain and Control BioRad 5 Stage Treatment Train

Contain and Control

Are major concerns when dealing with Nuclear Radiation.  

The following table demonstrates the safety avenues used in the BioRad 5 stage treatment train.

ElectroHemp Pilot Study Safety Solutions Table 1 The ElectroHemp Table 1 below demonstrates how ElectroHemp BioRad  5 Stage Treatment Train works as a system and process while addressing the safety and concerns. Concerns Solutions Plant-based biological limitation ElectroHemp System addresses these concerns Low plant tolerance Lack of contaminant translocation from root to Shoot Small size of remediating plants Use plants that tolerate toxins Containment central location is housed in greenhouse or hoophouse, Proper plant species selection and increased soil vitality increases translocation into the plant. If containment was concentrated in the root zone of the plant.  Removing the root systems in a field would require a “potato” type harvesting machine.  In a Greenhouse because of scale Elbow Grease and a Shovel will suffice. Disposal is same as fiber Many plant species are proven Regulatory limitations Phytoremediation & Electro-Horticulture is recognized solution by: EPA, FUSRAP, Governing Bodies, etc Lack of cost and performance data Regulators unfamiliarity with the technology Disposal of contaminated plant waste Risk of food chain contamination Agree Performance Data is lacking.  Disagree Cost has been determined $20,000.  Compared to other treatment systems.  Phytoremediation is the least expensive option. Agree as well as a great percentage of the Public Disposal of Contaminated waste is handled in-situ (on site) in sealed containers. Food chain contamination eliminated with project housed inside hoophouse or greenhouses Other Limitations Limitation Addressed Contaminant beneath root zone Lengthy process Contaminant in biologically unavailable form Lack of remediating plant species ElectroHemp directs the heavy metal toxins to a central point located in a Greenhouse, Hoophouse, Fenced in or protected area- where plants phyto-extract the toxins. Electro-Horticulture increases soil vitality and heavy metal movement- which allows plants to grow bigger, healthier, and cycle more toxins from the soil. By utilizing Indoor Grow operations increases growing opportunities: length of growing seasons and increases the use of plant species not suited to existing climates.   3 plant cycle rotations per year minimum, with the possibilities of 3-6 forage harvest opportunities (dual cutting) bioavailability of heavy metals in soil can also be increased by adding chelating agents such as EDTA, ammonium sulfate, critic acid and elemental sulfur, mulch, and erosion control in addition to Electrokinetics. Hemp, Kenaf, Rape, Sunflowers, and  many other species and strains of plants will perform the needed phytoremediation techniques desired.  Note: Greenhouse/Hoophouse give additional options for greater adoption of plant species. Ref: The Use of Plants for the Removal of Toxic Metals from Contaminated Soil

5 Blog Articles Plants as Water Protectors Series

ElectroHemp BioRad Hazmat Remediation weblinks to the 5 blog articles covering the subject of Plants as Water Protectors.  Using Plants to remove heavy metals and toxic contaminants from Water and Soil.

ElectroHemp Natural and Organic BioRad 5 Stage Treatment Train speeds up the Toxic Removal Process

The ElectroHemp BioRad Remediation System and Process works faster than Phytoremediation alone by incorporating Electrokinetics into the system. 

Electrokinetics directs the heavy metal toxins to a central point where plants phytoextract the toxins. 

Article 5- Phytromediation Rafts with Electrokinetics

Article 4- Plants as Water Protectors

Article 3- Citizen Science Phytoremediation Research StLouis

Article 2- St Louis IKEA Phyto Buffer Zone pt2

Article 1- IKEAs lesser known environmental project

ElectroHemp BioRad Remediation Pilot Study Discussion

-------
Discussions have begun about a Pilot Study Location for the ElectroHemp BioRad hazardous waste removal system. Stay Tuned for more details and see the announcement at the Hemp Environmental Forums Facebook page

#phytoremediation with #electrokinetics speeds up the toxic removal process. < this is nothing new. > But what is new is the organic disposal system for the toxic plants that eliminate Long Term Nuclear Waste Storage! Rememeber its our Tax Dollars that pay for this. Eliminating this part of the nuclear waste storage will save the USA Taxpayers multi-million dollars.

ElectroHemp BioRad Remediation Pilot Study Location Discussion https://t.co/mAySxxTJtW #WestlakeLandfill #NuclearWaste #Remediation

— Scotty (@StLHandyMan) September 19, 2017

Also shared to LinkedIn

ElectroHemp BioRad LinkedIn Post Notice

2018 ElectroHemp Most Read Blog Post

10 most read ElectroHemp Blogger stats analytics report Dec 2017 to Dec 2018

Post - Post Date - Pageviews

1. Using Trees to Clean Up Pollution Cristina Negriu - Jul, 2016 - 637
2. Citizen Science Phytoremediation Research StLouis Jul 20, 2017 -603
3. Phytoremediation Rafts with Electrokinetics - Aug 6, 2017 -527
4. Yes its faster and better than phytoremediation alone -Mar 27, 2016 - 476
5. ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Greenhouse Discussion - Mar 22, 2016 -409
6. Healthy Environments Require Citizen Scientists - Aug 19, 2016 - 370
7. IKEAs lesser known environmental project -Aug 31, 2016 -342
8. St Louis IKEA Phyto Buffer Zone pt2 - Sep 1, 2016 - 304
9. MOhempEnergy: Phytoremediation Research Articles - May 31, 2016 -298
10. 79 Research Articles on Phytoremediation for Bioenergy Jun 26, 2018, 270

10 most read ElectroHemp Blogger stats analytics report Dec 2017 to Dec 2018

Uranium Water Biofilter Remediation

ElectroHemp blog post on Uranium Reducing Phytoremediation Raft Design

ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Raft designs can be designed to remove any number or combination of toxic pollutants found in water sources

Previously ElectroHemp highlighted how Natural biofilters for toxic metals can be used for Pb (Lead) Removal. This same technique can be used for Uranium (U) removal. 
All that needs to be done is substitute the Raft and Plants that will extract Uranium and it's by products.
Example: A phytoremediation raft can be constructed with these biosorbing products: Tree Bark (Pinus, Acacia), Agro Wastes (Tea Leaves, Rice Hulls) Apple Wastes . With these type of hyperaccumulating plant species: Hemp, Kenaf, Sun Flowers, Mustard Grass, Rape, even some Grasses 
To ensure all the Toxic Contamination comes in contact with the Raft and Plant Roots growing on the Phytoremediation Rafts that phytoextract the toxins. ElectroHemps uses Electrokinetics into the Remediation removal process. Electrokinetics draws toxins where directed.

ElectroHemps combines Electrokinetics, Phytoremediation, and Biofilters into the Remediation removal process. Key point: Electrokinetics draws toxins where directed.

Phytoremediation Raft Remove Toxic Pollutants Water

The following photos are examples of where ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Raft designs can be designed to remove any number or combination of toxic pollutants found in water sources from Bridgetown and Westlake Landfill this would stop the pollution from entering the Public Water Supply, as pointed out by Alex Cohen.

The above 3 photos courtesy Environmental Activist and Humanitarian Alex Cohen- https://m.faceboAlex Cohen.
ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Rafts Remediation Example for decontamination of water.

ElectroHemp Phytoremediation Rafts

ElectroHemp Remediation Cost Comparison

ElectroHemp cost comparison with traditional remediation technique. 1 city block.

Reference: Findings and Recommendations for the Remediation...

The costs of remediating a site will vary depending on the concentration and distribution of the contamination, the size and layout of the site, and the remedial actions implemented. Table 6 presents cost estimates associated with each remedial option presented above for 1 acre of contamination that is assumed to be 1 foot deep (1 acre foot). These costs are based on the remediation of undeveloped farmland.      Remediation costs could rise dramatically for existing development due to difficulties associated with the movement of soil around existing structures, trees, pools and decks. In addition, the remediation of properties with existing development would not have the benefits of economy of scale associated with undeveloped land.

https://www.nj.gov/dep/special/hpctf/final/costs.html

Proven and innovative soil treatment technologies
$50,000- $100,000 Remedial Option Cost per acre-foot

1 acre=1 acre is approximately 208.71 feet × 208.71 feet (a square) = 1 acre = 43,560 square feet X 1 foot soil = 43,560 cu yds soil

• Low:  $50,000 ÷   43,560 = $1.15 /cuyd
• High: $100,000 ÷ 43,560 = $2.30 /cuyd

_____

1 city block Ave size = typical city block as 100,000 sq.ft. 100,000 X 1 foot deep = 100,000 cu yd soil

_____

Traditional $115,000 To $230,000

ElectroHemp $100,333 $15,000 to $130,000 Cheaper