BIOREMEDIATION OF Cr(VI) CONTAMINATED SOIL AND AQUIFERS

BIOREMEDIATION OF Cr(VI) 

CONTAMINATED SOIL AND 

AQUIFERS 

Dr. Ligy Philip 

Professor 

E-mail:ligy@iitm.ac.in 

Department of Civil Engineering 

Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai

BIOREMEDIATION 

Degradation/transformation of 

organic/inorganic contaminants by 

indigenous or inoculated micro-organisms. 

1. Bio-Stimulation 

2. Bio-Augmentation 

Types of bioremediation 

* In-situ bioremediation 

* Ex-situ bioremediation

Prof. Ligy Philip 

Prof. B.S. Murty 

Dr. R. Elangovan 

Dr. S. Shashidhar 

Research Team 

Mr. Shourirajan 

Mr. Ramakrishna 

Dr. J. Jeyasing 

Mr. Somasundaram 

Funding 

Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Govt. of India 

Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR), Govt. of India 

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India

CLEANUP METHODS FOR FIELD CONDITIONS 

GROUND SURFACE 

LANDFILL 

LEACHATE 

WATER TABLE 

INSITU 

BIO-REMEDIATION 

Movement of Groundwater

MOTIVATION 

TamilNadu Chromate Chemicals Limited, 

Ranipet, Vellore District , Tamilnadu.

Chromium waste 

Disposal area: 5 acres (2 hectares) 

2 x10 5 Tones of waste)

Chromium Leachate in Ground Water

Cr(VI) Concentration in open wells/bore 

wells in and around TCCL (Prepared by IIT Madras) 

TCCL 

BDL mg/l 

178 mg/l 

SIPCOT Service Road 

To Banglore 

NH - 4 

To Ranipet/Chennai 

BDL mg/l 

9.6mg/l 

BDL mg/l 

BDL 

271 mg/l 

BDL mg/l 

141 mg/l 

34 mg/l 

21 mg/l 

BDL 

BDL mg/l 

BDL mg/l 

BDL 

BDLl 

BDL 

0.31 mg/l 

BDL 

BDL 

Pulian Kannu Eri 

BDL 

BDL 

Karai 

Eri

Many Cr(VI) contaminated sites are present in 

various parts of the world. Reasons for 

contamination are either natural or 

anthropogenic 

Sukhinda Valley in Orissa 

Vaniyambadi in Tamilnadu 

Jajmau in Kanpur 

Hanford area in U.S.A 

Most common treatment method – Reduce 

Cr(VI) to Cr(III) and precipitate or adsorb 

Cr(III).

Methods for Remediation of Cr(VI) 

Contaminated Aquifers 

• Pump and Treat systems 

• Geochemical fixation 

• Permeable Reactive Barriers 

• Reactive Zones 

• Natural attenuation 

• Phyto-remediation

Schematic Representation of a Permeable Reactive Bio-barrier

REACTIVE ZONES

TASKS 

1 

Isolation and Enrichment of Bacteria for 

Cr(VI) Reduction [CRB / IRB / SRB]

Abiotic Reduction 

• Reduction of Cr (VI) by aqueous phase Fe (II) 

3Fe 2+ + HCrO 4 

- 

+ 8H 2 O 3 Fe (OH) 3 + Cr (OH) 3 

+ 5H + 

• Fe (II) sources 

Iron silicates-olivine 

Iron oxides - magnetite (Fe 2+ Fe 2 

3+ 

0 4 ), hematite (Fe 2 

3+ 

O 3 ) 

contains (FeO). 

Iron sulfides FeS 2 

• Organic matters (humic and fulvic acids) 

Cr 2 O 

2- 

7 + 3C 0 + 16H + 4Cr 3+ + 3CO 2 + 

8H 2 O

Biotic Reduction 

Advantages 

Less cost and chemical usage 

Requires minimal maintenance 

• Direct reduction (CRB) 

Aerobic/Anaerobic 

– Pseudomonas fluorescens 

– P. aeruginosa 

– Enterobacter cloacae 

– Bacillus sp 

– A. radiobacter etc. 

• Indirect reduction 

‣Iron reducing 

bacteria –mostly 

anaerobic condition. 

‣Sulphate reducing 

bacteria- strictly 

anaerobes

Mechanism of Cr (VI) Reduction by CRB 

• Aerobic 

– NADH /Endogenous e - reserves acts as 

donors 

– Enzyme Soluble Reductase (SR) 

Membrane Reductase (MR) 

• Anaerobic 

– Cr (VI) acts as terminal electron 

acceptor 

– NADH ,Endogenous e - reserves, 

carbohydrates, proteins, Hydrogen acts 

as donors 

– SR, MR, Cytochromes mediates reaction 

C 6 H 12 O 6 + 8Cr 6+ + 12H 2 

O 6HCO 3- 

+ 8Cr 3+ + 3OH - (aerobic and anaerobic) 

COD of 1g Glucose is 1.07g 

180 g glucose is required to reduce 416(8x52)g of Cr 6+ 

1g of glucose can reduce 2.311g of Cr 6+ 

1 g of COD can reduce 2.1598g of Cr 6+

Mechanism of Cr(VI) Reduction by SRB 

Sulphates acts as terminal electron acceptor 

• Reduction of Sulphates 

SRB 

1/2SO 4 

2- 

+CH 2 

O +1/2 H + 1/2 HS - + H 2 

O + CO 2 

• Reduction of chromate by Sulphides 

8CrO 4 

2- 

+ 3HS - + 17 H 2 

0 8 Cr (OH) 

3 + 3SO 4 2- +11OH - 

• Precipitation of Cr (VI) by Sulphide 

Cr 6+ + 3 HS - CrS 3 + 3H + 

• Reduction of iron by sulphides: 

8 Fe (OH) 

3 (aq) + HS- +15H + 8Fe 2+ (aq) + SO 4 

2- 

+ 20H 2 

O 

Sulphide inhibition of SRB were reported to 230 to 550 mg/L of un dissociated 

H 2 S at pH 6.2 to 8. (Vincent et al., 1998). 

Cr (VI) reduction and iron reduction helps in prevention of Sulphide inhibition

Mechanism of Cr(VI) Reduction by IRB 

Abiotic reduction 

The increase in pH cause corrosion which facilitates abiotic chromium reduction 

2Cr 6+ +6 e − →2Cr 3+ 

3Fe 0 →3Fe 2+ +6 e − 

2Cr 3+ +6OH − →2Cr(OH) 3 

2Cr 6+ +3Fe 0 +6OH − →2Cr(OH) 3 

+3Fe 2+ 

Biotic reduction 

IRB 

C 6 

H 12 

O 6 

+ 24Fe (III) + 12H 2 

O 6HCO 3- 

+ 24 Fe (II) + 3OH - 

3Fe 2+ + HCrO 4 

- 

+ 8H 2 

O 3 Fe (OH) 

3 + Cr (OH) 3 + 5H+

2 

BATCH STUDIES 

• Bio-kinetic parameters 

• Adsorption Parameters

Cr(VI) Reduction Studies with CRB, SRB 

and IRB, in Combinations 

1. CRB –Aerobic 

2. CRB -Anaerobic 

2. SRB-Anaerobic 

3. IRB- anaerobic 

4. CRB+SRB 

5. CRB+IRB 

6. CRB+SRB+IRB 

Adsorption Studies 

Adsorbents– Soil , Sand 

Adsorbates: 

1. Cr(VI) 

2. Molasses/Sugar 

3. Lithium 

4. Cr(III)

Cr(VI) Reduction in Aerobic Conditions 

Cr 6+ conc 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

-50 

Chromium(VI) reduction 

0 50 100 150 

time in hrs 

0 ppm 

20ppm 

30ppm 

65 ppm 

110 ppm 

145 ppm 

190 ppm 

cell dry wt in mg/L 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Growth curve 

0 50 100 150 

time in hrs 

0 ppm 

20 ppm 

32ppm 

66 ppm 

110 ppm 

140 ppm 

190 ppm 

COD removal rate 

4000 

COD in mg/L 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 ppm 

20 ppm 

30 ppm 

65ppm 

110 ppm 

145 ppm 

190 ppm 

0 

0 50 100 150 

time in hr

Cr (VI) Reduction by CRB under Anaerobic Condition 


350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

Growth curve 

0 ppm 

10 ppm 

20 ppm 

30 ppm 

50 ppm 

COD in mg/L 

3000 

2700 

2400 

2100 

1800 

COD reduction curve 

0 ppm 

10 ppm 

20ppm 

30ppm 

50ppm 

50 

0 

0 50 100 150 

time in hrs 

1500 

0 30 60 90 120 

time in hr 

Cr reduction curve 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

0 50 100 150 

0 ppm 

10 ppm 

20 ppm 

30 ppm 

50 ppm

Growth of CRB+IRB+SRB under Anaerobic Condition 

Fe(400ppm,Sulphate(500ppm) 


500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

CRB+IRB+SRB growth curve 

Cr(0) Fe(400) SO4 2- (500) 




0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Cell dry wt in mg/L 

3200 

2700 

2200 

1700 

1200 

COD removal curve 

0 50 100 150 

time in hrs 

Cr(0) Fe(400) SO4 2- 

(500) 


(500) 


(500) 


(500) 

time in hrs 

Sulphate reduction 

Cr(VI ) reduction 


(500) 

Sulphate conc in mg/L 

550 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

0 50 100 150 

time in hrs 


(500) 


(500) 


(500) 


(500) 

Cr(VI) conc in mg/L 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 50 100 150 

time in hrs 


(500) 


(500) 


(500) 

Fe(II) generation 

Fe(II) conc in mg/L 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

0 50 100 150 

time in hrs 



(500) 


(500) 


(500)

Model 

Suffix 1,2,3 represents CRB,SRB,IRB respectively 

3 

M = ∑ M 

i= 

1 

i 

3 

S = ∑ S 

i= 

1 

i 

3 

6 

= ∑ 

i= 

1 

Cr Cr6 

i 

S 

i 

= 

S 

⎛ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

M 

M 

i 

⎞ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

Cr 

= 


6,i 6 

⎛ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

M 

M 

i 

⎞ 

⎟ 

⎠

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

+ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

+ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

= 

M 

M 


K 

K 

M 

M 

S 

K 

M 

M 

S 

M 

dt 

dM 

i 

CRB 

i 

CRB 

i 

i 

CRB 

s 

i 

CRB 

CRB 

CRB 

6 

, 

, 

, 

, 

.µ max . 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

+ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

+ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

= 

M 

M 


K 

K 

M 

M 

S 

K 

M 

M 

S 

M 

dt 

dM 

i 

IRB 

i 

IRB 

i 

i 

IRB 

s 

i 

IRB 

IRB 

IRB 

6 

, 

, 

, 

, 

.µ max . 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

+ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

+ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

= 

M 

M 


K 

K 

M 

M 

S 

K 

M 

M 

S 

M 

dt 

dM 

i 

SRB 

i 

SRB 

i 

i 

SRB 

s 

i 

SRB 

SRB 

SRB 

6 

, 

, 

, 

, 

.µ max .

Cr(VI), mg/L 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

10ppm Predicted 

10 ppm Experimental 

20ppm Predicted 


50 ppm Predicted 


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Time, h 

Cr(VI) reduction by CRB, SRB and IRB under anaerobic 

conditions for different initial Cr(VI) concentrations 

Somasundaram et al., Jl. of Hazard. Mater., 2009

3 

BENCH SCALE STUDIES

Constant head reservoir 

N 2 GAS 

Over flow 

Soil column 

Sample ports 

Outlet 

Supply tank

Inlet Reservoir 

Perforate plate 

Sample ports 

10 cm 

Bio-barrier (soil C) 

Outlet Reservoir 

Soil B 

49 cm 

20 cm 

Sample 

ports 

100 cm 

10 cm 

10 

cm 

Schematic of experimental setup

30 

8 

Cr(VI) mg/L 

25 

20 

15 

10 

Port at 20 cm 

Port at 40 cm 

Port at 60 cm 

Port at 80 cm 

Porevelocity 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

Porevelocity cm/h 

5 

2 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Time h 

1 

Cr(VI) break-through curve with biotransformation, Soil A 

Shashidhar et al., Jl. of Hazard. Mater., 2006

25 

25 

Cr(VI) concentration, mg/L 

20 

15 

10 

5 


20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

Time, h 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

Time, h 

Cr(VI) breakthrough just before and after Biobarrier BB1 

(Bact conc= 0.0205 mg/g of soil) 

25 

25 


20 

15 

10 

5 


20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Time, h 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Time, h 

Cr(VI) breakthrough just before and after Biobarrier (BB2) 

(Bact conc= 0.205 mg/g of soil)

Transport of Cr(VI) with Biotransformation 

Y 

M 

dt 

dS 

dt 

dS 

R 

R 

x 

S 

D 

x 

S 

u 

t 

S 

R 

R 

x 


D 

x 


u 

t 


R 

kS 

kS 

s 

kCr 

cr 

λµ 

= 

= 

− 

∂ 

∂ 

= 

∂ 

∂ 

+ 

∂ 

∂ 

− 

∂ 

∂ 

= 

∂ 

∂ 

+ 

∂ 

∂ 

sin 

sin 

2 

2 

6 

sin 

2 

2 

6 

6 

6 

6

max 

max 

6 

2 

2 

1 

max 

] 

[ 

1 

0.63 

0 

0 

6 

M 

if M 

M 

M 

Y 

M 

R 

k 

dt 

dM 

M 

S 

S 

Su 

Su 

if 


K 

K 

Su 

K 

Su 

simkCr 

d 

T 

> 

= 

= 

− 

= 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

− 

= 

< 

= 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

+ 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎜ 

⎜ 

⎝ 

⎛ 

+ 

= 

µ 

η 

λ 

µ 

λ 

µ 

µ

30 

25 

20 cm port Numerical 

20 cm port Experimental 

30 

25 




20 

15 

10 


20 

15 

10 

5 

5 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Time h 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Time h 

20 cm Port 40 cm Port 

Initial pore velocity 7.3 cm/h 

30 

25 



25 

20 



20 


15 

10 


15 

10 

5 

5 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Time h 

60 cm Port 80 cm Port 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Time h 

Shashidhar et al., Jl. of Hazard. Mater., 2007

4 

PILOT SCALE STUDIES

Schematic Diagram of the Reactor 

Inlet 

Chambe 

r 

Bio barrier-0.1M 

Outlet 

chamber 

0.2 

5

Location of Wells

Cr (VI) Concentration before the Bio-barrier in 

Bioreactor 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time, days 

Well N1 

Well N2 

Well 2 

Well 3 

Well 8

Cr (VI) Concentration after the Bio-barrier in 

Bioreactor 

Well 11-20 


1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

0 50 100 

Time, Days 

Well 11-20

Cr (VI) Concentration in the Blank Reactor 

before Barrier 


50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

0 50 100 

Time, Days 

Well B1 

Well B2 

Well B3 

Well B8 

well B9

Cr (VI) Concentration in the Blank Reactor after 

the Barrier 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

0 50 100 

Time, Days 

Well B11 

Well B12

PLAN VIEW OF REACTOR CONTANING FOUR 

INJECTION WELLS 

Injection wells 

8 

17 

22 

27 

3 

12 

1 

7 

11 

16 

21 

26 

6 

15 

20 

25 

10 

5 

14 

19 

24 

9 

2 

4 

13 

18 

23 

15 cm 

15 cm 

35 cm 20 cm 

25 cm 

Inlet 

Chamber 

50 cm 

25 cm 

100 cm

Cr (VI) Concentration in Reactor before 

four Injection wells 

300 

250 

4 wells- well1 

Cr(VI) concentration 

Bacteria injected again 

was increased form 60 

to 250 mg/L 

Cr(VI) , mg/L 

200 

150 

100 

50 

expt well1 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

Time,d

Cr (VI) Concentration in Reactor after 

four Injection wells 

60 

4 wells - wells 13,15,17 

Bacteria injected again 


50 

40 

30 

20 

Cr(VI) concentration 

was increased form 

60 to 250 mg/L 

Expt well 13 

expt well 15 

expt well 17 

10 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

Time,d

MATHEMATICAL MODEL 

R 

cr 

∂Cr 

∂t 

+ 

R 

hcr 

∂h 

∂t 

+ 

( ) = Dˆ 

( Cr) 

Aˆ 


⎛ 

− λ. 

h. 

M. 

⎜ 

⎝ 

S 

⎞ ⎛ 

⎟. 

⎜ 

⎝ 

( ) ⎟ ⎜ ( 

m 

K + + ) ⎠ 

⎟⎟ s 

S 1 K 

H 

. Cr ⎠ 

1 

⎞ 

R 

S 

∂S 

∂t 

+ 

R 

hS 

∂h 

∂t 

+ 

Aˆ 

S 

Q 

j j 

( S ) − = Dˆ 

( S ) 

n 

− 

λ. 

hM 

η 

⎛ 

. 

⎜ 

⎝ 

S 

⎞ ⎛ 

⎟. 

⎜ 

⎝ 

( ) ⎟ ⎜ ( 

m 

K + + ) ⎠ 

⎟⎟ s 

S 1 K 

H 

. Cr ⎠ 

1 

⎞ 

R 

R 

cr 

hcr 

⎛ 

h⎜ 

+ 

⎝ 

1 

ρ 

−1 

= 

b 

n 

1 K 

crCr 

ncrφ 

⎛ ρ 

⎜ 

+ 

b 


⎝ φ 

1 

−1 

= 

n 

1 K 

crCr 

⎞ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

⎞ 

⎟ 

⎠

R 

S 

⎛ 

h⎜ 

+ 

⎝ 

1 

ρ 

−1 

= 

b n 

1 K 

S 

S 

nSφ 

⎞ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

R 

hcr 

⎛ 

S⎜ 

+ 

⎝ 

1 

ρ 

−1 

= 

b n 

1 K 

S 

S 

φ 

⎞ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

Aˆ 

= 

∂ 

∂x 

∂ 

∂y 

( uh( )) + ( vh( )) 

Dˆ 

= 

∂ 

∂x 

⎡ 

⎢D 

⎣ 

xx 

h 

( ) ∂( ) ⎤ ∂ ⎡ ∂( ) ∂( ) ⎤ 

⎥⎦ 

∂ 

∂x 

+ 

D 

xy 

h 

∂y 

⎥ 

⎦ 

+ 

∂y 

⎢D 

⎣ 

yx 

h 

∂x 

+ 

D 

yy 

h 

∂y


1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

Well 11 

Well 12 

Well 13 

Well 14 

Well 15 

Well 16 

Predicted 

0 50 100 150 200 

Time,Days 

Experimental and modeling results for temporal 

variation of Cr(VI) concentration in wells 11-16 (at a 

distance of 110 cm from inlet) in reactor R1 

Jeyasigh et al., Chem. Engrg. Jl., 2011

Cr(VI) concentration in Blank reactor 

Cr(VI) ,mg/L 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Predicted 

well 11 

well 12 

well 13 

well 14 

well 15 

well 16 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Time,Days 

Experimental and modeling results for temporal variation of 

Cr(VI) concentration in wells 11-16 in reactor R2 



300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Predicted Well 1 

Experimental Well 1 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

Time,d 

Experimental and modeling results for temporal variation of 

Cr(VI) concentration at well no 1 in reactor R4 (4 wells system) 



300 

250 

200 

150 

100 









50 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

Time,d 



300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 











0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

Time,d 


Field Demonstration of 

Bioremediation of Cr(VI) 

Contaminated Soil and Aquifer in 

Ranipet, Tamilnadu

SCOPE 

• Remediation of at least 5 tons of chromium 

sludge in the vicinity of Tamilnadu 

Chromates and Chemicals Limited (TCCL) 

at the site; 

• Demonstration of in-situ bioremediation of 

Cr(VI) contaminated aquifer in a 5 m ×5 m 

area of aquifer in the vicinity of Tamilnadu 

Chromates and Chemicals Limited (TCCL), 

Ranipet, by injection well - reactive zone 

technology;

Well locations in the experimental plot

RESULTS 

Soil Remediation 

312.5 kg 312.5 kg 625 kg 1250 kg 2500 kg 

Solid Waste Remediation 

3.5 

3 

Cr(VI), mg/g of soil 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

Time ,d 

Variation of Cr(VI) concentration with respect to time in solid waste 

remediation (Mass of untreated sludge added at various time is mentioned 

inside the graph)

Variation of total chromium concentration 

with respect to time in solid waste 

remediation

Remediated and un-remediated 

soils 

Five Tones of Remediated Soil 

Leachate from remediated soil 

Un-remediated Soil and 

Leachate from unremediated 

soil

Aquifer Remediation 

Bioremediation using Molasses (Jaggery) as 

the Carbon Source 

Cr(Vl) concentration for wells 1 and 2 

200 


150 

100 

50 

well 1 

well 2 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time,d 

Variation of Cr (VI) concentration with respect to time in 

wells 1 and 2 (molasses as carbon source)

Cr(Vl) concentration for wells 3,4 ,5 and 6 


200 

150 

100 

50 

well 3 

well 4 

well 5 

well 6 

Variation of Cr (VI) 

concentration with respect 

to time in wells 3, 4, 5 and 6 

(molasses as carbon source) 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time,d 

Cr(VI) Concentration well 7,8,9 and 10 

Variation of Cr (VI) 

concentration with respect to 

time in wells 7, 8, 9 and 10 

(molasses as carbon source) 

Cr(VI),mg/l 

140 

100 

60 

20 

Well 7 

well 8 

well 9 

well10 

-20 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time,d

Variation of Cr (VI) concentration with respect to time in 

wells 11 – 14 (molasses as carbon source) 

150 

Cr(Vl) concentration for well 11,12,13 and 14 

125 

well 11 


100 

75 

50 

T 

well 12 

well 13 

well 14 

25 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time,d

COD Variation in various wells 

COD for wells 1 and 2 

COD for wells 3,4 ,5 and 6 

cod(mg/l) 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

w ell 1 

w ell 2 

cod(mg/l) 

90000 

80000 

70000 

60000 

50000 

40000 

30000 

w ell 3 

w ell 4 

w ell 5 

w ell 6 

200 

20000 

0 

10000 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

0 

Time(d) 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time(d) 

COD for wells 7,8,9 and 10 

4500 

4000 

2500 

Cod for wells 11,12,13 and14 

cod(mg/l) 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

well 7 

well 8 

well 9 

well 10 

cod(mg/l) 

2000 

1500 

1000 

well 11 

well 12 

well 13 

well 14 

1000 

500 

500 

0 

-10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 

time(d) 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Time(d)

Total Chromium Concentration in Various Wells 

Total Chromium for well 1and 2 

Total Chromium for well 3,4,5and 6 

150 

200 

Total chromium,mg/l 

145 

140 

135 

130 

125 

120 

115 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time,d 

well1 

well2 


150 

100 

50 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time,d 

well3 

well4 

well5 

well6 

Total Chromium for well 7,8,9 and 10 



140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

well7 

well8 

well9 

well10 


160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

well11 

well12 

well13 

well14 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Time,d 

Time,d

Water samples before and after 

Remediation

Cr(VI) Concentrations during Well 

Cr(VI) Concentration for well 3,4,5 and 6 

Recovery 

150 


100 

50 

well 3 

well 4 

well 5 

well 6 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Time,d 

Cr(VI) Concentration for well 11,12,13 and 14 

145 


140 

135 

130 

125 

well 11 

well 12 

well 13 

well 14 

120 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Time,d

COD values during well recovery 

COD for well 3,4,5 and 6 

150 

COD,mg/l 

100 

50 

well 3 

well 4 

well 5 

well 6 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Time,d 


140 

120 

COD,mg/l 

100 

80 

60 

40 

well 11 

well 12 

well 13 

well 14 

20 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Time,d

Bioremediation using Sugar as the 

Carbon Source 

• Remediation of Cr(VI) aquifers were also carried 

out using sugar as the carbon source. 

• For this study the initial biomass concentration 

was reduced to 1/10 th of that used in the previous 

case. 

• Carbon source concentration also was reduced to 

1/4 th and feeding interval was increased to 7- 10 

days. 

• The fate and transport of chromium (both Cr(VI) 

and Cr(III)), sugar and its derivatives, and 

microbes during the study period was monitored.

Bioremediation using Sugar as the 

Carbon Source: Cr(VI concentrations 

Cr(Vl) Concentration for well 1 and 2 

Cr(Vl) concentration for well 3,4,5and 6 

150 

150 

125 

well 3 

Cr(Vl),mg/l 

100 

75 

50 

w ell 1 

w ell 2 


100 

50 

well 4 

well 5 

well 6 

25 

0 

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 

Time,d 

0 

0 50 100 150 

Time,d 

Cr(Vl) concentration for well 7,8,9and 10 

Cr(Vl) concentration for well 11,12,13 and 14 

150 

150 

well 11 


100 

50 

well 7 

well 8 

well 9 

well 10 


100 

50 

well 12 

well 13 

Well 14 

0 

0 50 100 150 

Time,d 

0 

0 50 100 150 

Time,d

COD concentrations in various wells during 

bioremediation using sugar as carbon Source 

COD for well 1 and 2 


250 

7500 

200 

6000 

COD,mg/l 

150 

100 

well 1 

well 2 

COD,mg/l 

4500 

3000 

well 3 

well 4 

well 5 

well 6 

50 

1500 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 

Time,d 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 

Time,d 



1200 

1200 

COD,mg/l 

900 

600 

300 

well 7 

well 8 

well 9 

well 10 

COD,mg/l 

900 

600 

300 

well 11 

well 12 

well 13 

Well 14 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 

Time,d 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 

Time,d

Total Cr concentrations in various wells during 

bioremediation using sugar as carbon Source 

Total Chromium for well 1 and 2 


200 

200 

Total Chromium,mg/l 

150 

100 

50 

well 1 

well 2 


150 

100 

50 

well 3 

well 4 

well 5 

well 6 

0 

0 50 100 150 

Time,d 

0 

0 50 100 150 

Time,d 



Total Chromium, mg/L 

150 

100 

50 

0 

0 50 100 150 

Time,d 

well 7 

well 8 

well 9 

well 10 


150 

100 

50 

0 

0 50 100 150 

Time,d 

well 11 

well 12 

well 13 

Well 14

Water samples from various wells 

after remediation

Water samples from various 

wells after remediation

Analysis of Heavy Metals in 

Aquifer 

Metals 

Well 1 

(mg/L) 

Well 2 

(mg/L) 

Well 3 

(Injection 

well) 

Well 5 

(Injection 

well) 

Well 9 Well 13 Well 14 

Copper BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 

Lead BDL BDL 0.0925 0.0775 0 0 0 

Manga 

nese 0.065 0.067 0.068 0.057 0.017 0.054 0.05 

zinc 0.012 0.017 0.2825 0.2175 0.0225 0.07 0.09 

Cr(VI) 145.2 140.2 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 

Iron BDL BDL 0.017 0.023 0.0487 0.032 0.036 

Nickel BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

IN THIS FIELD LEVEL STUDY, WE HAVE 

DEMONSTRATED CONCLUSIVELY THAT 

BIOREMEDIATION IS AN 

• EFFECTIVE, 

• ECONOMICAL AND 

SUMMARY 

• ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY 

TECHNOLOGY FOR THE REMEDIATION OF 

HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM CONTAMINATED 

SOILS AND AQUIFERS

Technology Transfer 

• Munjal Showa, Haryana, INDIA 

• Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd, Meerut Road, 

Ghaziabad, INDIA 

• Anant Udyog, Faridabad, Haryana, INDIA

Hydro-Geological Conditions

Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd, Meerut 

Road, Ghaziabad, INDIA 

Between 

Dewan 

Rubber and 

Mascot 

X3 

Contaminate 

d Zone-1 

X4 

X1 

LEGEND 

(Hexavalent Chrome concentration) 

12-16 mg/L 

8 – 12 mg/L 

4 – 8 mg/L 

1 – 4 mg/L 

X2 

CONTAMINATED ZONE IDENTIFIED FOR SETTING UP ETP

MAP OF LOHIANAGAR AND ADJOINING AREA 

SHOWING SEGMENTS A – E

Quantification of Contaminated Groundwater 

S. 

No. 

Segment 

Quantity of 

Contaminated 

Groundwater, 

Q=A*Wlf*Sp.Y. 

Range of 

Hexavalent 

Chromium in 

Mg/L 

1 Segment A 69,600 cu.m./yr. Nil – 3.4 

2 Segment B 2,08,800 cu.m./yr. 0.2 – 16.3 

3 Segment C 52,200 cu.m./yr. 0.1 -1.3 

4 Segment D 1,74,000 cu.m./yr. 1.3 – 15.4 

5 Segment E 1,04,400 cu.m./yr. Nil – 1.3

Our Research 

•Bioremediation of contaminated air 

•SOx and NOx removal from flue gases 

•Hg vapour removal from flue gases 

•VOC removal from contaminated air 

•Bioremediation of Contaminated Soil 

•Pesticide contaminated Soils 

•Heavy Metal contaminated soils 

•Bioremediation of Contaminated Water 

•Industrial and domestic wastewaters 

•Contaminated Aquifers

Biofiltration of 

contaminated air 

Treatment of Flue gases 

SOx, Nox, Mercury vapor, VOC’s 

(BTEX), chloroform, alcohols, 

aldehydes etc.. 

•Complete removal of SOx and elemental sulfur 

recovery 

•Novel system for complete treatment of NOx 

•Mercury vapor removal from flue gas using 

Thiobacillus immobilized biotrickling filters 

Compressed 

air inlet 

Mineral medium inlet 

N 2 CO 2 SO NO 

2 

Clean air 

exhaust 

BIOTRICKLING 

FILTER 

Medium 2 feed 

POST-TREATMENT 

(heated to 37 C) 

SETTLER 

Overflow 

purge 

Effluent Gas 

Liquid 

Air 

NOx 

Photo 

Catalytic 

Oxidation 

Filter 

Ozone 

Oxidation 

Scrub 

bing 

Ozone 

Oxidation 

Leachate for 

Denitrification 

Philip and Deshueeses (2003). ES&T,37(9), pp 1978-1982 

Barman and Philip (2006) ES&T, 40(3),pp 1035-1041 

Philip and Deshusses (2008) Chemosphere, 70(3), 411-417

M/S FUTURA POLYESTERS, MANALI, CHENNAI 

Field demonstration plant for SOx and NOx removal

Pesticide Poisoning cases in India 

Finger deformities 

Six year-old cancer patient 

10 year-old patient 

12 year paralysis patient

SOURCES OF PESTICIDE POLLUTION 

* Agricultural runoff * Ariel transport 

* Pesticide industrial effluent * Discarded pesticide packages

Consumption of selected insecticides in Indian 

agriculture (tones technical grade) 

Items 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 

Endosulfan 4’600 5’200 5’500 4’300 4’200 

HCH 

(BHC) 24’000 22’000 22’000 4’250 -- 

Lindane 50 45 40 40 250 

Methyl 

parathion 2’600 2’600 2’400 1’700 2’000

Photographs of bench 

scale and pilot scale 

soil reactors during 

operation 

Contaminated 

site 

identification 

What we do? 

Isolation, 

enrichment 

Treatability 

study 

Parameters 

optimized, 

1. Supplementary carbon 

2. Operating pH 

3. Innoculum size 

4. Operating condition 

EID Parry India Ltd. 

Chennai, India. 

Mixed 

culture 

To check workability of 

the culture 

Soils selected 

Compost soil, clay soil 

Sandy soil, Red soil 

Identification 

Miniature soil reactor 

Sorption studies to find the 

bioavailability 

Pathway 

identification 

Bench scale soil reactor 

REACTOR STUDIES 

Pilot scale soil reactor

Bioremediation- Pesticides 

Endosulfan, Lindane, Atrazine, 

Carbofuran, Methyl Parathion 

Isolated strains for complete mineralization 

of endosulfan 

•Developed a consortium to degrade an array 

of pesticides 

•Pesticide effect on biological systems and 

their fate 

• Pilot scale bioremediation system 

development

BIOREMEDIATION OF Cr(VI) CONTAMINATED SOIL AND AQUIFERS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?