Comparing Perennial Grasses in a Phytoremediation Field Trial for Soil Hydrocarbon Removal – Fuel Depot, north-west Victoria, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A former Fuel Depot, Victoria Australia was utilised as a petroleum depot since the 1920s with a release of petroleum products from site infrastructure in early 2000.From 2021, in-situ soil remediation between 0-2m trialling phytoremediation was undertaken to remove Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) with a focus on plant-assisted bioremediation.The successful bioremediation of petroleum pollutants in soils depends on numerous environmental parameters and operational factors, all of which need to be optimised to achieve maximum treatment.The operational factors that were targeted include aeration through ripping, carbon, and soil enhancement via mulching and optimal soil moisture with installation and careful management of irrigation.Research shows grasses are favourable candidates for plant assisted bioremediation of hydrocarbons and therefore three plots were designed with a) Native Australian Mat-rush (Lomandra spp.), b) Vetiver zizanoides and c) variety of shrubs and native grasses.The results indicate 76% and 84% reduction for C6-C10 TPH and a maximum reduction of 1350 mg/kg to 217 mg/kg.Reductions in the C10-16, C16-C34 and BTEX of 28% to 86%.All C34-40 in final December 2023 soil sampling were below laboratory Limits of Reporting (LOR) of 100mg/kg.This field scale phytoremediation trial delivered a) material change in contaminant loads on-site, b) potentially assisted in avoiding a soil excavation and treatment Clean Up Program (CUP) c) only one TPH exceedance between 0-2mbgl of NEPM guidelines at the completion of the trial (ESL commercial/industrial) for C10-C16 fraction, d) converting fuel depot of compacted clay fill soil with over 100yrs of traffic to a viable plant growing media, and e) provided green infrastructure and activity on site.Research provides evidence for accelerated disappearance of TPH in the rhizosphere via plant-assisted bioremediation.This research is predominantly laboratory scale experiments.Given the significant variables at field scale and the heterogeneity of the TPH contamination it is unknown whether the TPH removal observed relates to partly or wholly to plant assisted bioremediation.Further research replicating this field scale phytoremediation trial with optimal ripping, mulching, and irrigation for performance comparison is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".