Empirical and Recommendation report on Urban Gardens, Soil

Remediation and Soil Testing in Detroit

By: Sonila Shtylla

Gustavo Serratos

Monique Long

English 3060

Jared Grogan

Fall 2009

Table of contents

I Introduction

II Project Objectives

III Project Users and their Perspectives

IV Method of Research

V Contamination in Detroit by Area

VI Testing Practices

Ex Situ and In situ technologies

Bioremediation

Other technologies

VII Best Practices for Detroit Area Community Growers

VIII Recommendations

IX Conclusion

X References

Introduction

The City of Detroit is a diamond in the Midwest. The City has seen a powerful economic rise as well as a decline throughout the century. This telling history has been a symbol of American problems during our recent recession. Less well-known however, is the rich network of community and institutional efforts quietly breaking new ground to revitalize the city over recent decades. The current situation is gloomy. Abandoned buildings, vacant lots and contaminated areas are spread throughout Detroit. The purpose of this paper is to help turn contaminated areas in the City of Detroit into Gardens. This research is important because contaminated soil is increasing yearly. Our research contributes to an empirical study and recommendation report to the SEED program’s Urban Garden commitment by providing key information and insight into improving contaminated soils. Urban Gardens are gardens that are placed into urban communities to benefit by cleaning contaminated soils and later producing vegetation. The seed program at Wayne State University is currently building Urban Gardens for the University as well as local communities. As the SEED program is a great model and we propose collaboration with the program the audience for further understanding. The SEED program at the WSU says;

“SEED Wayne is dedicated to building sustainable food systems on the campus of Wayne State University and in Detroit communities. SEED Wayne works in partnership with community-based organizations promoting food security, urban agriculture, farm-to-institution, and food and fitness planning and policy development.”

These Gardens are currently growing food and selling the vegetables to citizens of Detroit. From research on contaminated locations in the City, soil testing, remediation practices and costs effective systems we will provide recommendations for the continuation of Urban Gardens.

Our intended audience is all students, faculty, local businesses, researching firms as well as just anybody who would like to see a waste turned into a garden. As volunteers would be a main source of this project, we understand that the project must be welcomed and embraced by the local community to ensure that the garden be being maintained. We believe that once our intended audience hears of these opportunities there will not be shortage of volunteers. As the world moves to

become environmental friendly, gardens will be a great start for those interested in contributing and bettering their community.

A great way to earn volunteers is to reach out to local Universities and schools. Universities usually have students that would like to put together a project like this to put on their resume or just help out for the good. Students from fields like Civil and Environmental Engineers, Urban Planning and Social work could surely use projects like this to network as well as learn. Younger students would be great as well because of how interested they usually are to have hands on activities. It is important to show the younger generation that it is always important as a Citizen to better our environment.

Project Objectives

Our objective of our research is to provide enough information on contaminated locations in the City with cost effective soil testing and remediation practices. We also want to achieve general local development objectives and operational short turn objectives. Our general development objectives are realistic goals that can be reached by constructing an Urban Garden. Development goals include aspects such as health improvements, improved living standards, institutional improvements such as schools and local businesses. In given time our goal is that the garden will raise the property value and increase employment with the creation of local businesses. Local institutions will benefit from the garden as well by creating learning opportunities. Operational objectives include soil improvement conditions, vegetation growth, and maintenance of the garden.

We expect the process of creating a sustainable Urban Garden in a local Detroit community to take approximately three years. This timeline can vary greatly by the contamination of the soil and the commitment of the local community. With the mixture of volunteers from Universities, schools and the community the time to create the garden will decrease. One day every weekend could be enough to bring out all volunteers to build, clean the garden. It could be beneficial to organize a team with a leader possibly from the community.

Method of Research

In our method of research, online research and interviews were mainly the composition. Online research has been the most effective due to useful information

in little time. Our primary research was done online research. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) was a vital help in our online research. The website provided good information on locations of contaminated areas as well as documentation on materials found historically in Michigan. Our secondary research was email interviews and communication with David Slayton, Geology Specialist Hazardous Waste Technical Support and William Hischke from the City of Detroit Department of Environmental Affairs. The MDEQ website supplied information on materials commonly found in Michigan’s brownsfields (contaminated sites). Mr. Slayton was very helpful in point out locations for finding out further research on contaminated areas. He recommended other websites as well as articles put out by the State of Michigan. Article Unit Part 201, Environmental Remediation, of the Natural Resources and Environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451 provides information on local brownsfields as well detailed analysis on harmful materials found in the soil broken up by counties. The City of Detroit also has an environmental website which provides good information on the Detroit’s districts. All of this information contributed to the detailed research. The SEED program at Wayne State University was a great utility. The website provides great information on Urban Gardens as well as possible opportunities volunteering with the program.

Project Users and their Perspectives

Key beneficiaries of our research would be the SEED program, community interest groups and Detroit and University researchers. The SEED program and community interest groups would benefit from this research, by using the information of the report which  contains alternatives to grow and create urban gardens, ways to make the best use of the soils and also ways to remediate contaminated soils , in order to grow healthy produce. The homegrown vegetables can be used as food banks for the Soup Kitchens around Detroit to help the needy and residents who cannot afford to commute to grocery stores that are located far away from Detroit city.

Detroit and Universities will benefit from the research by continuing it in experiments that can be adequately applied to Detroit’s soil. Although we found the best practices for soil testing and remediation we are not sure that these practices can work on Detroit’s soil. On the other hand the best practices may work and it’s all about applying them and researching them more in depth where it is an

everyday practice and regular citizens across the world can apply them in their backyards.

Contamination in Detroit by Area

 Detroit sits on some of the best farmland in Michigan. Farms were scattered throughout Southeast Michigan. As the population increased, so did industry. As Detroit's industrial bloom began around 1913, factories were putting out pollutants with very few or no restrictions. In the early 80's is when restrictions started to taking place and control pollution. However, by this time many areas that are currently contaminated were already contaminated. Underground storage tanks were already in place and the Detroit groundwater was heavily polluted.  By the 80's efforts to begin to clean what was already contaminated was not a big priority.

 Currently within the city limits of Detroit, there are more than 700 urban farms that yield more than 120 tons of produce each year.  These urban farms are farms that are put up in Detroiters on lots. However, these farms are not located on contaminated soil due to the long process of cleaning the subsurface conditions and possible dangers that can be present. Different chemicals can be more dangerous than others in soil contamination.  As we know vegetation needs certain chemical composition to grow. Phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium are important materials to have vegetation grow strong. Soil pollutants that cause contamination that are most commonly found are hydrocarbons, heavy metals (cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, zinc, mercury and arsenic), herbicides, pesticides, oils, tars, PCBs and dioxins. These chemicals can be cause from industry, mining, agricultural processes. 

 Detroit's economy expanded following World War 1 with a post war economic prosperity, along with this came heavy industry done within the City. The auto industry had a boom; mining was being done in the City as well as factories began to increase by the Detroit River and Rouge River. With increasing economy and population comes a greater chance of pollutants in the soil. Traffic, underground storage tanks and industry are the main reasons for soil contamination in Detroit.

  Neighborhoods throughout the City have mainly the same composition of pollutants. However, some neighborhoods are affected by different pollutants due

to what is industry are located in the area. The Krainz woods neighborhood is one of the many affected by strong lead contents found in the subsoil. Located on the east side from 7 Mile Road and Ryan Road to E Nevada Street, and Mound Road, Master Metals Smelter was built in 1955 and processed and recycled scrap-lead batteries by heating them in a furnace. The facility has been closed since 1983, however the area remains contaminated. As a residential low income, predominantly African American location this area currently is one of the most toxic zones in Detroit.

The West Vernor-Lawndale Historic District is also a heavy contaminated neighborhood. Lead, polychlorinated, trichloroethylene, arsenic are heavy pollutants in the soil. Industry factories operated in the area after World War 1 putting out soil pollutants such as lead and arsenic with few regulations to restrict pollution. By the 1980’s most the factories located in the district were either abandoned or demolished. Within a 2-mile radius still currently are over 40 facilities dealing with hazardous waste with 3 facilities giving off toxic releases. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000)

Testing Practices

Soil testing can be an easy, cost effective way to manage agronomic as well as horticultural soils. It tells key nutrient levels, as well as pH levels, so the producer can make the best choice when purchasing fertilizers and other nutrients.

Recently (2004) new prepaid mail-in kits have come to market that offer two specific benefits to small acreage farmers, urban homeowners and the lawn care industry: first is an inexpensive and quick manner to transfer soil samples directly to an accredited laboratory for analysis; and second, the process translates raw data findings (as listed above: Tests include,") into workable and practical nutrient management/fertilizer reports. One such kit can be viewed at Grass Roots. This particular process provides an actual 'prescription' of fertilizers that are readily available in the global market for two complete seasons.

Less comprehensive do-it-yourself kits are also available, usually with tests for three important plant nutrients - nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium

(K) - and for soil acidity (pH). Do-it-yourself kits can usually be purchased at your local cooperative or through the university or private lab you choose. Prices of the tests will vary on the lab/university you purchase it from and also on what kind of test you want to do. Lab tests are more accurate, though both types are useful. In addition, lab tests frequently include professional interpretation of results and recommendations. Always refer to all proviso statements included in a lab report - these may outline any anomalies, exceptions and shortcomings in the sampling and/or analytical process/results. Soil test kits are available at Lowe's garden centers. These kits allow the gardener to get an immediate analysis of your soil's pHs. 

The local agricultural extension office will also test the soil sample for pH and nutrient levels (usually for a small fee). Most offices will provide with a sterile container for the sample and a form to answer questions about the garden, where one live and the plants one wishes to grow. The soil analysis usually takes a few weeks to get back. The analysis includes detailed results and suggested amendments specific to the region.

Clean bucket Garden trowel Clean container Newspaper

Steps;

Thoroughly clean the tools you using to collect the soil sample.

1. In the planting area, dig five holes 6-8" deep. 2. Take a 1/2" slice along the side of a hole and place it in the bucket. Repeat

this process for all holes. 3. Collect samples from different areas that will be growing similar plants. 4. Mix the soil in the bucket. Spread the soil on a newspaper to dry out. Collect

a pint for your sample

Hints;

The best time to test the soil is in the late fall or early spring. This gives the time to make adjustments before planting the garden, since soil corrections may take a few months to become effective. Wet soil can give a false test reading. When taking the sample the soil must be fairly dry. The soil must be checked more than once for best results. 

Result Correction

High pHSoils with a high pH are alkaline. To lower pH, add sulfur into the soil surrounding the existing plants or into new planting beds.

Low pHA low pH reading is an indication that your soil is too acidic. To correct the problem, add lime to the soil and mix well.

Low nitrogen

This is a common problem with soil. Use synthetic or natural, nitrogen-rich fertilizers according to the rate suggested by the manufacturer.

High nitrogen

High nitrogen levels are usually the result of soils that have been over-fertilized. Water the soil well and stop adding fertilizer for several months.

Low phosphorus

Mix superphosphate or bone meal into your garden soil, making sure to mix these amendments into the soil thoroughly.

High phosphorous

This problem is usually caused by too much high-phosphate fertilizer. Do not use phosphorous-rich fertilizer for two years, and grow an abundance of plants to use up the excess.

Low potassium

Work in potash or wood ashes. Avoid using wood ashes around acid-loving plants because these are alkaline and may diminish the growth of the plants.

High potassium

Add nitrogen and phosphorous to help balance the soil, but do not add potassium-rich fertilizers or soil amendments for two to three years.

Poor drainage

Heavy clay soil tends to drain poorly. Thoroughly mix in peat moss, compost or other organic materials to help loosen the soil.

Too much Sandy soil drains too quickly to hold necessary nutrients. Add

drainageorganic materials to remedy soil that drains too quickly, just as you would for poor drainage conditions.

Improving the  soil's pHThe figures below equal pounds of limestone needed per 1000 sq. ft.

  Sand Loam ClayPresent pHTo 6.0 To 6.5 To 6.0 To 6.5 To 6.0 To 6.54.8 60 85 100 140 140 2004.9 55 80 95 130 125 1855.0 50 75 85 28 115 1605.1 45 70 80 115 100 1505.2 40 65 70 110 90 1355.3 35 60 65 100 75 1255.4 30 55 55 95 65 1105.5 25 50 50 85 55 1005.6 20 45 40 80 45 905.7 15 40 30 70 35 805.8 10 35 20 65 25 705.9 5 30 10 55 15 606.0 — 25 — 50 — 506.1 — 20 — 40 — 406.2 — 15 — 35 — 306.3 — 10 — 25 — 206.4 — 5 — 15 — —

It is very important for a geotechnical engineer to test the sites chosen for planting for other toxins before beginning any serious remediation practices or gardening projects. Another important point to emphasize is that some of the sites might be extremely contaminated and none of the remediation practices might help to remediate the soil. In such case it is best for whoever might be concerned on that certain site to simply terminate their project and not continue further with any planting or creation of an Urban Garden, because of the high risks involved with hazardous contaminated soil.

Overview of Best practices for soil remediation

Once a site is suspected of being contaminated there is a need to assess the contamination. Often the assessment begins with preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The historical use of the site and the materials used and produced on site will guide the assessment strategy and type of sampling and chemical analysis to be done.

Remediation technologies are many and varied but can be categorized into ex-situ and in-situ methods, and Bioremediation Technologies. All these technologies will be briefly described in this section as follows:

Ex-situ methods involve excavation of affected soils and subsequent treatment at the surface, In-situ methods seek to treat the contamination without removing the soils.

The more traditional remediation approach (used almost exclusively on contaminated sites from the 1970s to the 1990s) consists primarily of soil excavation and disposal to landfill "dig and dump" and groundwater "pump and treat". In situ technologies include solidification and stabilization and have been used extensively in the USA (Wikipedia)

Excavation or dredging

According to the Wikipedia the Excavation processes can be as simple as hauling the contaminated soil to a regulated landfill, but can also involves aerating the excavated material in the case of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This process involves the excavation of the contaminated area into large bummed areas where they are treated using chemical oxidation methods.

Solubilization and Recovery, the Surfactant Enhanced Aquifer Remediation process involves the injection of hydrocarbon mitigation agents or specialty surfactants into the subsurface to enhance desorption and recovery of bound up otherwise recalcitrant non aqueous phase liquid (NAPL). In geologic formations that allow delivery of hydrocarbon mitigation agents or specialty

surfactants, this approach provides a cost effective and permanent solution to sites that have been previously unsuccessful utilizing other remedial approaches. This technology is also successful when utilized as the initial step in a multi faceted remedial approach utilizing SEAR then In situ Oxidation, bioremediation enhancement or soil vapor extraction (SVE). (Wikipedia)

Pump and treat

Pump and treat involves pumping out contaminated groundwater with the use of a vacuum pump, and allowing the extracted groundwater to be purified by slowly proceeding through a series of vessels that contain materials designed to adsorb the contaminants from the groundwater.

Stabilization and Solidification

Stabilization involves the addition of reagents to a contaminated material (e.g. soil or sludge) to produce more chemically stable constituents, and Solidification involves the addition of reagents to a contaminated material to impart physical/dimensional stability to contain contaminants in a solid product and reduce access by external agents (e.g. air, rainfall). (Gong, 2007)

In situ oxidation

New in situ oxidation technologies have become popular, for remediation of a wide range of soil and groundwater contaminants. Remediation by chemical oxidation involves the injection of strong oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide, ozone gas, potassium permanganate or persulfates. Oxygen gas or ambient air can also be injected as a more mild approach. The injection of gases into the groundwater may cause contamination to spread faster than normal depending on the site's hydrogeology. (Wikipedia)

Other technologies including Bioremediation

The treatment of environmental problems through biological means is known as bioremediation and the specific use of plants for example by using phytoremediation. Bioremediation is sometimes used in conjunction with a

pump and treat system. In bioremediation, either naturally occurring or specially bred bacteria are used to consume contaminants from extracted groundwater. This is sometimes referred to as a bio-gas system. Many times the groundwater is recycled to allow for continuously flowing water and enhanced bacteria population growth. (Gong, 2007)

Bioremediation is a cost effective that uses of plants, microbes, and other organisms that are fuse together to absorb metal and petroleum levels in soil. Bioremediation is a remediation practice that can reduce metal levels in the soil. In numerous research articles (Amez-Allier, 2005) we found that this particular bioremediation can only reduce metal and other contaminated levels to about 75%. The bioremediation process in many articles acted as more as a ph controller rather than a remover of contaminated material. Bioremediation also removes petroleum. According to (Bento, 2003) bioremediation can remediate diesel oil in the soil. This study was conducted from Brazil and hasn’t been officially tested on urban soil but it has been successful remediating diesel oil from soil. Another technique of bioremediation consists of biopiles. Biopiles (Jorgensen, 2000) are organic material that includes saw dust and bark chips that are remediated in the soil to remove petroleum.

Bioremediation resource availably research was scarce when it came to the more sophisticated remediation of fusing microbe and plants. In our concluded research of bioremediation, it was undefined of what the actual skill level of bioremediation needed to obtain. However, the composting of the bio-piles based on its description is resource ready and skill applicable and neighborhood ready.

Phytoremediation is a cutting edge green technology of remediation. Phytoremediation consist of plants and plant cells that are fused together along with microorganism that cleans heavy metals, and protects the metals and other the materials that helps the soil. The cost of Phytoremdiation is very inexpensive costing about $25-$100 per ton for soil treatment. When it comes to removing organic materials, the cost of phytoremediation is very low. However remediation for heavy metals seems to cost higher.

Phytoremediation includes two technologies, (Salt, 1995) in which the soil is remediated which include phytorextraction, and phytostabilization.

Phytorextraction removes the toxic metals from the soil using metal absorbing plants and phytostabilization uses plant to remove toxic metals. Indian mustard (Williams, 2005) has been demonstrated to remove toxic metals such as lead, copper, cadmium, nickel, and zinc from soil. Phytoremediation according to the previous article has a phytorextraction technology named Gallic acid that is commercially available and doesn’t present an environmental problem. The skills use of this remediation practice wasn’t mention in articles and information that our group researched. But considering the fact that Gallic acid is commercially available the public can enclose access of this remediation.

Vegetable oil is another cost effective best practice of soil remediation. This technology is one of the non-toxic practices that are used to remove polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).During the time in our research, researchers were still in the process of making this remediation practice neighborhood person friendly. Vegetable oil for soil remediation cannot at this time be purchased publically according to recent article pertaining to vegetable oil remediation.

According to (Gong, 2007) vegetable oil extracts the PAHs. PAHs are hydrocarbons that are tightly bound in the soil, so when removed by vegetable oil the PAHs don’t always remediate fully (Gong, 2007). Vegetable oil is able to extract majority of PAHs (Gong, 2007) but the chances of removing all hydrocarbons are slim. Sunflower oil remediation behaves similarly like vegetable oil.

Best practices for Detroit Area Community Growers

Remediation of soil has many different processes. We researched the remediation practices that will clean up the pollutants that have contaminated the soil. To find the best practices we gathered a criterion that outlines what best practices that we are looking publish. Our criterion includes technical description, cost, skills involved, resource availability, and what exactly the remediation practice cleans in terms of pollutants and other toxicants hurting the soil. Technical description is to describe what does the remediation practice appearance and how does the practice work. Our group doesn’t really have a set preference on how the remediation practice and its components have to appear.

Criterions

These criterions are to help our group find the best practices of soil remediation. Our criterion starts with a technical descriptions, then includes cost, skills involved, resource availably, and what exactly the remediation practices works to “clean” in terms of pollutants and toxicants hurting the soil.

First we started off with technical descriptions. Our group doesn’t have a preference on how the remediation practices should appear but we did record the remediation appearance. The only concern that our group had was season use of the remediation practice. Secondly we discussed the cost of the remediation practice. Our group wants the remediation practices that we recommend to be inexpensive. But, we did record if the remediation practices had a higher cost or if it was unavailable. Next in the research for remediation practices we explained the skills involved. For remediation practices, our group’s preferences are varied. Although we would prefer a remediation practice that community groups and regular gardeners to handle on their own. However, if the remediation practice is supposed to be handled by the proper authority, we recommended so. Then we briefly mentioned the resource availably for the remediation practices: The best practices for remediation must be available to the public or a professional that is able to obtain the proper instruments and materials to remediate the soil. Lastly we discussed all the pollutant removers the remediation practiced removed. All the remediation practices that are listed in our report will contain a list of pollutants that can be remediated from the soil. We want a remediation practice that removes the top problems in Detroit’s soil including heavy metals and harmful organic material.

One very effective way to clean contaminated soils is Phytoremedation. This is a process in which plants and trees are used to remediate sites contaminated with heavy metals pesticides, radionuclides, and organic chemicals. Although this technology is relatively new, it is progressing quickly and has become the preferred method for cleaning up many sites because it is cost-effective, aesthetically pleasing, and requires little maintenance.

Phytoremediation as was mentioned above is a cutting edge, environmental friendly practice of remediation. This practice is helpful in many ways. In the

process, Indian mustard and sunflowers can be used. Studies have demonstrated to remove toxic metals such as Lead, Cooper and Chromium from industrial waste streams. (Barker 2002) Sunflowers also remove radioactive and other toxic metals from the soil. In addition, Brake Fern soak up a great amount of arsenic without any ill effects, potentially offering a natural way of cleaning up polluted soils. This plant is the first plant known to accumulate arsenic (which is very dangerous) in extremely high concentrations and still flourish and very easy to find. (Barker 2002)

Indian Mustard Brake Fern

Phytoremediation cleans heavy metals, and protects nutrients and other the materials that helps the soil. The cost of phytoremediation is very inexpensive costing about $25-$100 per ton for soil treatment. When removing organic materials the cost is very low. Remediation for heavy metals seems to cost higher than other pollutants. This can become a problem with the Detroit area, because Michigan constantly goes through constant change. If another researcher were to use this remediation practice they would have to use it at a steady warm part of the year. Another problem with that adds to the climate problem is that it takes longer than other remediation practices.

Vegetable oil is another remediation process that can also be used. It is very low cost and non-toxic were anybody with the proper researched directions could execute. During remediation process of vegetable oil, the vegetable oil exonerates the PAH’s or (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) out of the soil. Vegetable oil is place on the soil. The soil soaks it up and with time the harmful pollutants (mainly metals) are dissolved. This method is a great, low cost process that takes a fair time amount.

Saw dust is another potential remediation practices that can be further researched to become more effective. In our research we came across (Asadi, 2008) and how saw dust can remove lead, copper, cadmium and other heavy metal out of wastewater. Saw dust is a component that makes biopiles, which is an established remediation practice. Even though this technology of only saw dust has not been proven yet on soil, our group believes that eventually saw dust on its own can become an experimental practice for remediating our soil.

Recommendations

As far as remediation is concern, we recommend two practices that meet majority of the criterion. The first best practice for remediation that our group recommends is vegetable oil. We recommend this remediation project because based on its research it is non-toxic, weather approved, and a medium cost. We feel that this practice could remediate Detroit’s soil of the hydrocarbons.

Then our group recommends phytoremediation. Phytoremediation removes hydrocarbons and heavy metals including lead and copper. In addition phytoremediation it is very low cost. However, seasonal conflicts do play into a defect but we feel that if this remediation practice could be done at a steady part of the year, phytoremediation could actually be effective. Phytoextraction, in most studies (Garbisu, 2003) discussed that the subset of phytoremediation which is phytoextraction is the best way to remediate soil with heavy metals entirely.

Another recommend choice for a remediation practice would be saw dust. We feel based on article research it has not at this time to be proven to remediate the soil, but it has been proven to dissolve heavy metals like instance copper. Our group is just recommending the idea for experimental purpose gardening groups and Universities can research further in the future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our group believes that the research that we have conducted over the past several weeks pertaining to the best practices of soil testing and soil remediation is a stepping stone for other researchers, environmental groups, and environmental legislation to use for further analysis and additional research of the City of Detroit’s soil conditions. Our group has researched all possible outcomes of soil. We’ve also research the common pollutants found in the soil, how to detect those pollutants, and the remediation of those pollutants.

The best practices for soil testing that we researched, can be conducted by community groups and Universities. Soil remediation however was very difficult to research a practice that was non-professional ready. Most of the best practices that we researched are on its way to become non-professional ready or still in experimental phase for neighborhood soil.

References

http://www.mecx.net/papers/SOQs/MECX%20Environmental%20Consulting%20&%20%20Remediation%20SOQ.pdf</ref

http://www.terranovabiosystems.com/science/remediation-resources.html

bss.sfsu.edu/raquelrp/projects/515_ej/Krainzwood_ Detroit _MI.ppt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_in_Detroit

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soil+detroit+pollution&aq=f&oq=&aqi

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/Draft_ABCA_for_Detroit_Petro_sites_274728_7.pdf 

http://www.physics.wayne.edu/~srehse/Pb%20poster%20v2.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/deq

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-rrd-DS-ExecutiveSummary_282685_7.pdf  

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311_4109_9846-87388--,00.html

http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/placeholderone0007.aspx

http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/Departments/DepartmentofEnvironmentalAffairs/tabid/84/Default.aspx

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311_4109---,00.html

http://www.e-goldprospecting.com/html/pollution_caused_by_mining_.html 

 http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311-141852--,00.html

http://www.treehugger.com/daylesford-organic-garden-chelsea-.jpg

Salt, David, E; Blaylock, Michael; Kumar, Nanda, P.B.A.; Dushenkov, Viathcheslav; Ensley, Burt, D; Chet, Ilan; & Raskin, Ilya. Phytoremediation: A novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Nature biotechnology issues 13, pages 468-474. (1995). Retrieved from scholar.google.com.

Gong, Zongqiana; Alef, Kassem; Wilke, Berndt-Michael; and Li, Peijun. Activated carbon adsorption of PAHs from vegetables oil used in soil remediation. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Volume 143, Issues 1-2. May 8, 2007. pages 372-378. Retrieved from science direct.

Garbisu, C & Alkorta, I. Basic concept on heavy metal soil bioremediation. European Journal of Mineral processing and environmental protection. Volume 3 number: 1. Pages 58-66. 2003. Retrieved from scholar.google.com.

Williams, Clistenes; Nascimento, do, A; Amarasirwardena, Dula; and Xing, Baoshan. Comparison of natural organic acids and synthetic chelates at enhancing phytoextraction of metals from a multi-metal contaminated soil. Environmental pollution. Volume 140 issues number 1. March 2006. Pages 114-123. Retrieved from Science Direct.

Gong, Zongqiang; Wilke, B-M; Alef, Kassem; and Li, Peijun. Influence of soil moisture on sunflower oil extraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from a manufactured gas plant soil. Science of the total environment. Volume 343. Issues 1-3 may 2005. Pages 51-59. Retrieved form Science direct.

Asadi, Fatemeh; Shariatmadari, Hossien; and Mirghaffari, Nootallah. Modification of rice hill and sawdust sportive characteristics for remove heavy metals from synthetic solutions and waste water. Journal of Hazardous Material. Volume 154, issues 1-3. June 15, 2008. Pages 451-458. Retrieved from Science Direct.

Bento, Fatima, Menezes; Camargo, Flavio; Anastacio de Oliverira, Okeke, Benedict; Frankenberger-Junior, William, Tomas. Bioremediation of soil contaminated by diesel oil. Brazilian. Journal of Microbiology. Volume 34. November 2003. Retrieved from scholar.google.com.

Amezcua-Allier, Myriam, A; Lead, Jamie, R; and Rodriguez-Vazquez, Refugio. Impact of microbial activity on copper, lead, and nickel mobilization during the bioremediation of soil PAHs. Chemosphere. Volume 61 issue 4. October 2005. Pages 484-491. Retrieved from Science Direct.

Jorgensen, K, S; Rustinen, J; & Suortti, A, M. Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil by composting in biopiles Environmental Pollution. Volume 107 issues 2. February 2000. Pages 245-254. Retrieved from Science Direct.

Email Interview; David Slayton, Geology Specialist, Hazardous Waste Technical Support Unit, Hazardous Waste Section, Waste & Hazardous Materials Division, MDEQ 517-373-8012   slaytond@michigan.gov

Email Interview; William Hischke, Department of Environmental, City of Detroit; HischkeW@detroitmi.gov