| Some researchers who have used Inipol, although I've no personal experience with this product, have reported anaerobic odors emanating from the sediments on which it was applied. One of my "specialties" is anaerobic degradation, I personally do not believe it is good to use organics to remediate organics because you increase the amount of substrate and, hence, the oxygen demand. (Carbon molecules are, by definition, organics.) If you want to increase the rate by ensuring that there are no nutrient limitations, I would suggest using an inorganic nutrient supply (i.e. - potassium phosphate, sodium nitrate, ammonium nitrate, etc...) Toxicity is not really something that I'm well versed in. I am familiar with some of the toxicity assays that are used by some researchers who perform oil degradation experiments. Our lab has used the Microtox assay and amphipod assays quite regularly over the past few years. |
.... toxicity issues regarding Inipol EAP 22 ?
Could you explain what anaerobic odors means?
Could the odor be from 2-butoxyethanol? ... breathing fumes is not good, health-wise per its MSDS
2-Butoxyethanol C6H14O2/CH3(CH2)2CH2OCH2CH2OH CAS Nr 111-76-2
(Another comments on use of surfactants/oil) *
| Anaerobic odors are typically amine (reduced nitrogen) or sulfide (reduced sulfur) that usually result when all the oxygen is depleted. Let me give some background, since it seems you may be new to these concepts: Carbon products + Oxygen = Carbon dioxide + water This simple equation is the basis for most bioremediation technology. When I say "=", I mean that a chemical reaction takes place and the carbon products are transformed into carbon dioxide, which is supposedly harmless. In addition, any nitrogen or sulfur compounds in the carbon products (there is usually always some small amount of N and S) will be "oxidized" to form NO3 (nitrate) and SO4 (sulfate) under these conditions. The dilemma occurs when there is not enough oxygen. Then the carbon products can be transformed by other processes that are "anaerobic" and which results in the formation of foul smelling products, amines and sulfides. |
My concern with INIPOL is that,
because it is a carbon based fertilizer, *
it adds more carbon to the system
and requires even more oxygen for complete degradation.
If INIPOL + Oil end up stranded on a beach, * what guarantee is there that there will be enough oxygen to transform all of that stuff to carbon dioxide and water? (NONE) By using inorganic fertilizer (no carbon) you don't need extra oxygen to breakdown the carbon in the fertilizer IN ADDITION TO the carbon from the crude oil. I think the reason that some people had for using it included the fact that, since it is carbon based it might mix with the oil better at sea and stay with the oil, rather than being in the water and becoming diluted. The problem with the inorganic fertilizers that I am in favor of using is that they dissolve rapidly in the water. If you use them in the ocean, they will rapidly be diluted and may not have a substantial effect in raising the concentration. I hope that you understand that many microorganisms require nutrients (N and P) to help metabolize the oil... without nutrients, it is difficult to bioremediate these products. RE: rate of biodegradation of ingredients in Inipol EAP 22? I suppose it might be very slow. Here in Texas we usually don't have that problem since the temperatures are adequate for bioremediation. It is well established that microbial activity drops significantly from 30 degrees C to 10 degrees C. At temperatures of 4 degrees C, most microbial activity ceases. Also it means that biodegradation is faster at higher temperatures. Web page |
________________________________________________________________
Lay opinion: Could it be that since Inipol EAP 22 is really a surfactant... only 'technically a fertilizer,'
that it was the 2-butoxyethanol that 'appeared' to clean the beaches... but by dry-cleaning - not bioremediating?
Because a lot of 'refined oil' is part of Inipol EAP 22 how does one know if microbes are eating the oil they are supposed to?
| They don't Note a 2003 study: "Only four yeast strains but none of the bacterial strains could grow with all hydrocarbons tested." at 10 degrees C (source) "HighWire Press, Internet Imprint of the Stanford University Libraries" |
By the way to get one phosphorus element, look what you have to add [C12H25(OC2H4)3O]3PO
How many carbons is that?
to abbreviated web contents - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill - workers 
"I am amazed that a Biochemist did not (apparently) have the opportunity of evaluating your Inipol product, before approving it for general use." - field & lab tested simultaneously * "In regard to C:N:P:S ratios, these are not appropriate. Further there are molecular "Keys", catalysts, micro nutrients to be considered as well. Surely, almost any Biochemist/Bacteriologist would know that" - per a Specialist in the bioremediation field. Exxon Ran Things |
'Twas an Experiment. Putting it nicely *
Regarding the lauded use of bioremediation
... in particular Inipol EAP 22
... It's not much of a fertilizer considering it has a C:N:P ratio of 62:5:1 *
The key: This was an Exxon product: per Exxon's MSDS for it 7-28-89
(Yes, then it was an Exxon product with MSDS produced by Exxon),
It may really be a "surfactant", * Phosphorus? really... *
but, by calling it a "fertilizer"
(which technically it could be considered to be),
there would be far greater public acceptance of it being sprayed onto a beach.
