remediation of crude oil and spent oil polluted soils using compost ...

CHAPTER 4 

RESULTS 

The pH values for crude oil and spent oil polluted soils before and after remediation are 

presented in Figs.l and 2. The range before remediation was frotn 6.25 to 6.31; 6.25 to 6.43 

for soils polluted with crude oil and those spiked with spent engine oil respectively and 6.09 

to 6.13 ; 6.09 to 6.22 respectively after remediation. TIle effect of applied compost 

technology varied from -0.155 to 7.751 % for soils polluted with spent engine oil and 7.96 to 

9.71% for those polluted with crude oil.

7.2 

7 

6.8 

1 

Q,l 

:J 6.6 

iii 

> 

J: 

a. 6.4 

6.2 

• Before spill 

• After remediation 

6 

5.8 

0 

7.2 

7 

6.8 

J: a. 

6.6 

6.4 

0 

III 

6.2 

6 



5.8 

5.6

4.1.2 Effect of compost induced remediation on soil electrical conductivity 

The electrical conductivity values for crude oil and spent oil polluted soils before and after 

remediation are presented in Figs.3and 4. The range before remediation was from 159.25 to 

150.5 ; 159.25 to 136 for soils polluted with crude oil and those spiked with spent engine oil 

respectively and 91.75 to 29.75 ; 91.75 to 91 respectively after remediation. The effect of 

applied compost technology varied from 23.44 to 55.52 % for soils polluted with spent 

engine oil and 29.82 to 21% for those polluted with crude oil.

300 

E 250 u 

~ 

>OJ 

.:; 

200 

~ 150 ;, 

"0 C0u 

iii 100 

u 

.-=: 

ti 

QI 

Li:i 50 



0 

Fig.3:Electrical conductivity 

rate 

in soils polluted by spent engine oil as influenced by applied compost 

250 

E 200 u 

'" 

~>OJ 

150 .:; 

~ ;, 

"0 C0 

u 100 

iii 

u 

.-=: 

ti 

QI 50 

Li:i 



0 

Fig.4: Electrical conductivity in soils polluted by crude oil as influenced by applied 

compost rate

The moisture content values for crude oil and spent oil polluted soils before and after 

remediation are presented in Table 4. The range before remediation was from 0 to 1 ; 1 to 2 

for soits polluted with crude oil and those spiked with spent engine oil respectively and 2.9 to 

22.2 ; 2.8 to 4.95 respectively after remediation. The effect of applied compost technology 

varied from 3370 to 2134 for soils polluted with spent engine oil and 989.6 to 1532.8 for 

those poHuted with crude oiL

TABLE 4: SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT CHANGES AT PRE-CONTAMINATION AND 

AFTER REMEDfATION PHASES 

Soil alone1 




Mean 

standard deviation 

1.00 

LOO 

1.00 

0.00 

0.75 

0.01 

After 

remCOI311Uu\ "/0) 

2 SOIL+ CRUDEOIL 

S+CD0-D-1 

S+CDO-0-2 

S+CDO-D-3 

S+CDO-0-4 

Mean 

standard deviation 

1 5.00 

t 4.00 

0 22.20 

t 2.90 

0.75 8.53 

0.01 0.09 

SOIL+CRUDEOIL+COMPOST 

675g 

S+COO-1-1 

t 

12.90 

S+CDO-1-2 

I 

11.5& 

S+CDO-1-3 

2 

11 

S+CDO-t-4 

t 

19 

Mean 

1.25 

13.62 

standard 

deviation 

0-01 

0.04 


810g 

S+CD0-2-1 

1 

19.80 

S+CDO-2-2 

S+CD0-2-3 

S+CDO-2-4 

1 

o 

1 

15.53 

14 

17.82 

Mean 

0.75 

16.79 


deviation 

0.01 

0.03 

5 SOIL+CRUDEOIL+COMPOST 945Q 

S+CDO-3-1 1 17 

S+CD0-3-2 1 25 

S+CDO-3-3 1 40.65 

S+CD0-3-4 1 16 

Mean 1.00 24.66 

standard deviation \) 

.f\ 1 

V.•.l..

~nje4 Contd: SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT CHANGES AT PRE-CONT AMINA TlON AND 

.POST"CONTAMJNATrON 

PHASES 


l080g 

S+CDO-4-1 

1 

19.20 

S+CDO-4-2 

8+CDO-4-3 

S+CDO-4-4 

1 

o 

1 

19.60 

13.40 

4.70 

Mean 

0.75 

14.23 


deviation 

0.01 

0.07 

SOIL+CRUDEOIL+COrvlPOST 

1215g 

S+CDO-5-1 

1 

26.30 

S+CDO-5-2 

1 

19 

S+CDO-5-3 

2 

21.20 

S+CDO-5-4 

1 

15.15 

Mean 

1.25 

20.41 


deviation 

0.01 

0.05 

8 SOIL+SPENTOIi. 

8+8EO-O-I 1 2.80 

S+SEO-O-2 1 3.00 

8+8EO-0-3 2 4.95 

S+SEO-0-4 1 4 

Mean 1.25 3.69 

standard deviation 0.01 0.01 

9 SOIL+SPENTOIL+COMPOST 675g 

8+8EO-l-l 0 19.78 

S+8EO-I-2 0 13 

8+8EO-I-3 1 17.80 

S+8EO-I-4 1 18.81 

Mean 0.50 17.35 


SOIL+8PENTOU,+COMPOST 

8IO!! 

S+8EO-2-1 

1 

16.83 

8+8 EO-2-2 

8+8£0-2-3 

8+8EO-2-4 

1 

o 

1 

19.78 

15.74 

18 

Mean 

0.75 

17.59 


deviation 

0.01 

0.02

SiN Sample codes Before spill After 

remediation 

11 SOIL+SPENTOfL +COMPOST 945g 

S+SEO-3-1 1 15 

S+SEQ..3-2 1 15.53 

S+SEQ..3-3 0 16.35 

S+SEO-3-4 1 16.83 

Mean 0.75 15.93 


12 SOlL +SPENTOIL +COMPOST 1080g 

S+SEQ..4-1 1 19.19 

S+SEO-4-2 1 19 

S+SEQ..4-3 2 18 

S+8EO-4-4 1 22 

Mean 1.25 19.55 


13 SOIL +SPENTOTL+COMPOST 1215g 

S+SEO-5-1 1 29 

8+SEO-5-2 1 21.20 

S+SEO-5-3 1 14.14 

S+SEO-5-4 1 25 

Mean 1.00 22.34 

standard deviation 0 0.06

- 

showed inverse relationships for c.ompost applied rate and %TPl-I reduction (y= -O.OO6x +

80 

Qii 

.::J:. 70 

lio 

.§. 60 

SO 

z 

0 40 

6 30 

:J 20 

cIoU 

Ill: 10 

:z: 0 

Q. 

I- 

0 tlO tlO tlO tlO tlO 

'#. w Ln 

,.... 0 Ln 0 Ln 

Vl ~ '

80 

70 

60 

~ 

c 50 

0 

tl 

::J 40 

•.. 

" GI 

:I: 30 

0.. 

~ 

20 

• Crude oil polluted soil 

• Spent engine oil polluted soil 

10 

0 

Fig.7: Comparative evaluation of reduction in total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) for soils 

polluted with crude oil and spent engine oil using compost technology

4.1.5 Effect of compost induced remediation on soil temperature 

The soil temperature 

values for soils polluted with crude oil and spent engine oil as 

influenced by natural attenuation is contained in Fig.S, the temperature values for soil 

polluted with crude oil influenced by remediation by compost technology is contained in 

Fig.9, while the temperature values in soil polluted by spent engine oil as influenced by 

remediation by compost technology is contained in Fig. 10. 

Results showed that the peak temperature in systems with applied cornpost rates from 675 to 

1215 g, either for spent engine oil polluted soils or crude oil polluted soils ranged from 39 to 

43°C. However, the peak temperature for polluted soils not treated with compost were less 

than 39°C.

Graph of Temperature against Remediation period 

for Soil, SOIL+SPENT ENGINE OIL, AND 

SOIL+CRUDE OIL. 

37 

CV 

~ 35 

:J 

+J 

eCV 

CII 33 

a. 

-+-Soil alone 

E 

~Soil (s)+SEO 

31 

~ 

•••••••Soil (S)+CDO 

29 

Remediation 

period 

Fig.S:Temperature of soils polluted by crude oil and spent engine oil 

attenuation 

as influenced by natural

Graph of Temperature against Remediation 

period for SOIL, SOIL+CRUDE OIL, SOIL+CRUDE 

OIL+COMP RATES 

37 

~Soilalone 

35 

___ Soil (s)+CDO 

CIJ 

••• 

::s -,-S+CDO+COMP 675 kg 

•••• 

nJ 33 

••• 

~S+CDO+COMP 810 kg 

CIJ 

a. 

••.••• S+CDO+COMP945kg 

E 31 _S+CDO+COMP 1080kg 

{Eo 

-+-S+CDO+COMP 1215kg 

29 

Remediation 

period 

Fig.9: Temperature 

technology 

in soils polluted by crude oil as influenced by remediation by compost

Graph of Temperature against Remediation 

period for SOIL, SOIL+SPENT ENGINE 

OIL, SOIL+SPENT ENGINE OIL+COMP RATES 

45 

43 

41 

39 

QI 

~ 

::s 37 ..., 

ns 

~ 

QI 

Do 

E 

35 

~ 33 

31 

29 

"'-Soil (S)+SEO 

-a-S+SEO+COMP 

~S+SEO+COMP 

~S+SEO+COMP 

_S+SEO+COMP 

-+-S+SEO+COMP 

675 kg 

810 kg 

945kg 

1080kg 

1215kg 

27 

25 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

Remediation 

period 

Fig.tO: Temperature in soils polluted by spent engine oil as influenced by remediation by 

compost technology

4.2.2 Effect of compost technology on seed germination for okro grown in crude oil and spent 

engine oil polluted soils

80 

70 

g 60 

tl 

~ 50 

CII 

till 

c 40 

"0:; 

III 

.. 

.2 30 

Qj 

E 

4.2.3 Effect of compost technology on seed germination for maiZe grown in crude oil and spent 

engine oil polluted soils

90 

80 

70 

~ 

U 60 

~ GI 

110 SO 

C 

+0 40 

IV 

•.. 

.2 

Qj 30 

E 

« 20 

10 

0 



Fig.12: Ameliorating effect of compost technology on toxicity to seed germination of maize 

induced by spent engine oil and crude oil

TABLE 5: SEED GERMINATION PROFilE FOR OKRO(Cochorous Argentia) and MAIZE(Zea mays l) 

GROWN 

IN SOIL NOT POLLUTED WITH OIL 

SOil SYSTEM NO OF NO OF SEED SEED SEED 

SEED GERMINATED GERMINATED% GERMINATION 

SOWN 

INHIBITION% 

SOlL-OOl 10 7 70 30 

SOlL-002 10 4 40 60 

SOIL-003 10 10 100 0 

SOlL-004 10 8 80 20 

MEAN 10 7.25 73 28 

STANDARD 0 2.5 2.5 25 

DEVIATION 

TABLE 6: SEED GERMINATION PROFILE FOR OKRO(Cochorous Argentio) GROWN IN SOIL POLLUTED WITH 

CRUDE Oil AND SPENT ENGINE Oil WITHOUT ANY REMEDIATION PROTOCOL 

SOil No. OF No. OF SEED SEED 

SYSTEM SEED GERMINATED GERMINATED% 

5+COO..Q01 

S+CDO..Q02 

5+(00-003 

$+(00-004 

MEAN 

STANDARD 

DEVIATION 

SOWN 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

o 

2 

2 

1 

o 

1.25 

0.96 

20 

20 

10 

o 

16.67 

SEED 

GERMINATION 

INHIBITION% 

80 

80 

90 

100 

87.5 

TOXICITY 

RELATIVE TO 

*CONTROl% 

72.60 

72.60 

86.30 

100 

82.86 

S+SEO-OOI 

S+SEO.()02 

S+SEO-OO3 

S+SEO-CQ4 

MEAN 

STANDARD 

DEVIATION 

o 

4 

1 

2 

1.75 

2.08 

100 

60 

90 

80 

83 

100 

45.2 

86.30 

72.60 

76.03 

KEY CDO=CRUDE 

all 

SEO=SPENT ENGINE OIL

TABLE 7: SEED GERMINATION PROFilE FOR MAIZE(Zeamays l) GROWN IN SOil POLLUTED 

WITH CRUDE OIL AND SPENT ENGINE Oil WITHOUT ANY REMEDIATION PROTOCOL 

SOIL NO OF NO OF SEED SEED SEED TOXICITY 

SYSTEM SEED GERMINATED GERMINATED% GERMINATION RELATIVE 

S+COO-OOl 

S+CDO-002 

SOWN INHIBITION% TO 

*CONTROl% 

97.26 

58.90 

5+COO-003 

S+CDO-OO4 

MEAN 

STANDARD 

DEVIATION 

1 

1 

1.75 

0.96 

10 

10 

17.50 

90 

90 

82.50 

86.30 

86.30 

82.19 

5+sEO-OO1 

5+5EO-002 

5+5EO-OO3 

S+5EO-OO4 

MEAN 

STANDARD 

DEVIATION 

10 2 20 80 97.26 

10 6 60 40 17.81 

10 2 20 80 97.26 

10 4 40 60 45.21 

10 3.5 35.00 65 64.39 

0 1.91 

KEY 

CDO=CRUDE 

Oil 

SEO=SPENT ENGINE OIL 

-------------------~=-~~~~~-~,-,~ 

*stands for unpolluted soil

TABLE 8: SEED GERMINATION PROFILE FOR OKRO(Cocborous Argentia) GROWN IN SOIL POLLUTED WI1 

CR1JDE OIL AND SPENT ENGINE OIL BlJT REMEDlATED WITH DIFFERENT APPLIED RATES OF 

COMPOSTEDORGANIC WASTE 

SOIL SYSTEM No. OF No. OF SEED SEED SEED TOXICITY 

SEED GERMINATED GERMINATED% GERMINA nON RELATIVE TO 

SOWN INHIBITION% "'CONTROL% 

"'CRUDE OIL 

SYSYEMS 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±O 4.75±O.26 47.5±O.26 52.52±0.26 34.93 

675 (57.84%) 

S+CDO+COMP· lO±O 3±O.08 30±0.08 70.00±O.O8 58.90 

810 (28.92%) 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±0 4.25±O.33 42.5O±O.33 57.5±0.33 41.78 

945 (49.58%) 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±0 3.5±0.3 35.00±0.3 65.00±O.30 52.10 

1080 (37.12%) 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±O 4.25±O.1 42.5O±O.1 57.5O±O.1O 41.78 

1215 (49.58%) 

*SPENT ENGINE 

OIL 

SYSTEM 

S+SEO+COMP- 10±O 4±0.16 40.00±0.16 60±O.l6 45.21 

675 (40.54%) 

S+SEO+COMP- 1O±0 3.25±0. I 32.50±0.1 67.5±O.1 55.48 

810 (27.03%) 

S+SEO+COMP- 10±0 2.5±O.1 25.00±O.1 75±O.1 65.75 

945 (13.52%) 

S+SEO+COMll- lO±O 5.75±O.O5 57.5±O.O5 42.5±O.O5 21.23 

~380 (72.08%) 

S+SEO+COMP- 10±O 5±0.I4 50±0.14 50±O.l4 31.51 

1215 (58.56%) 

KEY 

CDO=CRUDE 

OIL 

SEO=SPENT ENGINE OIL 

*stands for unpolluted 

soil

TABLE 9: SEED GERMINATION PROFILE FOR MAIZE(Zeamays L) GROWN IN SOIL POLLUTED WITH CRUDE OIL 

AND SPENT ENGINE Oil BUT REMEDIATED WITH DIFFERENT APPUED RATES OF COMPOSTEDORGANIC WASTE 

SOIL SYSTEM No. OF SEED No. OF SEED SEED SEED TOXICITY 

SOWN GERMINATED GERMINATED% GERMINATION RELATIVE TO 

INHIBITION% *CONTROL% 

·CRUDEOIL 

SYSYEMS 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±0 2.5±O.13 25.00±0.13 75.00±O.13 65.75 

675 (20.00%) 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±0 3±O.18 30±0.18 70.00±O.18 58.90 

810 (28.34%) 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±0 3.75±0.24 37.50±0.24 62.50±0.24 48.63 

945 (40.83) 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±0 4.25±0.15 42.50±0.15 57.5±0.15 41.78 

1080 (49.17%) 

S+CDO+COMP- 10±0 4±0.16 40.00±0.16 60.00±0.16 45.21 

1215 (44.99%) 

*SPENT ENGINE 

OIL 

SYSTEM 

S+SEO+COMP- 10±0 4.25±0.35 42.50±0.35 57.50%±0.35 41.78 

675 (35.11%) 

S+SEO+COMP- 10±0 6.25±0.17 62.5±0.17 37.5%±O.17 14.38 

810 (77.67%) 

S+SEO+COMP- 10±0 5.25±0.19 52.5±0.19 47.5%±O.19 28.10 

945 (56.36%) 

S+SEO+COMP- 10±0 6.25±0.13 62.5±0.13 37.5%±O.13 14.38 

1080 (77.67%) 

S+SEO+COMP- 10±0 6.25±O.1 62.5±0.1 37.5%±0.1 14.38 

1215 (77.67%) 

KEY *Control =Soil without spent engine oil, crude oil or compost 

treatment 

*stands for unpolluted 

soil 

KEY 

CDO=CRUDE 

Oil 

SEO=SPENT ENGINE OIL

4.2.4 Effect of compost technology on plant height for maize grown in crude oil and spent 

en~illeoil polluted soils

50 

45 

40 

35 

E 30 

~.•.. 

.s:. 25 

.'!P 

GI 

:t: 20 

15 • 7days MAIZE 

10 • 14days MAIZE 

5 

0 

QJ 

0 

LI'I 0 LI'I 0 LI'I 

.2 Vl 1.0 

, 00 en 0 N 

I I 

ro + 

.-l .-l 

0- 0- 0- t I 

Vl 

0- 0- 

c: w r-.. .-l q- 00 .-l 

'0 ~ ~ ~ 

~ ~ 

Vl 0 0 0 

u u u 0 0 

+ + + u u 

0 0 0 + + 

w w w 0 0 

Vl Vl Vl W W 

+ + + Vl Vl 

Vl Vl Vl + + 

Vl Vl 

Figure 13: Plant height of maize grown in unpolluted, 

soils 

spent engine oil polluted and remediated 

40 

35 

30 

E 25 

~.•.. 

.s:. 20 

.'!P 

GI 

:t: 15 

10 

5 

• 7days MAIZE 

• 14days MAIZE 

0 

QJ 

0 0 

LI'I 0 LI'I 0 LI'I 

c: r-.. 

W 0 

.-l q- 00 .-l 

0 Vl 

1.0 00 

U 

en 0 N 

t I 

, 

n; + .-l .-l 

Vl + 0- 0- 0- , 

I 

Vl 

0- 0- 

'0 ~ ~ ~ 

Vl 0 0 0 ~ ~ 

u u u 0 0 

+ + + u u 

0 0 0 + + 

0 0 0 0 0 

u u u 0 0 

+ + + u u 

Vl Vl Vl + + 

Vl Vl

12 

10 

8 

E u 

';t 

•.!!l 

Ql 

:E: 

6 

4 .7days 

2 

• 14days 

0 

Ql 

0 In 0 In 0 In 

C 

,.... 

W 

.-l q- 00 .-l 

0 In \.0 00 0'1 0 N 

I I I 

n; .-l .-l 

j; 

Q. Q. Q. 

cl.. cl.. 

° 

0 ~ ~ ~ 

~ ~ 

Vl 0 0 0 

u u u 0 0 

+ + + u u 

0 0 0 + + 

w w w 0 0 

Vl Vl Vl W W 

+ + + Vl Vl 

Vl Vl Vl + + 

Vl Vl 

14 

12 

10 

Eu 

8 

';t 

• Illl 

"Qj 6 

:E: 

4 .7days 

2 

• 14days 

0 

OJ 0 tlO Illl Illl tlO tlO 

C 0 

In 0 In 0 In 

0 

q- .-l q- 00 .-l 

U 

\.0 

n; 00 0'1 0 N 

+ Q. Q. Q. .-l .-l 

Vl 

Q. Q. 

° 

0 

~ ~ ~ 

Vl 0 0 0 ~ ~ 

u u u 0 0 

+ + + u u 

0 0 0 + + 

0 0 0 0 0 

u u u 0 0 

+ + + u u 

Vl Vl Vl + + 

Vl Vl

4.2.3.1 Ameliorating effect of compost technology on toxicity to plant height of okro in crnde 

oil and spent oil polluted soils as influenced by compost technolo1O'

140 

~ 

~ G.I 

:t: 

G.I 

tlO 

C 

",jj 

III 

.. 

120 

100 

80 

60 

.2 

Qj 

40 

E 

« 

20 

0 



Fig.17: Ameliorating effect of compost technology on toxicity 

oil and spent oil polluted soils by compost technology 

to plant height of okro in crude 

140 

120 

~ 100 

oIJ 

u 80 

~ G.I 

tlO 60 c 

",jj 

III 

.. 

40 .2 

Qj 

E 20 « 

0 



Fig.lS: Ameliorating effect of compost technology on toxicity to plant height of maize in crude 

oil and spent oil polluted soils by compost technology

5.1 DtSCUSSION 

The pH value stands for the degree of alkalinity or acidity of soil. The increase in soil pH 

values by applied compost technology, recorded in this study was attributed to possible 

release of alkaline substances from the compost. Electrical conductivity is a measure of total 

dissolved ions 

(cations + anions) in soil solution. Results on increased soil electrical 

conductivity suggests that the applied composts enhanced ions in soils solution. Soil moisture 

content is a soil fertility factor. Moist soils are more fertile than dry soils. Therefore increased 

soil moisture content by applied compost technology implies that compost technology in 

bioremediation has the potential to improve soil fertility, a good sign for increased food 

security. Results are consistent with the reports of Adekunle, (201O) 

The reduction of soil total petroleum hydrocarbon by the applied compost revealed that 

compost is a good a agent for degradation of hydrocarbons in soils. This perhaps involves the 

mechanism of microbial stimulation to increase indigenous soil microbial organism. The 

temperature 

profile in soils treated with compost which exceeded that in polluted soils 

without any treatment is an evidence that thermophilic microbes, which are known to be 

better hydrocarbon degraders were present in the composted treated soils, unlike the 

untreated soils where mesophilic microbes could have been present.

The applied compost irrespective of the rate 

ameliorated the toxicities of either crude oil or 

spent engine oil to seed germination and plant height. This was attributed to the fact that 

compost, being 

decomposed organic matter is characterized by nutrient such as nitrogen, 

phosphorus and potassium (Adekunle et aI., 2010), known to facilitate degradation of 

petroleum hydrocarbons 

in soil. Moreover, compost substrates stimulate the growth of 

microorganism. The soil temperature profiles (peak values) indicated the presence of 

thermophilic 

microbes, being found in the range of 39 to 43 u C (Adekunle and Adekunle, 

2006; Adekunle, 2009; Adekunle, 2010; Adekunle et aI., 2010). Thermophilic microbes 

constitute largely of bacteria which are reported as the dominant microbial agent of 

decomposition especially in static conditions as was the case in this study. 

• Composted organic wastes degraded total petroleum hydrocarbon in soil, released by 

spent oil and crude oil spill introduction to the soil media. 

• Applied composted wastes positively modified soil quality in terms of pH, 

temperature and electrical conductivity 

• Applied c.ompost technology ameliorated crude oil and spent engine oil induced 

toxicities to seed germination and plant height of maize and okro. 

• The efficacy of compost technology is a function of oil type, applied compost rate and 

plant species, the latter, ifthe remediated soil is intended for agricultural use.

It is recommended that further studies be conducted be conducted for a longer period oftime 

to achieve increaseq degradation of soil total petroleum hydrocarbon and the suitability of the 

remediated soil be tested on a wider variety of crops.

AdekunIe. T.M .• Adekunle. A.A .. Akintokun. A.K. Akintokun. P and Arowolo- Tj:. _ 

Recycling of organic wastes of Nigeria. origin for land applications via composting. Waste 

Manafl,ement & Research (in Press). Approximate page volume: 10 pages. 

Adekunle. I.M (20 I0) Bioremediation of soils contaminated with Nil!erian crude oil and diesel fuel 

using composted municipal wastes. Bioremediation Journal. Approximate page volume: 10 pages. 

AdekunIe. J.M (2009). Temperature Effect on Water Extractability of Cadmium. CopPer. Lead and 

Zinc from Composted Organic Solid Wastes of South-West Nigeria Int. J. Environ. Res. Public 

Health, MPDl, Switzerland, 6(9),2397-2407; doi: 1O.3390/ijerph6092397. 

Adekunle. I.M and Adekunle, A.A. (2006). Creating awareness on solid waste r~use as organic 

fertilizer in Nigeria Imobvare, E. (Ed). Proceedinfl,s C!f the 4 m Annual National Conference C!f the 

Senate on the Nifl,erianEnvironment, held at Port Harcourt, Nigeria, July 5 - 7, pp. 126-132. 

Agbogidi, O.M and Nweke, F.U. (2oo5a).Effects of crude oil polluted soil on the performance of 

Okra(Abelmoschus Esculentus,L.).Moench in Delta State.J.NatAfr Sci.vol.8(In press) 

Ajithkumar, P.V. Gangadbhara, K.P. Manilal, P. Kunhi, A.A.M.(1998).Bioremediation of PAHcontaminated 

soil via composting. Soil Biol.Chem.30 105326,2331-2334. 

AI-Daher, R, AI-Awadhi,. N. And EI-Nawawy, A.(1998).Bioremediation of damaged desert 

environment using windrow soil pile system in Kuwait. Environment international 24, 175-180. 

Alexander, M. (1994). Biodegradation and Bioremediation.PubIishers Academic Press, Inc. 

California, USA, pp, xi. 

Alloway, BJ and Ayres, D.C.(1993) Chemical Principles of Environmental Pollution. Chapman and 

Hall, New York, pp 291-299. 

Aminian, K. and Ameri S., 2000."Evaluation of the petroleum technology based dry soil barrier", 

JoumaIof Petroleum Science & Engineering, 26, Elsevier Science. 

Amro, M.M. 2004."Factors affecting chemical remediation of oil contaminated Water-wetted soil", 

Chemical Engineering and Technology, 27, No.8. 

Aplijalahti, JA., and Salkinoja-Salonen, M.s. (1984). Absorption -of pentachlorophenol(PCP) by bark 

chips and its role in microbial PCP degradation. Microbial Ecology 10,359-367. 

Aplijalahti, JA., and Salkinoja-Salonen, M.S. (1986). Degradation of polychlorinated Phenols by 

Rhodococcus chiorophenolicus. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 25,62-67.

April, T.M., Foght J.M. and Currah, R.S., (2000). Hydrocarbon degrading filamentous fungi isolated 

from flare pit soils in northern and western Canada. Can.J.Microb. 46(1): 38-49. 

Atlas, RM and Bartha(1973}, R. Fate and effects of polluting petroleum in the marine environment. 

Residue Rev.49 (0): 49-85. 

Atlas, R.M. (1981). Microbial degradation of Petroleum hydrocarbons, an environmental perspective. 

Microbol Rev.45: 180-209. 

Awobajo, SA (1981). An analysis of oil spill accidents in Nigeria: 1976-1980. In Proceedings of the 

petroleum industry and the Nigeria Environment. Nov., 19-22 1981, NNPC, PTI, Warri, Nigeria pp. 

89-94. 

Benka-Coker, M.O and Ekundayo JA, 1995. Effects of an oil spill on soil physic-chemical properties 

of a spill site in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria . Environ. Monitor.Access.,36:93-104. 

Bento, M. Fatima, Fla'vio A.O. Camargo, Benedict, C. Okeke, and William T. Frankenberger(2005). 

Comparative bioremediation of soils contaminated with crude oil by natural attenuation, 

biostimulation and bioaugumentation. Bioresource Technology, 96: 1049-1055. 

Betts, W.D (ED.), (1991). Biodegradation: Natural and synthetic Materials. Springer-Verlag, 

Germany. 

Boehm,P.D., Douglas, G.S., and Bro~ J.S..,(1995). Advanced chemical Fingerprinting for oil spill 

identifications and natural resource damage assessments. Proceedings of the American petroleum 

institute oil spill conference, API, Long Beach, California. 

Bradley, S.N., Hammill, T.B. and Crawford, R.L. (1997). Biodegradation of Agricultural chemicals. 

In: Manual of Environmental Microbiology, American Society of Microbiology, Washington, DC, 

USA, pp, 815-821. 

Caplan, JoA, (1993). The world-wide bioremediation industry: prospects for profit. Trds. Biotech. 

11 :320-323. 

CarriIIo=Castaneda, G..,Munos, JJ.•Peralta-Videa J.R., Gomez., E., Tiemannb, KJ., 

M.A. and Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. (2001)Adv. Environ. Res.(6) 391. 

Duarte-Gardea 

Chaillana, F., Flecheb, A., Burya, E., Phantavonga, Y., Saliot, A. And Oudot, J.(2004). Identification 

and biodegradation potential of tropical aerobic hydrocarbon-degradating microorganisms.Res. 

~crob. 155(7):587-595.

Chakrabarty, T., Subrahmanyam, P.V.R. afld Sundaresan, B.8., (1988). Biodegradation of recalcitrant 

industrial wastes. In Wise, D., Bio-treatment systems, Vo12.CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp.I72- 

')14. 

Chavneau .• C.H.• Yepremian, c., Vidalie., J.F., lJucreux, J. and Hallenm, U. ,LUU.:». lSlOremeaiaucn 

of a crude oil-POnuted soil: biodegradation. leaching sand toxicity assessments. Wat. Alr. ::SOILPoll. 

144: 41

Glick, B.R. and Holguin, G.(l998). In: T.H. Connor, et al.,(Eds.), Biotechnology International: 

II, University Medical Press, San Francisco, p.246. 

Gogoi, B.k., Dutta, N.N., Goswarni, P. and Mohan, T.R(2003).A case study of bioremediation of 

petroleum-hydrocarbon contaminated soil at a crude oil spill site. Adv. Environ. Res. 7:767-782. 

Green, B.T., Wiberg, C.T., Woodruff, J.L., Miller, E.w., Poage, V.L., Childress, D.M., Feulner, lA., 

Prosch S.A., Ruunkel, I.A., Wanderscheial, R.L., Wienna, D.M., Choe, T and Mecurio, D.S(1996). 

Phytotoxicity observed in Tradescantia correlates with fuel contamination in soil. Department of 

Biological Sciences, Mankato, USA.Doi: 10.1016/0098-8472(96)0 I0 13-1.voI 36(3): 313-321. 

Haggblorn, M.M., (1992). Microbial breakdown of halogenated aromatic pesticides and related 

compounds. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 103, 29-72. 

Holba, A.G., Dzou, L.I.P., Frank-.s,S.G., May, SJ and Lenney, T. 1996. Reservoir Geochemistry of 

South Pass 61 field, Gilf of mexico: compositional Heterogeneties Reflecting filling History and 

Biodegradation: Organic Geochemistry, V24: 1179-1198. 

Houghton, J.,(1996). Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution- Sustainable Use of Soil. Her 

M~jesty's Stationary Office (HMSO), UK. 

Huang, X.D., Glick, B.R. and Greenberg, M.B. In: B.M. Greenberg, etal.,(Eds), (2001) Environmental 

Toxicity and Risk Assessment. Tenth volume ASTM,p.271. 

Joyce, J.F., Sato, C., Cardenas, R. And Surampalli, R.Y., (1998). Composting of polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons in simulated municipal solid waste. Water Environmental Research 7:, 356-361. 

Kastner, M., Lotter, S., Heerenklage, J., Breuer-Jammali, M., Stegmann, R. and Maheo, 

B.,(1995).Fate of 14C-LabeUed anthracene and hexadecane in compost-manured soil. Applied 

Microbiology and Biotechnoology 43: 1128-1135. 

Lame, M.M., and jurgensen, K.S.. (1997b). Effective an~ safe composting of chlorophenol 

contaminated soil in pilot scale. Environmental Science and Technology 31:37 1-378. 

Lame, M.M., Haario, H. and jurgensen, K.S.(l997a). Microbial functional activity during composting 

of chlorophenol-contaminated sawmills soil. Journal of Microbiological Methods 30: 21-32.

Lame, M.M., and Jurgensen, K.S., (1996). Straw c.ompost and bioremediated soil as inocula for the 

bioremediation of chlorophenol-contaminated soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 62:, 

1507-1513. 

Mesarch, M.B., Nakatsu, CM. and Nies, L. (2000).Development of catechol 2, Deoxygenase-specific 

primers for monitoring bioremediation by competitive quantitive PCR.Appl. Environ. Microb. 

66(2):678-690. 

Mueller, J.G., Resnick, S.M., Shelton, M.E. and Pritchard, P.H.(1992). Effects of inoculation on the 

biodegradation of weathered Prudhoe Bay crude oil. J.Indst. Microb.l0: 95-102. 

Prince, R.C.(1993).Petroleum spill bioremediation in marine environments. Crit. Rev. Microb. 19: 

217-242. 

Pye, V.I. and Patrick, R.(1983). Ground water contamination in the United States. Science. 221: 713- 

71S. 

Saudi Aramco, 2001. Guidelines for the Use of Oil Spill Dispersants in the Gulf Area, Gulf Area Oil 

Companies Mutual Aid Organisation(CAOCMAO). 

Singsaas 1., Reed M. And P.S. Daling (2000). SPE Paper 61117, presented at the SPE int. Conf. On 

health, safety and the environment in oil and gas exploration and production, Stavanger,(Norway), 26- 

2& June. 

Snape, I., Riddle, MJ., Stark,J.S., Cole, C.M., King, C.K., Duquesne, S. And Gore, D.B.(2001). 

Management and remediation of contaminated sites at Casey Station, Antarctica, Polar Rec. 37:199- 

214. 

Spence, JM., Bottrell, SR., Thornton, S.F., Richnow, HR. and Spence, K.H.(2005). Hydrochemical 

and isotopic effects associated with petroleum fuel biodegradation pathways in a chalk aquiferJ. 

Contam.Hydrol. 79:67-88. 

Sugiura, K., Ishihara, M., Shimauchi, T. and Harayama, S. (1997). Physicochemical properties and 

biodegradability of crude oil. Environ. Sci. Tech.31 :45-51. 

Laboratory evaluation of crude oil biodegradation 

Can.J. Microb.45(2):106-115. 

with commercial or natural microbial inocula.

Timmis, K.N., Yakimov, M.M. and Golyshin, P.N. (I 998}. Hydrocarbonoclastic Bacteria:Novel 

Marine Bacteria that grow only on oil. Scientific Annual Report, German National Research Centre 

for Biotechnology (GBF), Germany,pp.21-26. USEPA(200 I}. United States Environmental Protection 

Agency.Understanding Oil Spills and Oil Response. 

Van Hamme, J.D., Singh,A. and Ward, O.P.(2003}.Recent advances in petroleum microbiology. 

Microh. Mol.Bioi. Rev.67:503-549. 

Vogel, T.M.(J996}.Bioaugmentation 

316 

as asoil bioremediation approach. Curro Opin. Biotechn.7:311- 

Westlake, D.W.S.(1982}. Microorganisms and the degradation of oil under northern marine 

conditions. ]n: Oils and dispersants in Canadian seas- research appraisal and recommendations. 

Publication EPS-3-EC-82-2. Environmental Protection service Canada, Sprague Jb, Vandermeulen 

JH, WellsPG(editors}, Ottawa, Canada, pp.47-50. 

Whittaker, M., Pollard, SJ.T. and Risden, G. (1999). The fate of heavy oil wastes in soil microcosms 

II: a performance assessment of source correlation indices. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2:23-34. 

Zengen, K., Richnow, H.H., Rosello-Mora, R., Michaelis, Wand Wide!, F.(l999). Methane formation 

from long chain alkanes by anaerobic microo~ganisms. Nature 401, 266-269.

TABLE 2: MEAN SO~ 

pH VALVES, BEFORE SPILL AND 

AFTER REMEDIATION USTl'!G COMPOST TECHNOLOGY 

SIN Sample code pH values 

Before spill 

After 

remediation 

Unpolluted 


1 Soil only 6.25±O.O5 6.09±O.13 

Spent engine 

oil series 

2 Soil+SEO 6.43±O.O3 6.22±O.O9 

3 Soil+SE0+675g 6.43±O.O9 6.42±O.27 

4 SOIL+SEO+810g 6.3±O.l8 6.66±O.13 

5 SOIL+SEO+945g 6.41±O.O9 6.67±O.27 

6 SOIL +SEO+ 1080g 6.42±O.17 6.63±O.l1 

7 SOIL+SEO+1215g 6.45±O.O3 6.95±O.23 

, Crude oil 

series 

8 SOIL+CDO 6.31±O.1 6.13±O.39 

9 SOIL+CD0+675g 6.28±O.12 6.78±O.l7 

10 SOIL+CD0+810g 6.38±O.O3 6.85±O.O9 

11 SOIL +CDO+945g 6.47±O.1 6.75±O.O9 

12 SOIL+CDO+ 1080g 6.31±O.2 6.8±O.24 

. 

13 SOlL+cDO+1215g 6.38±O.18 7±O.19

SIN SAMPLE CODE Electrical conductivity (JtS/cm) 

Before spill 

After remediation 

Unpolluted 


1 Soil only 159.25±9.25 91.75±7.59 

Spent engine 

oil series 

2 Soil+SEO 150.5±9.88 

.- +---._ . 

91±12.19 

3 Soil+SE0+675g 152.5±20.73 188.25±32.28 

4 SOIL +SE0+81 Og 160.5± 16.34 182±10.58 

5 SOIL+SEO+945g 148±8.91 213±20.3 

6 SOIL +SEO+ 1080g 143.25±15.31 182.75±39.91 

7 SOIL+SEO+ 1215g 156.25±11.44 243±56.87 

Crude oil 

series 

8 SOIL+COO I36±22.21 29.75±8.34 

9 SOIL +CDO+675g 151.75±6.65 197±80.74 

- 

10 SOIL+CDO+810g I57.5±8.39 175.5±25.68 

11 SOIL+CD0+945g 138.25±12.18 177.5±14.89 

12 SOIL+CDO+ 1080g 152±16.51 187±38.8 

13 SOIL+CDO+1215g 160.5±15.93 194.25±25.9 .

Appendix 3: 

TABLE 11: TEMPERATURES FOR SOIL, SOIL+CDO, SOIL+SEO, SOIL+CDO+COMP 

RATES. SOIL+SEO+COMP R4..TES 

1 2 3 4 S 8 9 10 12 15 16 17 

Soil alone 37.45 37.56- 35.06 38.38 35.95 39.03 38.25 40.11 39.79 39.65 37.39 37.5: 

Soil (s)+CDO 35.92 36.25 34.44 37.18 35.48 37.75 36.64 36.81 37.04 36.85 35.5 34.9: 

S+CDO+COl\tP 675 36.38 36.58 34.5 37.83 34.91 36.94 36.69 38.76 39.65 39.56 37.93 36.7' 

kg 

S+CDO+COMP 810 36.75 37.34 35.44 37.45 36.16 38.19 37.54 38.25 39.48 38.79 36.44 36.21 

kg 

S+CDO+COMP 37.42 37.56 35.63 38 36.84 39.21 37.98 38.85 41.5 38.61 37.65 36.0! 

945kg 

S+CDO+COMP 37.67 37.63 35.56 38.78 36.9 38.96 38.3 38.09 39.35 38.14 37.29 36.6! 

1080kg 

S+CDO+COMP 37.08 36.81 35.49 37.9 37.1 39.39 38.75 38.31 38.98 37.84 36.3: 

1215kg 

16 17 19 22 23 26 29 30 31 33 

Soil alone 37.39 37.53 36.35 37.94 35.79 36.09 36.85 37.56 39.19 32.31 

Soil (s)+CDO 35.5 34.91 34.68 35.13 34.99 35.89 34.83 37.1 37.61 31,46 

S+CDO+COMP 37.93 36.74 35.59 37.33 36.25 36.23 35.71 37.89 38.63 32.46 

675 kg 

S+CDO+COMP 36.M 36.28 35.76 36.95 35.74 36.09 35.24 37.65 37.43 32.31 

810 kg 

S+CDO+COMP 37.65 36.05 35.49 37.41 36.11 35.55 37.41 37.71 32.44 

945kg 26 

S+CDO+COMP 37.29 36.65 35.7 36.88 35.9 36.15 35.66 37.94 37.81 32.35 

1080kg 

S+CDO+COMP 37.84 36.31 35.79 37.93 35.98 36.26 35.64 37.79 38.05 32.34 

1215kg

1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 12 15 16 

Soil alone 37.45 37.56 35.06 38.38 35.95 39.03 38.25 40.11 39.79 39.65 37.39 

Soil (S)+SEO 36.54 36.63 35.06 38.25 35.95 38.34 37.16 37.33 38.33 36.53 35.28 

S+SEO+COMP 37.88 37.63 36 38.84 37.75 38.46 38.09 42.04 41.43 40.81 38.04 

675 kg 

S+SEO+COMP 37.83 37.81 36.13 38.9 37.85 39.3 38.34 42.2 40.86 40.74 38.24 

810 kg 

S+SEO+COMP 38.75 38.06 36.38 40.21 38.43 40.04 39.5 41.96 41.59 41.15 38.15 

945kg 

S+SEO+COMP 38.71 37.94 36.63 39.81 38.49 40.21 39.86 38.875 40.04 38.4 36.14 

1080kg 

S+SEO+COMP 37.13 37.31 35.69 38.31 37.29 38.1 38.53 37.61 38.54 37.16 35.78 

1215kg 

17 19 22 23 24 26 29 30 31 33 

Soil alone 37.53 36.35 37.94 35.79 37.18 36.09 36.85 37.56 39.19 32.31 

Soil (S)+SEO 34.48 33.75 35.41 35.01 36.56 35.7 35.5 36.88 36.73 31.94 

S+SEO+COMP 37.98 37.7 37.85 34.9 39.05 37.91 37.84 40.63 40.35 32.66 

675 kg 

S+SEO+COMP 38.83 37.63 38.19 36.88 38.85 37.78 37.63 40.93 40.03 32.43 

810 kg 

S+SEO+COMP 38.74 37.91 . 38.6 36.83 38.88 38.06 37.66 40.75 39.95 32.6 

945kg 

S+SEO+COMP 36.2 36.64 37.14 36.4 37.83 37.21 36.53 39.6 38.84 32.24 

1080kg 

S+SEO+COMP 35.36 35.25 35.38 34.9 36.44 35.6 35.5 36.84 37.36 32 

1215kg 

1 2 3 4 5 g 9 10 12 15 161 

Soil 37.45 37.56 35.06 38.38 35.95 39.03 38.25 40.11 39.79 39.65 37.: 

alone 

Soil 36.54 36.63 35.06 38.25 35.95 38.34 37.16 37.33 38.33 36.53 35.: 

(s)+SEO 

Soil 35.92 .36.25 34.44 37.18· 35.48 37.75 36.64 36.81 37.04 36.85 35.! 

(S)+CDO 

&2

Soil 17 19 22 23 24 26 29 30 31 33 

alone 

Soil 37.53 36.35 37.94 35.79 37.18 36.09 36.85 37.56 39.19 32.31 

{s)+SEO 

Soil 34.48 33.75 35.41 35.01 36.56 35.7 35.5 36.88 36.73 31.94 

(S)+CDO 

34.91 34.68 35.13 34.99 36.9 35.89 34.83 37.1 37.61 31.46 

Appendix 4: 

TABLE 12: TABLE FOR PLANT HEIGHT 

FOR SOIL ALONE 

AT70AYS 

MAJZE 

OKRO 

MAIZE 

OKRO 

14.25±1.26 

7.75±2.06 

34.5±7.55 

10.5±0.58 

TABLE 13: TABLE FOR PLANT HEIGHT FOR SOIL+SPENT ENGINE OIL WITHOUT 

COMPOST 

AT70AYS 

MAIZE 

OKRO 

18±5.6 3.5±4.36 

AT 14 DAYS 

MAIZE 

OKRO 

29.25±7.14 5.25±6.7 

TABLE 14: TABLE FOR PLANT HEIGHT FOR SOIL+ SPENT ENGINE OIL+COMP 

RATES 

AT7DAYS 

AT 14 DAYS 

MAIZE OKRO MAIZE OKRO 

S+SEO+COMP645g 23.75±1.71 4.75±3.3 33±6.06 6.75±4.72 

S+SEO+COMP810g 21.5±2.52 4.75±1.71 36.1±7.79 8.5±3.11 

S+SEO+COMP945g 23.75±1.26 5±1.63 37.63±7.11 7.35±1.88 

S+SEO+COMPI080g 23.75±1.71 6.25±O.5 33.25±1.26 9.95±1.55 

S+SEO+COMPI215g 27.5±1.91 6.5±1.29 44±8.6 11±1.63

AT7DAYS 

MAIZE 

OKRO 

MAIZE 

OKRO 

14.25±1.26 

7.75±2.06 

34.5±7.55 

10.5±0.58 

MAIZE 

OKRO 

MAIZE 

OKRO 

5.5±6.81 

O±O 

17.25±10.53 

3.25±3.77 

AT7DAYS 

AT 14 DAYS 

MAIZE OKRO MAIZE OKRO 

S+CDO+COMP645g 15.25±1.5 5.25±3.1 25.75±7.41 11.63±2.63 

S+CDO+COMPSIOg 17.25±2.63 7.25±O.5 26.75±10.84 9.5±1.73 

S+CDO+COMP945g 17.5±4.93 6±1.41 27.25±9.64 9.5±1.29 

S+CDO+COMPI080g 23±3.56 6.75±1.5 33±9.2 9.5±1.73 

S+CDO+COMPt21Sg 23.75±2.99 7.25±1.71 33.38±2.29 1O.88±2.66

TABLE 17: TABLE FOR % TPH REDUCTIION(mglkg) FOR SPENT ENGINE OIL 

SIN Sample no Absorbance Concentratio %TPH 

nppm 

REDUCTION(mg/kg 

l 

1 Soi1+SEO 0.09 11500 71.69811 

2 Soil+SEO+COMP675g 0.11 15277.77778 65.40881 

3 Soi1+SEO+COMP810g 0.08 11111.11111 74.84277 

4 Soil+SEO+COMP945g 0.1 13888.88889 68.55346 

5 Soil+SEO+COMPJ 080 0.17 23611.11111 46.54088 

g 

6 Soil+SEO+COMP 1215 0.08 11111.11111 74.84277 

g 

7 IMMEDIATE SEO 0.318 44166.66667 

Concentration 

ppm 

%TPH 

REDUCTlON{mg!kg) 

1 Soil+CDO+COMP675g 0.19 26388.89 47.22222 



4 Soil+CDO+COMPI080g 0.29 40277.77778 12.12121 

5 Soil+CDO+COMPI215g 0.18 25000 50 

6 IMMEDlA TE COO 0.33 50000

Soil only 

soil+SEO 

SOIL+CDO 

SoD+SE0+67Sg 

SOIL+SE0+810g 

SOIL+SEO+94Sg 

SOIL+SEO+ l080g 

SOIL+SEO+121Sg 

Electrical conductivity 

factors of decrease 

42.38618524 

39.53488372 

78.125 

factors of increase 

23.44262295 

13.39563863 

43.91891892 

27.57417103 

55.52 

SOIL+CD0+67Sg 

SOIL+CDO+810g 

SOIL+CD0+94Sg 

SOIL+CDO+ l080g 

SOIL+CDO+121Sg 

29.81878089 

11.42857143 

28.39059675 

23.02631579 

21.02803738 

SOIL 

pH 


SoDomy 

2.56 

soil+SEO 

3.265941 

SOIL+CDO 2.852615 

factors of 

increase 

SOIL+SE0+810g 

SOIL+SE0+94Sg 

SOIL+SEO+I080g 

SOIL+SEO+ 121Sg 

5.71429 

4.05616 

3.27103 

1.75194 

SOll..+CD0+675g 


SOIL+CD0+945g 


7.96178 

7.36677 

4.32767 

7.76545

MOISTURECONTENT 


SoUonly 

factors of increase 

soil+SEO 195.2 

SoU+SE0+67Sg 3370 

SOIL+SE0+810g 2245.333333 

SOIL+SEO+94Sg 2024 

SOIL+SEO+l080g 1464 

SOIL+SEO+121Sg 2134 

SOIL+CDO 1037.333333 

SOIL+CD0+67Sg 989.6 

SOIL+CD0+810g 2138.666667 

SOIL+CD0+94Sg 2366 

SOIL+CD0+1080g 1797.333333 

SOIL+CDO+121Sg 1532.8

remediation of crude oil and spent oil polluted soils using compost ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?