SediMite was applied in two locations of Canal Creek, Aberdeen Proving Ground as part of an ESTCP-funded field pilot study to test the efficacy of activated carbon in remediating sediments in-situ.

Test and control plots were established in two portions of Canal Creek: a tidally-influenced freshwater marsh in the upper creek and a brackish creek channel in the lower portion of the water body.  Pre- and post-application samples were collected and analyzed to determine the effects of activated carbon on the bioavailability of PCBs, DDT, and methylmercury in sediments at these two locations.  Like Bailey's Creek, the porewater concentrations were used to determine the bioavailable fraction of the contaminants, while laboratory bioaccumulation assays were used to assess the site-specific uptake.

Activated carbon delivered via SediMite reduced the bioavailability and bioaccumulation of PCBs from Canal Creek sediments by greater than 80% and 90%, respectively, compared to the control plots.  Similarly, 80% reductions in DDT bioavilability were seen.  Bioaccumulation of methylmercury was reduced by approximately 50%.

Key References:

Gilmour, CC, GS Riedel, G Riedel, S Kwon, R Landis, SS Brown, CA Menze, U. Ghosh.  2013.  Activated Carbon Mitigates Mercury and Methylmercury Bioavailability in Contaminated Sediments. EnvironSciTechnol.  47(22): 13001-13010.

Menzie C, Amos B, Kane-Driscoll S, Ghosh U, Gilmour C. 2014. Evaluatingthe efficacy of a low-impact delivery system for in-situ treatment of sediments contaminated with methylmercury and other hydrophobic chemicals. ESTCP Environmental Restoration Project ER-200835. [cited 2014 November]. Available from: http://www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/ Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Sediments/ER-200835

Patmont CR, U Ghosh, P LaRosa, CA Menzie, RG Luthy,  MS Greenberg, G Cornelissen, E Eek, J Collins, J Hull, T Hjartland, E Glaza, J Bleiler, and J Quadrini.  2015. In Situ Sediment Treatment Using Activated Carbon: A Demonstrated Sediment Cleanup Technology. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 11(2): 195-207.