Understanding Microbial Biofilms in Receiving Waters Impacted by Airport Deicing Activities (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A I R P O R T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M ACRP REPORT 115 TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration Subscriber Categories Aviation • Environment Understanding Microbial Biofilms in Receiving Waters Impacted by Airport Deicing Activities Dean Mericas Mead & Hunt, Inc. Austin, TX Paul Sturman Montana State unIverSIty center for BIofIlM engIneerIng Bozeman, MT Michelle Lutz Steve Corsi u.S. geologIcal Survey Madison, WI Chris Cieciek lIMnotecH, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI Josh Boltz cH2M HIll Tampa, FL Eberhard Morgenroth SwISS federal InStItute of aquatIc ScIence and tecHnology Dübendorf, Switzerland

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans­ portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and inter­ national commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects with other modes of transportation and where federal respon­ sibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Coopera­ tive Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop innovative near­term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon­ sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Coopera­ tive Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Pro­ gram. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subject areas, including design, construction, mainte­ nance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, and administration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport opera­ tors can cooperatively address common operational problems. The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100­Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports Council International­North America (ACI­NA), the American Associa­ tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research orga­ nizations. Each of these participants has different interests and respon­ sibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by iden­ tifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport pro­ fessionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels pre­ pare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooper­ ative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the intended end­users of the research: airport operating agencies, service providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work­ shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by airport­industry practitioners. ACRP REPORT 115 Project A02­32 ISSN 1935­9802 ISBN 978­0­309­30809­0 Library of Congress Control Number 2014952605 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not­for­profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not­for­profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Published reports of the AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national­academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ACRP Project 02­32 Project research team consisted of Dr. Dean Mericas, Mead & Hunt; Dr. Paul Sturman, Montana State University Center for Biofilm Engineering; Michelle Lutz, U.S. Geological Survey; Chris Cieciek, LimnoTech; Dr. Josh Boltz, CH2M HILL; and Dr. Eberhard Morgenroth, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Principal authors of this report were Dr. Mericas, Dr. Sturman, Ms. Lutz, Mr. Cieciek, and Dr. Boltz. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Steve Corsi for his assistance in the analysis and interpretation of field data; Troy Rutter, Peter Lenaker, and Austin Baldwin for their assistance with data collection efforts at the General Mitchell International Airport; and Bruce Shultz, Doug Bradley, and Derek Schlea for their assistance in data col­ lection and analysis efforts at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport. The project team would like to thank the members of the ACRP Project 02­32 panel for providing the opportunity to conduct this research. We would also like to thank all those who provided valuable infor­ mation for this report: Don Chapman at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, who shared his experiences and observations regarding biofilm control; Greg Failey at the General Mitchell International Airport; and Tom Ecklund and Roy Hawkins at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport who provided access needed to conduct the field investigations; and the General Mitchell International Airport and the U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Research Program for providing funds for the ancil­ lary data presented in this report. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorse­ ment by the U.S. government. CRP STAFF FOR ACRP REPORT 115 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Michael R. Salamone, ACRP Manager Joseph D. Navarrete, Senior Program Officer Terri Baker, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Kami Cabral, Editor ACRP PROJECT 02-32 PANEL Field of Environment Kevin A. Gurchak, Allegheny County (PA) Airport Authority—Pittsburgh International Airport (Chair) Bradley F. Blackwell, USDA/APHIS/WS National Wildlife Research Center, Ohio Field Station, Sandusky, OH Thomas R. Ecklund, Gerald R. Ford International Airport, Grand Rapids, MI Jill A. Greene, CDM Smith, Cambridge, MA Carol Litchfield, George Mason University, Arlington, VA Sarah L. Meiss, California University of Pennsylvania, California, PA Michael B. Tate, Kansas Department of Health & Environment, Topeka, KS Timothy C. Wentrcek, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, TX Al Fenedick, FAA Liaison Catherine Pociask, FAA Liaison Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison

ACRP Report 115: Understanding Microbial Biofilms in Receiving Waters Impacted by Airport Deicing Activities provides an introduction to the factors than can affect biofilm growth sometimes observed in streams that receive airport runoff containing deicers. While much research has been done on biofilm growth in streams in general, there has been limited investigation focused on the relationship between airport activity and biofilm growth. The issue is significant to many airports, since biofilm growth can sometimes reach a level where environmental regulatory action may be taken. The report will be of particular interest to airport environmental practitioners who wish to understand the relationships among key conditions affecting biofilm growth and what future research is needed to help the industry manage biofilm growth in situations where airport activity may be a contributing factor. Over the last several years, increased attention has been directed toward the occurrence of microbial biofilms at airport stormwater outfalls. The challenge to the aviation community for addressing this issue is significant, because microbial biofilm growth associated with deicing discharges is not currently predictable, the controlling factors are poorly understood, and the costs of treatment controls can be substantial. Airports and regulators need reliable information on what is and is not known about the factors contributing to the occurrence of microbial biofilms as a first step toward identifying measures to control them. The research, led by CH2M HILL, began with an extensive literature review and the identification of knowledge gaps. Next, four hypotheses were developed to examine the effect of light, phosphorus, physical stream characteristics, and nutrients on biofilm growth. The hypotheses were then tested using a combination of fieldwork, lab work, and model simulations. The research confirmed that readily biodegradable organic matter (i.e., chemical oxygen demand [COD]) and biological oxygen demand [BOD]) is the most influential factor affecting biofilm growth. The study concluded with the contractor identifying areas of future research that could help the industry obtain the information needed to better address biofilm growth around airports. Chapter 1 summarizes the issues associated with biofilm growth near airports, the research objectives, and report structure. Chapter 2 summarizes the contractor’s literature review, focusing on knowledge gaps. The steps taken to develop hypotheses are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the research protocol, including field data collection, laboratory studies, and modeling. A description of the research steps taken to test each hypothesis and the results are contained in Chapter 5. Recognizing that additional research is needed on the topic, the contractor provides a work plan for future research in Chapter 6. A listing of references cited in the report is also available. Details about the biofilm model used to support the research are provided in an appendix. F O R E W O R D By Joseph D. Navarrete Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

1 Summary 7 Chapter 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Nature of the Problem 8 1.2 Nomenclature 8 1.3 Research Objectives 8 1.4 Structure of This Report 9 Chapter 2 Summary of Literature Findings 9 2.1 Overview 10 2.2 Key Gaps in Information and Knowledge 14 Chapter 3 Testable Hypotheses 14 3.1 Hypothesis 1—Effect of Light on Biofilm Growth 16 3.2 Hypothesis 2—Potential for Phosphorus to Limit Biofilm Growth 17 3.3 Hypothesis 3—Impact of Physical Stream Characteristics on Biofilm Growth 19 3.4 Hypothesis 4—Identifying Nutrients Potentially Limiting to Biofilm Growth 21 Chapter 4 Materials and Methods 21 4.1 Field Data Collection 27 4.2 Laboratory Studies 30 4.3 Biofilm and Kinetic Model 33 Chapter 5 Hypothesis Testing Results and Conclusions 33 5.1 Hypothesis 1—Effect of Light on Biofilm Growth 42 5.2 Hypothesis 2/4—Nutrient Limitation on Biofilm Growth 51 5.3 Hypothesis 3—Impact of Physical Stream Characteristics on Biofilm Growth 55 5.4 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results 55 5.5 Concluding Observations 58 Chapter 6 Work Plan for Future Research 58 6.1 Field Investigations 59 6.2 Laboratory Studies 60 6.3 Modeling Tool Refinement and Application 61 References 64 Appendix A Acronyms and Abbreviations 66 Appendix B Biofilm Model Information C O N T E N T S