Cargando…
Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment
Bioremediation of soils polluted with petroleum compounds is a widely accepted environmental technology. We compared the effects of biostimulation and bioaugmentation of soil historically contaminated with aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The studied bioaugmentation treatments compris...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036810/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32033085 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules25030661 |
_version_ | 1783500280195710976 |
---|---|
author | Brzeszcz, Joanna Kapusta, Piotr Steliga, Teresa Turkiewicz, Anna |
author_facet | Brzeszcz, Joanna Kapusta, Piotr Steliga, Teresa Turkiewicz, Anna |
author_sort | Brzeszcz, Joanna |
collection | PubMed |
description | Bioremediation of soils polluted with petroleum compounds is a widely accepted environmental technology. We compared the effects of biostimulation and bioaugmentation of soil historically contaminated with aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The studied bioaugmentation treatments comprised of the introduction of differently developed microbial inoculants, namely: an isolated hydrocarbon-degrading community C1 (undefined—consisting of randomly chosen degraders) and a mixed culture C2 (consisting of seven strains with well-characterized enhanced hydrocarbon-degrading capabilities). Sixty days of remedial treatments resulted in a substantial decrease in total aliphatic hydrocarbon content; however, the action of both inoculants gave a significantly better effect than nutrient amendments (a 69.7% decrease for C1 and 86.8% for C2 vs. 34.9% for biostimulation). The bioaugmentation resulted also in PAH removal, and, again, C2 degraded contaminants more efficiently than C1 (reductions of 85.2% and 64.5%, respectively), while biostimulation itself gave no significant results. Various bioassays applying different organisms (the bacterium Vibrio fischeri, the plants Sorghum saccharatum, Lepidium sativum, and Sinapis alba, and the ostracod Heterocypris incongruens) and Ames test were used to assess, respectively, potential toxicity and mutagenicity risk after bioremediation. Each treatment improved soil quality, however only bioaugmentation with the C2 treatment decreased both toxicity and mutagenicity most efficiently. Illumina high-throughput sequencing revealed the lack of (C1) or limited (C2) ability of the introduced degraders to sustain competition from indigenous microbiota after a 60-day bioremediation process. Thus, bioaugmentation with the bacterial mixed culture C2, made up of identified, hydrocarbon-degrading strains, is clearly a better option for bioremediation purposes when compared to other treatments. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7036810 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70368102020-03-11 Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment Brzeszcz, Joanna Kapusta, Piotr Steliga, Teresa Turkiewicz, Anna Molecules Article Bioremediation of soils polluted with petroleum compounds is a widely accepted environmental technology. We compared the effects of biostimulation and bioaugmentation of soil historically contaminated with aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The studied bioaugmentation treatments comprised of the introduction of differently developed microbial inoculants, namely: an isolated hydrocarbon-degrading community C1 (undefined—consisting of randomly chosen degraders) and a mixed culture C2 (consisting of seven strains with well-characterized enhanced hydrocarbon-degrading capabilities). Sixty days of remedial treatments resulted in a substantial decrease in total aliphatic hydrocarbon content; however, the action of both inoculants gave a significantly better effect than nutrient amendments (a 69.7% decrease for C1 and 86.8% for C2 vs. 34.9% for biostimulation). The bioaugmentation resulted also in PAH removal, and, again, C2 degraded contaminants more efficiently than C1 (reductions of 85.2% and 64.5%, respectively), while biostimulation itself gave no significant results. Various bioassays applying different organisms (the bacterium Vibrio fischeri, the plants Sorghum saccharatum, Lepidium sativum, and Sinapis alba, and the ostracod Heterocypris incongruens) and Ames test were used to assess, respectively, potential toxicity and mutagenicity risk after bioremediation. Each treatment improved soil quality, however only bioaugmentation with the C2 treatment decreased both toxicity and mutagenicity most efficiently. Illumina high-throughput sequencing revealed the lack of (C1) or limited (C2) ability of the introduced degraders to sustain competition from indigenous microbiota after a 60-day bioremediation process. Thus, bioaugmentation with the bacterial mixed culture C2, made up of identified, hydrocarbon-degrading strains, is clearly a better option for bioremediation purposes when compared to other treatments. MDPI 2020-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7036810/ /pubmed/32033085 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules25030661 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Brzeszcz, Joanna Kapusta, Piotr Steliga, Teresa Turkiewicz, Anna Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment |
title | Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment |
title_full | Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment |
title_fullStr | Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment |
title_full_unstemmed | Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment |
title_short | Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment |
title_sort | hydrocarbon removal by two differently developed microbial inoculants and comparing their actions with biostimulation treatment |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036810/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32033085 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules25030661 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brzeszczjoanna hydrocarbonremovalbytwodifferentlydevelopedmicrobialinoculantsandcomparingtheiractionswithbiostimulationtreatment AT kapustapiotr hydrocarbonremovalbytwodifferentlydevelopedmicrobialinoculantsandcomparingtheiractionswithbiostimulationtreatment AT steligateresa hydrocarbonremovalbytwodifferentlydevelopedmicrobialinoculantsandcomparingtheiractionswithbiostimulationtreatment AT turkiewiczanna hydrocarbonremovalbytwodifferentlydevelopedmicrobialinoculantsandcomparingtheiractionswithbiostimulationtreatment |