Bioremediation of soil contaminated by hydrocarbons with the combination of three technologies: bioaugmentation, phytoremediation, and vermiremediation
- 43 Downloads
The aim of this study was to evaluate the removal of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), alkanes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).
Materials and methods
Using phytoremediation (Panicum maximum) (G), vermiremediation (Pontoscolex corethrurus) (E), and bioaugmentation (encapsulated bacterial consortium) (B), individually and in combination, in contaminated soil by oil (PS) with sterilized (St) and non-sterilized treatments. Grass and earthworm biomass and the number of cocoons were determined after 112 days.
Results and discussion
The biomass of the P. maximum increased significantly from 1.7 to 2.6-folds overtime when it was cultivated in contaminated soil, either alone, in combination with earthworms, or with the bacterial consortium. After 112 days, the earthworm biomass significantly increased 2.0–2.6-folds with the highest increase in combination with the bacterial (PS+E+B), and its population increased from 4.9 to 8.5 times. P. corethrurus was not affected by the contamination so that deposition and hatch of cocoons (12–20) were observed. In sterilized treatments, no earthworms were detected after 112 days, which indicated that soil microorganisms are necessary for the earthworm’s survival and colonization. Most alkane and PAH removal occurred within 28 days; at 112 days, the alkane was 78.5–94.5% and the PAH 54.5–77.2% in non-sterilized soil. Panicum maximum treatment (SP+G) removed 74–99% of alkanes from C10 to C38 and also removed PAHs in 43–50% (2–3 rings), 46–90% (4 rings), 73% (5 rings), and 59% (6 rings) after 112 days. The combination of the grass with P. corethrurus and the bacterial increased the PAHs removal of 2 and 3 rings (54–62%), 4 rings (56–92%), 5 rings (80%), and 6 rings (70%) after 112 days. In non-sterilized treatments, the highest TPH removal was with earthworms plus bacterial (E+B) (86.4%), followed by E+G+B (82.7%) and B (82.6%).
The use of endogeic earthworms and plants species from the same contaminated field can be an efficient alternative for increasing hydrocarbon removal.
KeywordsEncapsulated bacterial consortium Oil contamination P. corethrurus Panicum maximum
Authors thank Teresa Mejía-Saulés and Miguel Jesús Cházaro-Basáñez for the grass taxonomic identification.
This research had financial support from “Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología” (CONACYT) Mexico through project 247619. The author F. Martínez-Rabelo received a grant from CONACYT (611559) to complete this research.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Adams GO, Fufeyin PT, Okoro SE, Ehinomen I (2015) Bioremediation, biostimulation, and bioaugmention: a review. Int J Environ Bioremediation Biodegrad 3:28–39Google Scholar
- Aguilera C (1980) Algunos datos sobre el chapopote en las fuentes documentales del siglo. Estud Cult Náhuatl Mex 4:335–343Google Scholar
- Ben Salem F, Ben Said O, Duran R, Monperrus M (2016) Validation of an adapted QuEChERS method for the simultaneous analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in sediment by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 96:678–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- CCME (2008) Canadian soil quality guidelines carcinogenic and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - scientific supporting document. Canadian Council of Ministers of the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
- Chachina SB, Voronkova NA, Baklanova ON (2015) Biological remediation of the engine lubricant oil-contaminated soil with three kinds of earthworms, Eisenia fetida, Eisenia andrei Dendrobena veneta, and a mixture of microorganisms. In: Procedia Engineering. pp 113–123Google Scholar
- Chaudhuri PS, Pal TK, Nath S, Dey SK (2012) Effects of five earthworm species on some physicochemical properties of soil. J Environ Biol 33:713–716Google Scholar
- Eilen AV, Gijsbert B, Terje F (1999) Guidelines for the risk assessment of contaminated sites. Norwegian Pollution Control AuthorityGoogle Scholar
- Gardi C, Angelini M, S. Barceló et al (2014) Atlas de suelos de América Latina y el Caribe. Comisión Europea. - Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea, L-2995, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- INEGI (2017) Guía para la Interpretación de Cartografía Edafología. http://www.inegi.org.mx. Accessed 20 Jul 2010
- Khorshid M, Souaya ER, Hamzawy AH, Mohammed MN (2015) QuEChERS method followed by solid phase extraction method for gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in fish. Int J Anal Chem 2015:352610Google Scholar
- Kumar A (2005) Vermis & Vermitechnology. S.B. Nangia & A. P. H. Publishing Corporation, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
- NOM-021-RECNAT (2000) Que establece las especificaciones de fertilidad, salinidad y clasificación de suelos. Estudios, muestreo y análisis. Secr. Medio Ambient. y Recur. Nat. 021Google Scholar
- NOM-138-SEMARNAT/SSA1-2012 (2012) Límites máximos permisibles de hidrocarburos en suelos y lineamientos para el muestreo en la caracterización y especificaciones para la remediación. D Of la Fed 16Google Scholar
- OPEC (2017) Online annual statistical bulletin. Organ Pet Export Ctries. ISSN 0475-0608Google Scholar
- Pižl V, Nováková A (2003) Interactions between microfungi and Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta) during cattle manure vermicomposting: the 7th International Symposium on Earthworm Ecology. Pedobiologia (Jena) 47:895–899Google Scholar
- Reinecke AJ, Van Wyk M, Reinecke SA, (2016) The Influence of Soil Characteristics on the Toxicity of Oil Refinery Waste for the Springtail Folsomia candida (Collembola). Environ Contam Tox 96:804–809Google Scholar
- Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH (1996) Chemical methods part 3. Soil Science Society of America, MadisonGoogle Scholar
- Sundara-Rao WVB, Sinha MK (1963) Phosphate dissolving microorganisms in the soil and rhizosphere. Indian J Agric Sci 33:272–278Google Scholar
- USEPA (1986) Test method for evaluating solid waste, SW-846, third. U.S. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Wolf DC, Skipper H (1996) Methods of soil analysis. Microbiological and biochemical properties. Part 2. Soil Science Society of America, Wisconsin, pp 1085–1122Google Scholar
- Zirbes L, Thonart P, Haubruge E (2012) Microscale interactions between earthworms and microorganisms: a review. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 16:125–131Google Scholar