Journal of Applied Electrochemistry

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 579–588 | Cite as

Can electro-bioremediation of polluted soils perform as a self-sustainable process?

  • Silvia Barba
  • José Villaseñor
  • Manuel A. Rodrigo
  • Pablo Cañizares
Research Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

This work studies the effect of treatment period on remediation efficiency in an oxyfluorfen-polluted soil through electro-bioremediation technology. Five lab-scale experimental plants were started up simultaneously, operated under an electric field of 1.0 V cm−1 with a polarity reversal frequency of 2 day−1 and disconnected at different times (2, 4, 6, 11 and 24 weeks); these plants underwent post mortem characterization after their operation period. Various parameters were monitored in the electrolyte wells during the experiments. The obtained results indicate that despite the low reproducibility of pH and conductivity in the wells (not in soil), the main conclusions that can be drawn for the different plants are sound and hence have acceptable reproducibility. Polarity reversal allowed suitable conditions for microbial life in terms of pH, but nutrients were also depleted in the soil, which leads to a decrease in the total population of microorganisms during treatment. For treatment periods of less than 10 weeks, there was an appreciable population of microorganisms in the soil, which reached oxyfluorfen removal levels of up to 40%. Longer reaction times were ineffective, and this was related to the much lower concentration of microorganisms. In comparing these results to those obtained in conventional soil bioremediation technology, the application of polarity-reversed electric current led to an increase in the average removal of oxyfluorfen from 0.11 to 0.17 mg kg−1 day−1 but a much higher decrease in the active microorganism population from 88.0 ± 9.0 to 41.0 ± 6.0% of the initial seeded value.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Electro-bioremediation Pesticides Polluted soil Electrokinetic Bioremediation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and European Union through Project CTM2016-76197-R (AEI/FEDER, UE) is gratefully acknowledged. The FPI Grant BES-2014-069662 is also acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Gavrilescu M (2005) Fate of pesticides in the environment. Eng Life Sci 5:497–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chowdhury A, Pradhan S, Saha M, Sanyal N (2008) Impact of pesticides on soil microbiological parameters and possible bioremediation strategies. Indian J Microbiol 48:114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morillo E, Villaverde J (2017) Advanced technologies for the remediation of pesticide-contaminated soils. Sci Total Environ 586:576–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spanish Presidential Ministry (2005) Royal Decree 9/2005, of 14 January, which establishes the list of activities that potentially contaminate the soil and criteria and standards for the declaration of polluted soils. Span Off Bull 15:1833–1843 (in spanish)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) oxyfluorfen, EPA: 738-R-02-014Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sondhia S (2010) Persistence and bioaccumulation of oxyfluorfen residues in onion. Environ Monit Assess 162:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calderón MJ, Real M, Cabrera A, Koskinen WC, Cornejo J, Hermosín MC (2015) Influence of olive oil mill waste amendment on fate of oxyfluorfen in southern Spain soils. Clean Soil Air Water 43:1107–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tomei MC, Daugulis AJ (2013) Ex situ bioremediation of contaminated soils: an overview of conventional and innovative technologies. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 43:2107–2139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Virkutyte J, Sillanpaa M, Latostenmaa P (2002) Electrokinetic soil remediation—critical overview. Sci Total Environ 289:97–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodrigo MA, Oturan N, Oturan MA (2014) Electrochemically assisted remediation of pesticides in soils and water: a review. Chem Rev 114:8720–8745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yeung AT, Gu YY (2011) A review on techniques to enhance electrochemical remediation of contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 195:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wick LY, Shi L, Harms H (2007) Electro-bioremediation of hydrophobic organic soil-contaminants: a review of fundamental interactions. Electrochim Acta 52:3441–3448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramírez EM, Camacho JV, Rodrigo MA, Cañizares P (2015) Combination of bioremediation and electrokinetics for the in-situ treatment of diesel polluted soil: a comparison of strategies. Sci Total Environ 533:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barba S, Villaseñor J, Rodrigo MA, Cañizares P (2017) Effect of the polarity reversal frequency in the electrokinetic-biological remediation of oxyfluorfen polluted soil. Chemosphere 177:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cameselle C (2014) Electrokinetic remediation, costs estimation. In: Kreysa G, Ota K, Savinell RF (eds) Encyclopedia of applied electrochemistry. Springer, New York, pp 723–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moliterni E, Jiménez-Tusset R, Rayo MV, Rodriguez L, Fernández F, Villasenor J (2012) Kinetics of biodegradation of diesel fuel by enriched microbial consortia from polluted soils. Int J Environ Sci Technol 9:749–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mena E, Villaseñor J, Cañizares P, Rodrigo MA (2014) Effect of a direct electric current on the activity of a hydrocarbon-degrading microorganism culture used as the flushing liquid in soil remediation processes. Sep Purif Technol 124:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruiz C, Mena E, Cañizares P, Villaseñor J, Rodrigo MA (2013) Removal of 2, 4, 6-trichlorophenol from spiked clay soils by electrokinetic soil flushing assisted with granular activated carbon permeable reactive barrier. Ind Eng Chem Res 53:840–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mena E, Villaseñor J, Cañizares P, Rodrigo M (2016) Influence of electric field on the remediation of polluted soil using a biobarrier assisted electro-bioremediation process. Electrochim Acta 190:294–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mena E, Villaseñor J, Cañizares P, Rodrigo MA (2016) Effect of electric field on the performance of soil electro-bioremediation with a periodic polarity reversal strategy. Chemosphere 146:300–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gomes HI, Dias-Ferreira C, Ribeiro AB (2012) Electrokinetic remediation of organochlorines in soil: enhancement techniques and integration with other remediation technologies. Chemosphere 87:1077–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mena E, Barba S, Saez C, Navarro V, Villaseñor J, Rodrigo MA, Cañizares P (2016) Prescale-up of electro-bioremediation processes. In: Yesiller N, Zekkos D, Farid ADA, Reddy KR (eds) Geo-Chicago 2016: sustainable waste management and remediation. American Society of Civil engineers, Reston, VA, pp 264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu W, Wang C, Liu H, Zhang Z, Sun H (2010) A laboratory feasibility study on a new electrokinetic nutrient injection pattern and bioremediation of phenanthrene in a clayey soil. J Hazard Mater 184:798–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemical Engineering Department, Research Institute for Chemical and Environmental Technology (ITQUIMA)University of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain
  2. 2.Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Chemical Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations