Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 51, Issue 9, pp 1111–1117 | Cite as

Assessing the Efficiency of Humic Substances as Washing Agents for Oil–Contaminated Soils and Peats under Model Experimental Conditions

  • M. S. RozanovaEmail author
  • O. I. Mylnikova
  • O. I. Klein
  • O. I. Filippova
  • V. A. Kholodov
  • E. L. Listov
  • N. A. Kulikova
Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils


Two humic preparations of different origins have been compared as washing agents for oil-contaminated soils and peat under model experimental conditions using a sample from the plow horizon of soddypodzolic soil artificially contaminated with oil or diesel fuel and a sample of high-moor peat contaminated with crude oil because of a spill occurred 15 years ago. Soil and peat were washed by shaking with solutions of the humic preparations Gumat Sakhalinskii and Lignogumat in a 1: 10 (m/v) ratio. Control samples were washed with distilled water. Washing with a synthetic surfactant (sodium dodecyl sulfate) was also added to the experimental design. After washing, soil and peat samples were air-dried and used for the determination of the total content of petroleum hydrocarbons; the characterization of their hydrocarbon composition; and the assessment of hydrophobicity from the contact angle and the efficiency of colonization by oil-destructing microorganisms Rhodococcus sp. and Candida sp., which are components of the preparation Bioros recommended for oil contaminations. It has been shown that the extraction efficiency of petroleum hydrocarbons by humic preparations did not differ from the extraction efficiency by water and was less than that by sodium dodecyl sulfate in all cases. No appreciable changes in the contact angles of soil and peat have been observed at the use of water and humic preparations as washing agents, while the contact angle decreased to less than 90o after washing with sodium dodecyl sulfate, which indicated the hydrophobicity of the surface of substrate particles. It has been found that humic preparations favor the colonization of soil and peat by oil-destructing microorganisms Rhodococcus sp. and Candida sp. Based on the obtained results, humic preparations have been recommended for further study as preparations favoring the ability of oil-destructing microorganisms to colonize oil-contaminated substrates.


humic acids remediation oil-oxidizing microorganisms 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Classification and Diagnostics of Soils of the Soviet Union (Kolos, Moscow, 1977) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu. I. Pikovskii, Natural and Technogenic Fluxes of Hydrocarbons in the Environment (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1993) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    PND F 16.1; 2.2.22-98: Measurement of Mass Fraction of Petroleum Products in Mineral, Organic, and Organomineral Soils and Bottom Sediments by IR Spectroscopy, Approved on November 10, 1998 (State Committee of Russian Federation on Protection of Environment, Moscow, 1998) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Practical Manual on Agrochemistry, Ed. by V. G. Mineev (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 2001) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. O. Samsonov, G. S. Akopova, S. I. Kozlov, and E. L. Listov, RF Patent No. 2384616, Byull. Izobret., No. 8 (2010).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. A. Kholodov, N. V. Yaroslavtseva, M. A. Yashin, A. S. Frid, V. I. Lazarev, Z. N. Tyugai, and E. Yu. Milanovskiy, “Contact angles of wetting and water stability of soil structure,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 48, 600–607 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Calvo, M. Manzanera, G. A. Silva-Castro, I. Uad, and J. González-López, “Application of bioemulsifiers in soil oil bioremediation processes. Future prospects,” Sci. Total Environ. 407 (12), 3634–3640 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Conte, R. Spaccini, and A. Piccolo, “Distribution of a C-13-labeled hydrophobic tracer over humic fractions of different size and composition,” Fresenius Environ. Bull. 13 (3), 238–243 (2004).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. M. Falatko and J. T. Novak, “Effects of biologically produced surfactants on the mobility and biodegradation petroleum-hydrocarbons,” Water Environ. Res. 64 (2), 163–169 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. W. Farrington, “Oil pollution in the marine environment II: fates and effects of oil spills,” Environment 56 (4), 16–31 (2014).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. M. Fedorak and D. W. S. Westlake, “Degradation of aromatics and saturates in crude oil by soil enrichments,” Water Environ. Res. 16, 367–375. 1981).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Fukushima, M. Terashima, and H. Yabuta, “Interactions between humic substances and hydrophobic organic pollutants and their applications to soil remediation,” Bunseki Kagaku 60 (12), 895–909 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Gadad and M. A. Nanny, “Influence of cations on noncovalent interactions between 6-propionyl-2-dimethylaminonaphthalene (PRODAN) and dissolved fulvic and humic acids,” Water Res. 42 (19), 4818–4826 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. E. Hoeppel, R. E. Hinchee, and M. F. Arthur, “Bioventing soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons,” J. Ind. Microbiol. 8, 141–146 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. J. Macnaughton, J. R. Stephen, A. D. Venosa, G. A. Davis, Y. J. Chang, and D. C. White, “Microbial population changes during bioremediation of an experimental oil spill,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65 (8), 3566–3574 (1999).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Mohanty, J. Jasmine, and S. Mukherji, “Practical considerations and challenges involved in surfactant enhanced bioremediation of oil,” BioMed Res. Int., 328608 (2013).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. W. Molson, E. O. Frind, D. R. van Stempvoort, and S. Lesage, “Humic acid enhanced remediation of an emplaced diesel source in groundwater,” J. Contam. Hydrol. 54, 277–305 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Pan, S. Ghosh, and B. Xing, “Non-ideal binding between dissolved humic acids and polyaromatic hydrocarbons,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 6472–6478 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Pinedo, R. Ibanez, J. P. A. Lijzen, and A. Irabien, “Assessment of soil pollution based on total petroleum hydrocarbons and individual oil substances,” J. Environ. Manage. 130, 72–79 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. A. Ramirez Coutino, L. G. Torres Bustillos, L. A. Godinez Mora Tovar, R. J. Guerra Sanchez, and F. J. Rodriguez Valadez, “pH effect on surfactant properties and supramolecular structure of humic substances obtained from sewage sludge composting,” Rev. Int. Contam. Ambiental 29 (3), 191–199 (2013).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Shankar, C. Kansrajh, and M. G. Dinesh, “Application of indigenous microbial consortia in bioremediation of oil-contaminated soils,” Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 (2), 367–376 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. M. Singer and R. S. Tjeerdema, “Fate and effects of the surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate,” Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 133, 95–149 (1993).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    I. Taraniuk, E. R. Graber, A. Kostinski, and Y. Rudich, “Surfactant properties of atmospheric and model humic-like substances (HULIS),” Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 (16), L16807 (2007).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Y. Trofimov and M. S. Rozanova, “Transformation of soil properties under the impact of oil pollution,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 36, S82–S87 (2003).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. R. van Stempvoort, S. Lesage, and J. Molson, “The use of aqueous humic substances for in-situ remediation of contaminated aquifers,” Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Use of Humates to Remediate Polluted Environments: From Theory to Practice,” Zvenigorod, Russia, September 23–29, 2002, NATO Science Series, IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005), Vol. 52, pp. 233–256.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. R. van Stempvoort, S. Lesage, and H. Steer, “Binding of hydrophobic organic contaminants to humalitederived aqueous humic products, with implications for remediation,” Water Quality Res. J. Can. 38 (2), 267–281 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, World Soil Resources Reports No. 106 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2014).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. S. Rozanova
    • 1
    Email author
  • O. I. Mylnikova
    • 1
  • O. I. Klein
    • 2
  • O. I. Filippova
    • 1
  • V. A. Kholodov
    • 3
  • E. L. Listov
    • 4
  • N. A. Kulikova
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Federal Research Center “Fundamentals of Biotechnology,” Bakh Institute of BiochemistryRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Dokuchaev Soil Science InstituteMoscowRussia
  4. 4.Research Institute of Natural Gases and Gas Technologies (VNIIGAZ)MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations