Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils
  • Published:
Eurasian Soil Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Classification and Diagnostics of Soils of the Soviet Union (Kolos, Moscow, 1977) [in Russian].

  2. Yu. I. Pikovskii, Natural and Technogenic Fluxes of Hydrocarbons in the Environment (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1993) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  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. Practical Manual on Agrochemistry, Ed. by V. G. Mineev (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 2001) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. R. E. Hoeppel, R. E. Hinchee, and M. F. Arthur, “Bioventing soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons,” J. Ind. Microbiol. 8, 141–146 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991, Russia

    M. S. Rozanova, O. I. Mylnikova, O. I. Filippova & N. A. Kulikova

  2. Federal Research Center “Fundamentals of Biotechnology,” Bakh Institute of Biochemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119071, Russia

    O. I. Klein & N. A. Kulikova

  3. Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute, Moscow, 119017, Russia

    V. A. Kholodov

  4. Research Institute of Natural Gases and Gas Technologies (VNIIGAZ), Moscow, 142717, Russia

    E. L. Listov

Authors
  1. M. S. Rozanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. I. Mylnikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. I. Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. I. Filippova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. A. Kholodov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. L. Listov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. N. A. Kulikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. S. Rozanova.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © M.S. Rozanova, O.I. Mylnikova, O.I. Klein, O.I. Filippova, V.A. Kholodov, E.L. Listov, N.A. Kulikova, 2018, published in Pochvovedenie, 2018, No. 9, pp. 1160–1166.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rozanova, M.S., Mylnikova, O.I., Klein, O.I. et al. Assessing the Efficiency of Humic Substances as Washing Agents for Oil–Contaminated Soils and Peats under Model Experimental Conditions. Eurasian Soil Sc. 51, 1111–1117 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229318090107

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229318090107

Keywords

Search

Navigation