| Literature DB >> 31294147 |
Eman Koshlaf1, Andrew S Ball2.
Abstract
Increasing industrialisation, continued population growth and heavy demand and reliance on petrochemical products have led to unprecedented economic growth and development. However, inevitably this dependence on fossil fuels has resulted in serious environmental issues over recent decades. The eco-toxicity and the potential health implications that petroleum hydrocarbons pose for both environmental and human health have led to increased interest in developing environmental biotechnology-based methodologies to detoxify environments impacted by petrogenic compounds. Different approaches have been applied for remediating polluted sites with petroleum derivatives. Bioremediation represents an environmentally sustainable and economical emerging technology for maximizing the metabolism of organic pollutants and minimizing the ecological effects of oil spills. Bioremediation relies on microbial metabolic activities in the presence of optimal ecological factors and necessary nutrients to transform organic pollutants such as petrogenic hydrocarbons. Although, biodegradation often takes longer than traditional remediation methods, the complete degradation of the contaminant is often accomplished. Hydrocarbon biodegradation in soil is determined by a number of environmental and biological factors varying from site to site such as the pH of the soil, temperature, oxygen availability and nutrient content, the growth and survival of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes and bioavailability of pollutants to microbial attack. In this review we have attempted to broaden the perspectives of scientists working in bioremediation. We focus on the most common bioremediation technologies currently used for soil remediation and the mechanisms underlying the degradation of petrogenic hydrocarbons by microorganisms.Entities:
Keywords: bioremediation; contamination; environment; hydrocarbon degrading microbes; petroleum hydrocarbon
Year: 2017 PMID: 31294147 PMCID: PMC6604977 DOI: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIMS Microbiol ISSN: 2471-1888
Summary of bioremediation techniques for hydrocarbon contaminated soils.
| Remediation strategy | Example of method | Treating site | Cost (US $/m3) a | Benefits | Limitations |
| Vapour extraction | 405–1,485 | Fast Permanentremoval of pollutants Ideal for high levels of pollution | Costly Destructive Prone to secondary pollution | ||
| Thermal desorption | 80–440 | Fast Dose not generatelarge volumes of waste material Ideal for high level of contamination | Costly Destructive Prone to secondary pollution | ||
| Biostimulation | 30–100 | Environmentally friendly Cost effective Minimum site disruption Useful for low level of pollutants | Require longer time Low predictability Reliant on environmental factors |
Figure 1.The various fractions of hydrocarbons that comprise crude oil.
Figure 2.Structures and nomenclatures of the 16 PAHs on the US EPA priority pollutant list.
Figure 3.Typical molecular structures of (a) resins and (b) asphaltenes.
Figure 4.Possible interactions between soil matrices and hydrocarbons redrawn from [3].
Figure 5.The main n-alkanes degradation pathways (terminal and subterminal oxidation). Redrawn from [48].
Figure 6.Aromatic hydrocarbon breakdown pathways in bacteria and fungi. Redrawn from [18],[47].
Isolated bacterial strains reported to exhibit hydrocarbonoclastic activity. Recreated from [42],[46],[58].
| Species/Strain | Substrate | Species/Strain | Substrate |
| CBZ | C15–C36 | ||
| −C36 | C3, C13–C22 | ||
| C11–C18 | DBF, FLE, DBT, PHE, ANT, DD | ||
| C6–C18 | NAP | ||
| C8–C16 | C18 | ||
| C10–C16 | C16–C30 | ||
| C13–C44 | paraffins | ||
| C10–C34 | paraffins | ||
| C12–C28 | C12–C16 | ||
| C12–C30 | C9–C16 | ||
| −C33 | C11–C16 | ||
| C10–C40 | C12–C28 | ||
| C10–C20 | C6–C24 | ||
| C8–C32 | C11–C28 | ||
| −C33 | PYR, BaP | ||
| FLA | FLA | ||
| C10–C40 | PYR | ||
| FLE | PYR,BaA, BaP | ||
| DBT, CBZ, PHE | FLA, PYR, PHE, ANT | ||
| PHE | PHE, FLE, FLA, PYR | ||
| PHE | PYR, FLA | ||
| PYR | PHE, PYR, dMBaA | ||
| C9–C30 | PYR | ||
| C6–C28 | CBZ | ||
| PHE | C2–C16 | ||
| PHE | C6–C28 | ||
| C10–C16 | C10–C28 | ||
| C12–C34 | FLA | ||
| PHE | C11–C33 | ||
| NAP, PHE, PYR | NAP | ||
| PHE | C8–C14 | ||
| BZ, BP | C10 | ||
| C10–C16 | n. d | ||
| C10–C16 | C5–C12 | ||
| CBZ | C8 | ||
| PYR | C12–C32 | ||
| C10–C20 | C12–C24 | ||
| C13–C18 | C10–C16 | ||
| C11–C24 | C5–C16 | ||
| C13–C24 | C8–C16 | ||
| C8–C16 | C8–C32 | ||
| C12–C34 | C6–C16 | ||
| C6–C28 | C6–C36 | ||
| C12–C28 | C6–C36 | ||
| NAP, PHE | C6–C32 | ||
| HFBT | C6–C16 | ||
| BP, CBP | C6–C36 | ||
| DBF | C6–C32 | ||
| CBZ, CDD | C6–C36 | ||
| FLE, DBF, DBT | C6–C32 | ||
| FLE | C6–C24 | ||
| PHE | C12–C20 | ||
| FLE | PHE | ||
| NAP, PHE | PYR, FLA, BaP | ||
| MNAP | PYR, FLA, BaA, BaP, DBA, COR | ||
| PHE, CHR, BaA | PYR | ||
| PYR | BaP | ||
| PYR | FLE, PHE, FLA, ANT | ||
| PHE | DBF, DBT, CBZ | ||
| DBF NAP | FLA, NAP, ANT, PHE | ||
| BaP | CDD | ||
| PYR, FLA | C13–C18 | ||
| C6–C28 | C14–C20 | ||
| C14–C34 | C12–C20 | ||
| C9–C22 | DBF, CDBF, CDD, FLE | ||
| C13–C20 | C | ||
| NAT, BT | C13–C | ||
| ADBT | C9–C39 | ||
| DBT | C12–C34 | ||
| C8–C16 | PYR, BaP, CBZ | ||
| C12–C34 | C14–C34 |
Pyrene (PYR), anthracene (ANT), fluorene (FLE), dibenz[a,h]anthracene (DBA), naphthalene (NAP), phenanthrene (PHE), benz[a]anthracene (BaA), dimethylbenz[a]anthracene(dMBaA), chlorinated dibenzothophene (CDBF), benzothiophene(BT), alkylated dibenzothiophene (ADBT), 3-hydroxy-2-formylbenzothiophene (HFBT), chrysene (CHR), dibenzo-p-dioxin (DD), biphenyl; CBP, fluoranthene (FLA), chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), coronene(COR), methyl naphthalene (MNAP), carbazole (CBZ),chlorobiphenyl (BP), naphthothiophene (NAT), dibenzofuran (DBF), benzoate (BZ).
The main characteristics of bioremediation technologies for petroleum-polluted soils.
| Bioremediation method | Main features | Advantages | limitations |
| Utilising indigenous microbial populations under natural conditions | Cost effective | Requires extensive long-range observation | |
| Addition of efficient pollutant of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes | Using a high biomass of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes | Requires extensive long-term monitoring | |
| Catalyse the degradation of single molecules or simple mixtures | |||
| Catalyse the degradation of complex pollutantmixtures | |||
| Management of environmental factors (addition of nutrient) | More efficient than natural attenuation | Not always effective | |
| Restoration of nutrient balance, C/N/P ratio optimization | |||
| Stimulation of contaminant bioavailability | |||
| Application of plants and theirassociated microorganisms | Supports hydrocarbon-degradingmicrobes within plant root | Pollutants toxic to the plant |
Factors and their effect on the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in the polluted soil.
| Factor | Description and effect on bioremediation rate | Reference |
Temperature affects rates of hydrocarbon degradation and the physico-chemical composition of oil, result in enhanced hydrocarbon bioavailability as well as the composition and metabolic activity of the microbial communities. In soils 30–40°C is the temperature range in which the highest degradation rates generally occurs. Increased temperature also decreases oil viscosity, increases hydrocarbon solubility, hastening the diffusion of hydrophobic pollutants and enhancing degradation rates of hydrocarbons. | ||
The absence of or low levels of key nutrients in the soil directly affects microbial cell growth and activity. Optimal level of nutrients is essential for higher hydrocarbon-utilising microbial activity. Excessive amounts of nutrients such as NPK in the soil can also negatively affect the biodegradation of hydrocarbons resulting in inhibition of the microbial biodegradation activity. | ||
The rate at which hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms breakdown the hydrocarbons depends upon hydrocarbon characteristics including chemical structure and concentration of these pollutants. Petroleum fractions, n-alkanes of intermediate length (C10–C25) are preferred and more degradable. Longer chain alkanes (C25–C40) are hard to degrade due to their hydrophobicity, poor water solubility and bioavailability. Branched chain alkanes and cycloalkanes degrade more slowly than the corresponding unbranched alkanes. Complex and less soluble compounds result in reduced hydrocarbon degradation rates. High concentrations of hydrocarbons are toxic to microorganisms involved in hydrocarbon degradation, as they affect their growth and activity. | ||
The rate of degradation determined by the bioavailability of hydrocarbons. As the molecular weight of hydrocarbons increases, the solubility of these pollutants decrease resulting in lower accessibility of hydrocarbons for metabolism by the microbial cell. PAHs are hydrophobic compounds with low bioavailability and rapid sorption to organic matter and soil matrix making them recalcitrant. The longer the contact between soil and hydrocarbon contaminants the more irreversible the sorption, and the lower is the extractability of the pollutants from the soil. | ||
The structure and conditions of the soil determine the movement of the pollutants, thereby affecting the rate of biodegradation. High concentrations of soil organic matter in fine soil enhances bacterial growth and stimulates the biodegradation of hydrocarbons. A higher rate of degradation of hydrocarbons occurs in silty soil compared to sandy soil due to the poor microbial content in the sand fraction which corresponds to a high C: N ratio and lower internal surface structure. | ||
Dissolved molecular oxygen soil and the requirements for its delivery are crucial keys for the success of the bioremediation process. The importance of oxygen derives from the respiration process and the participation of oxygenases in the subsequent degradation pathway of the hydrocarbons. For example, in soil it usually takes 2 × 106 m3 of water saturated at 10 mg/litre O2 to effectively oxidize 10 m3 of hydrocarbon to carbon dioxide and water. Oxygen availability in soil is reliant on soil type, moisture content and the rate of biodegradation. | ||
Microbial strains which have the ability to survive in the presence of pollutants and use them as a source for growth and metabolism are the dominant microorganisms in the contaminated soil. The number of hydrocarbon degrading organisms in the contaminated soil determines the rate of degradation; a lack of these microbes leads to a reduced hydrocarbon degradation rate. The contaminated soil must contain a sufficient number of hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms, specifically those which are active. As a result of bioremediation, the active microbes may increase the microbial community in the soil. A lack of hydrocarbonoclastic microbes in the contaminated soil can be overcome by inoculating the soil with a selection of appropriate strains to biodegrade contaminants (bioaugmentation). | ||
Petroleum hydrocarbons have a toxic effect on bacterial activity, some plant species and earthworms resulting in reduced biodegradation rates. |