Skip to main content
Log in

Temperature effects on bioremediation of PAHs and PCP contaminated south Louisiana soils: A laboratory mesocosm study

  • Research Article
  • Soils, Section 3: Remediation/management of Contaminated/Degraded Lands
  • Published:
Journal of Soils and Sediments Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

Temperature and soil moisture content are important environmental variables in bioremediation technologies. Optimizing these variables in-situ would enhance and maintain remediation of hazardous wastes during cold winter seasons or in cold regions and may lead to reduced maintenance and/or cost. The effect of elevated temperature and soil moisture on bioremediation efficiency was investigated using a laboratory mesocosm approach. Selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and phenols degradation in contaminated flooded soils, commonly found in Superfund sites situated in coastal plains sediments/soils, were evaluated in the mesocosms.

Material and Methods

Four laboratory mesocosm treatments in triplicate simulating in-situ bioremediation of contaminated site soils using an immobilized microbe bioreactor system, i.e., bioplug, were established to evaluate temperature effects. Elevated temperature treatments of site soils with and without contaminant-specific microorganisms were established at a temperature of 42±2°C. Similarly, treatment of site soils with and without contaminant-specific microorganisms were established at an ambient temperature of 21±1°C. Composite samples were analyzed for selected PAHs and chlorinated phenols to determine rates of mineralization and overall remediation efficiency for different temperature regimes.

Results

Mesocosm studies indicated that the high temperature inoculated treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in mean total PAHs and total phenols with a kinetic rate (KR) of 76±13 ng g−1 d−1 in 49 days (approximately 84% reduction; p<0.01) The KR for low temperature inoculated treatment was 54±1 ng g−1 d−1 in 49 days (approximately 66% reduction; p<0.01). High temperature non-inoculated mesocosms exhibited significant mineralization of all constituents with KR of 15±6 ng g−1 d−1 (approximately 65% reduction; p<0.01) in 49d compared to 54% reduction for low temperature non-inoculated treatment with KR of 12±3 ng g−1 d−1 (p=0.1794). Phenol compounds in inoculated treatments were also significantly reduced (65%, p<0.01) at elevated temperatures compared to ambient (52%, p<0.01).

Discussion

Increased bioavailability and desorption were noted for elevated temperature and moisture in the soil laboratory mesocosms simulating a field in situ remediation protocol. This protocol employing the application of immobilized microflora indicated that in situ systems provide an economical advantage if optimal elevated temperature and moisture are controlled properly. Results also suggested that temperature and moisture optimization needs to be combined with efficient nutrients delivery systems for impacted soils/sediments.

Conclusions

The study demonstrated that temperature and soil moisture contents are important factors in the success of in-situ bioremediation techniques at hazardous waste sites situated in a coastal zone. Kinetic rates were significantly enhanced to remediate known recalcitrant compounds (PAHs and phenols) in aged soil.

Recommendations and Perspectives

The placement of a preferred microbial consortia such as an immobilized microbial population in an entrained bioreactor, i.e., bioplug, can significantly reduce constituents of concern in a timely manner for contaminated soils/sediments. However, frequent monitoring of the soil temperature, moisture content, nutrient level, and dissolved oxygen is necessary to achieve predictable kinetic rates of mineralization.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander M (1999): Biodegradation and Bioremediation. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammann PR, Koch GS (1993): Technical and economic analysis in the development of bioremediation processes. Remediation Journal 4, 115–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APHA (1998): Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water (20th ed). American Public Health Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bento FM, Camargo FAO, Okeke BC, Frankenberger WT (2005): Comparative bioremediation of soils contaminated with desel oil by natural attenuation, biostimulation and bioaugmentation. Bioresource Technology 96, 1049–1055

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cannavo P, Richaume A, LaFolie F (2004): Fate of nitrogen and carbon in the vadose zone: In-situ and laboratory measurements of seasonal variations in aerobic respiratory and denitrifying activities. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36, 463–478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dibble JT, Bartha R (1979): Effect of environmental parameters on the biodegradation of oil sludge. Appl Environ Mirobiol 37, 729–739

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor M, Wakeham SG, Fagabeli J (2003): Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and black carbon in sediments of a remote Alpine Lake Planina, NW Slovenia. Environ Toxicol Chem 22, 1009–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzinger PB, Alexander M (1995): Effect of aging of chemical in soil on their biodegradability and extractability. Environ Sci Technol 29, 537–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ho WC, Ko WH (1985): Soil microbiostasis: Effect of invironmental and edaphic factors. Soil Biol Biochem 17, 167–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannes A, Leonard S, Jan D (1997): Fate and activity of microorganisms introduced into soil. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 61, 121–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee DW, Portier RJ (1999): In-Situ Bioremediation of Amine-and Glycol-Contaminated Soils Using Low-Intervention Methods. Remediation Journal 9, 117–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann V (1998): Bioremediation: A solution for polluted soils in the South. Biotechnol & Development Monitor 34, 12–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Loehr RC (1992): Bioremediation of PAH compounds incontaminated soil. Hydrocarbon contaminated soils and ground water. In: Calabrese EJ, Kostechi PT (eds), Proceedings 1st Annual West Coast Conference Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils Ground Water, Feb 1990, Newport Beach, CA. Vol. 1. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea MI, pp 213–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Morville S, Scheyer A, Mirabel P, Millet M (2006): Spatial and Geographical Variations of Urban, Suburban and Rural Atmospheric Concentrations of Phenols and Nitrophenols. Env Sci Pollut Res 13, 83–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Neff JM (1979): Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon in the Aquatic Environment. Applied Science, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Otte MP, Comeau Y, Samson R, Greer CW (1999): Enhancement of Pentacholorophenol biodegradation using organic and inorganic support. Bioremediation Journal 3, 35–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parr JF, Sikora LJ, Burge WD (1983): Factors affecting the degradation and inactivation of waste constituents in soils. In: Parr JF, Marsh PB, Kla JM (eds), Land Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Portier RJ (1994): Remediation of mixed wastes in soil by combined biological and chelation technologies. Proceedings 87th Annual. Mgt Air Waste Mgmt Assoc, Vol. 13

  • Texas Research Institute, Inc. (1982): Enhancing the microbiological degradation of underground gasoline by increasing available oxygen. Report to the American Petroleum Institute Washington DC

  • Trably E, Patureau D (2006): Successful Treatment of Low PAH-Contaminated Sewage Sludge in Aerobic Bioreactors. Env Sci Pollut Res 13, 170–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • USDA: 〈www.nrcs.usda.gov〉. Natural Resources Conservation Services, US Department of Agriculture

  • U.S. EPA (1985): Handbook for remedial action at waste disposal sites. Revised. EPA/625/6-85/006

  • Vaajasaari K, Joutti A (2006): Field-Scale Assessment of Phytotreatment of Soil Contaminated with Weathered Hydrocarbons and Heavy Metals. J Soils Sediments 6, 128–136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walworth JL, Reynolds CM (1995): Bioremediation of a petroleum contaminated cryic soil: effects of phosphorus, nitrogen, and temperature. J Soil Contam 4, 299–310

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Fingas M (1999): Identification of the source(s) of unknown spilled oils. International oil spill conference, American Petroleum Institute, pp. 162

  • White JC, Alexander M, Pignatello JJ (1999): Enhancing the bioavailability of organic compounds sequestered in soil and aquifer solids. Environ Toxicol Chem 18, 182–187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wise DL, Torantolo DJ (1994): Remediation engineering of hazardous waste contaminated soil. Marcel Dekker Inc., NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerushalmi L, Rocheleau S, Cimpoia R, Sarrazin M, Sunahara G, Peisajovich A, Leclair G, Guiot SR (2003): Enhanced Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in contaminated soil. Bioremediation Journal 7, 37–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javed Iqbal.

Additional information

ESS-Submission Editor: Dr. Teresa Cutright (tcutright@uakron.edu)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iqbal, J., Metosh-Dickey, C. & Portier, R.J. Temperature effects on bioremediation of PAHs and PCP contaminated south Louisiana soils: A laboratory mesocosm study. J Soils Sediments 7, 153–158 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1065/jss2007.01.204

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/jss2007.01.204

Keywords

Navigation