| Summary: | Bioremediation of soils polluted with petroleum compounds is a widely accepted environmental technology. We compared the effects of biostimulation and bioaugmentation of soil historically contaminated with aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The studied bioaugmentation treatments comprised of the introduction of differently developed microbial inoculants, namely: an isolated hydrocarbon-degrading community C1 (undefined—consisting of randomly chosen degraders) and a mixed culture C2 (consisting of seven strains with well-characterized enhanced hydrocarbon-degrading capabilities). Sixty days of remedial treatments resulted in a substantial decrease in total aliphatic hydrocarbon content; however, the action of both inoculants gave a significantly better effect than nutrient amendments (a 69.7% decrease for C1 and 86.8% for C2 vs. 34.9% for biostimulation). The bioaugmentation resulted also in PAH removal, and, again, C2 degraded contaminants more efficiently than C1 (reductions of 85.2% and 64.5%, respectively), while biostimulation itself gave no significant results. Various bioassays applying different organisms (the bacterium <i>Vibrio fischeri</i>, the plants <i>Sorghum saccharatum</i>, <i>Lepidium sativum</i>, and <i>Sinapis alba</i>, and the ostracod <i>Heterocypris incongruens</i>) and Ames test were used to assess, respectively, potential toxicity and mutagenicity risk after bioremediation. Each treatment improved soil quality, however only bioaugmentation with the C2 treatment decreased both toxicity and mutagenicity most efficiently. Illumina high-throughput sequencing revealed the lack of (C1) or limited (C2) ability of the introduced degraders to sustain competition from indigenous microbiota after a 60-day bioremediation process. Thus, bioaugmentation with the bacterial mixed culture C2, made up of identified, hydrocarbon-degrading strains, is clearly a better option for bioremediation purposes when compared to other treatments.
|
|---|
