Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment

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 compris...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Joanna Brzeszcz, Piotr Kapusta, Teresa Steliga, Anna Turkiewicz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2020-02-01
Series:Molecules
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/25/3/661
id doaj-abc9183bc3fa4064a05ef9c02e23b481
record_format Article
spelling doaj-abc9183bc3fa4064a05ef9c02e23b4812020-11-25T01:46:20ZengMDPI AGMolecules1420-30492020-02-0125366110.3390/molecules25030661molecules25030661Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation TreatmentJoanna Brzeszcz0Piotr Kapusta1Teresa Steliga2Anna Turkiewicz3Department of Microbiology, Oil and Gas Institute–National Research Institute, ul. Lubicz 25A, 31-503 Krakow, PolandDepartment of Microbiology, Oil and Gas Institute–National Research Institute, ul. Lubicz 25A, 31-503 Krakow, PolandDepartment of Reservoir Fluid Production Technology, Oil and Gas Institute–National Research Institute, ul. Lubicz 25 A, 31-503 Krakow, PolandDepartment of Microbiology, Oil and Gas Institute–National Research Institute, ul. Lubicz 25A, 31-503 Krakow, PolandBioremediation 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&#8212;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.https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/25/3/661defined mixed cultureundefined communitybiostimulation/bioaugmentationtotal aliphatic hydrocarbons (tahs)polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (pahs)toxicity tests
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Joanna Brzeszcz
Piotr Kapusta
Teresa Steliga
Anna Turkiewicz
spellingShingle Joanna Brzeszcz
Piotr Kapusta
Teresa Steliga
Anna Turkiewicz
Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment
Molecules
defined mixed culture
undefined community
biostimulation/bioaugmentation
total aliphatic hydrocarbons (tahs)
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (pahs)
toxicity tests
author_facet Joanna Brzeszcz
Piotr Kapusta
Teresa Steliga
Anna Turkiewicz
author_sort Joanna Brzeszcz
title Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment
title_short Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment
title_full Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment
title_fullStr Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment
title_full_unstemmed Hydrocarbon Removal by Two Differently Developed Microbial Inoculants and Comparing Their Actions with Biostimulation Treatment
title_sort hydrocarbon removal by two differently developed microbial inoculants and comparing their actions with biostimulation treatment
publisher MDPI AG
series Molecules
issn 1420-3049
publishDate 2020-02-01
description 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&#8212;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.
topic defined mixed culture
undefined community
biostimulation/bioaugmentation
total aliphatic hydrocarbons (tahs)
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (pahs)
toxicity tests
url https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/25/3/661
work_keys_str_mv AT joannabrzeszcz hydrocarbonremovalbytwodifferentlydevelopedmicrobialinoculantsandcomparingtheiractionswithbiostimulationtreatment
AT piotrkapusta hydrocarbonremovalbytwodifferentlydevelopedmicrobialinoculantsandcomparingtheiractionswithbiostimulationtreatment
AT teresasteliga hydrocarbonremovalbytwodifferentlydevelopedmicrobialinoculantsandcomparingtheiractionswithbiostimulationtreatment
AT annaturkiewicz hydrocarbonremovalbytwodifferentlydevelopedmicrobialinoculantsandcomparingtheiractionswithbiostimulationtreatment
_version_ 1725020085776547840