4.7 Review

Floating treatment wetlands for the bioremediation of oil spills: A review

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 317, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115416

Keywords

Floating treatment wetland; Bioremediation; Phytoremediation; Biodegradation; Crude oil; Hydrocarbons

Funding

  1. Genome Canada [GAPP R13-6336]
  2. Mitacs Accelerate [IT15202]
  3. International Institute for Sustainable Development Experimental Lakes Area

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conventional oil spill recovery methods can cause damage to shoreline habitats, while biological remediation strategies, particularly floating treatment wetlands, show high potential for degrading oil contaminants.
Conventional oil spill recovery may cause significant damage to shoreline habitats during the removal of oiled material and from human and equipment interaction. In addition, these methods are costly and can leave a significant amount of residual oil in the environment. Biological remediation strategies may be a less invasive option for recovering oil from sensitive regions, with potential to increase recovery. Floating treatment wetlands are a growing area of interest for biodegradation of oil facilitated by plant-bacterial partnerships. Plants are able to stimulate microbial colonization in the rhizosphere, creating greater opportunity for contaminant interaction and degradation. A literature review analysis revealed thirteen articles researching this topic, and found that floating treatment wetlands have high potential to degrade oil contaminants. In some instances, plants and inoculated bacteria exhibited the highest degradation potential, however, plants alone had higher degradation potential than bacteria alone. Research is needed to explore how floating treatment wetlands perform in field based trials and under variable environmental conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available