4.7 Article

Removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil spiked with model mixtures of petroleum hydrocarbons and heterocycles using biosurfactants from Rhodococcus ruber IEGM 231

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 312, 期 -, 页码 8-17

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.03.007

关键词

Rhodococcus biosurfactants; Soil contamination; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Co-contaminants; UV spectrophotometry

资金

  1. Integrated Program of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences [15-12-4-10]
  2. Russian Scientific Foundation [14-14-00643]
  3. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation [6.1194.2014/K]
  4. Russian Science Foundation [14-14-00643] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil using biosurfactants (BS) produced by Rhodococcus ruber IEGM 231 was studied in soil columns spiked with model mixtures of major petroleum constituents. A crystalline mixture of single PAHs (0.63 g/kg), a crystalline mixture of PAHs (0.63 g/kg) and polycyclic aromatic sulfur heterocycles (PASHs), and an artificially synthesized non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) containing PAHs (3.00 g/kg) dissolved in alkanes C-10-C-19 were used for spiking. Percentage of PAH removal with BS varied from 16 to 69%. Washing activities of BS were 2.5 times greater than those of synthetic surfactant Tween 60 in NAPL-spiked soil and similar to Tween 60 in crystalline-spiked soil. At the same time, amounts of removed PAHs were equal and consisted of 0.3-0.5 g/kg dry soil regardless the chemical pattern of a model mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons and heterocycles used for spiking. UV spectra for soil before and after BS treatment were obtained and their applicability for differentiated analysis of PAH and PASH concentration changes in remediated soil was shown. The ratios A(254nm)/A(288nm) revealed that BS increased biotreatability of PAH-contaminated soils. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据