4.7 Article

Hydrocarbon biostimulation and bioaugmentation in organic carbon and clay-rich soils

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 66-74

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.04.016

关键词

Bioremediation; Rhodococcus erythropolis; Hydrocarbons (HC); Oxitop; qPCR; 16S-rRNA gene sequencing

资金

  1. Fonds pour la Formation a la Recherche dans I'Industrie et dans I'Agriculture (F.R.I.A.) grant - Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, FNRS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrocarbon-contaminated organic carbon-rich clayey soils are challenging for bioremediation stake-holders since the pollutant is heterogeneously distributed and poorly bioavailable due to its strong adsorption on clay and organic particles. In addition, biodegradation rates are restricted by limited diffusion of oxygen and nutrients to hydrocarbon-degrading aerobes. This study assessed the benefits of bioaugmentation with the strain Rhodococcus erythropolis T902.1 versus those from biostimulation and anaerobic natural attenuation in terms of hydrocarbon (HC) degradation efficiency and changes in the bacterial community structure in a diesel-polluted clay-rich soil. Three soil samples with a similar total organic content but with a different HC concentration (0.2, 1.0 and 6.5 g/kg) were compared in a microcosm experiment. Despite a limitation in oxygen transfer, R. erythropolis T902.1 enhanced a greater HC degradation compared to the biostimulation treatment. However, this advantage decreased with time as the proportion of Rhodococci declined from 25% initially to 1% of the global community after 80 days of treatment. Similarly, the alkB gene proportion in bioaugmented soils decreased to levels close to those of biostimulated soils. Consequently, further engineering was suggested to improve the resilience of the inoculum to ensure its long-term presence and activity in such polluted environments. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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