4.6 Article

Performance and Kinetics of Bioaugmentation, Biostimulation, and Natural Attenuation Processes for Bioremediation of Crude Oil-Contaminated Soils

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr8080883

关键词

bioaugmentation; bioremediation; biostimulation; crude oil; first-order reaction rate model; Monod model; natural attenuation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioremediation of contaminated sites is usually limited due to the inadequate availability of nutrients and microorganisms. This study was conducted to assess the impact of bioaugmentation (BA) and biostimulation (BS) on petroleum hydrocarbon degradation efficiency. In addition, treatment performance and kinetics of different remediation processes were investigated. For this purpose, four tanks containing oil-contaminated soils were tested. Tank 1 was operated as the natural attenuation process. Then, a microbial inoculum and nutrients were added to tank 2 to promote BA and BS. In tank 3, only the BA process was adopted, whereas in tank 4, only the BS process was adopted. After 63 days of operation, the total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) in tank 2 was reduced from 1674 to 430 mg/kg, with 74% reduction. Tank 1, tank 3, and tank 4 indicated TPH reductions of 35%, 41%, and 66%, respectively. Microbiological analysis of the inoculum indicated thatAlcanivoraxwas the dominant bacterium. The population of TPH degrader bacteria in tank 2 soil was two orders of magnitude higher than in the control tank. Reaction rate data were fitted with a first-order reaction rate model. The Monod kinetic constants, maximum specific growth rate (mu(max)), and substrate concentration at half-velocity constant (K-s) were also estimated. This study showed that the TPH removal efficiency in the combined BA and BS process was higher than in other processes tested. The populations of TPH degrading microorganisms in soil tanks were positively related to TPH removal efficiency during bioremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils.

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

4.6
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