Monitoring of soil enzyme activity changes in a heavy naphtha-contaminated soil under different bioremediation treatments

Authors

1 Department of Soil Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz.

2 Scientific staff of University of Tabriz

3 Department of Soil Science and Engineering ; Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz

Abstract

Abstract
Background and objectives
Oil contamination can be treated by physical, chemical and biological approaches. The first two methods have limitations such as high costs, inefficacy and altering natural ecosystem. Today, biological treatment is a more interesting process to remove petroleum contamination. Bioremediation is a technique in which biological systems such as microorganisms are applied to degrade or transform harmful chemicals. In recent years, employing hydrocarbon degrading bacteria to cleaning a petroleum contaminated soil has become a prevalent, efficient and cost effective technique that converts toxic wastes to non-toxic end products. Soil contamination with oil compounds such as heavy naphtha can threaten soil, environmental and human health. In bioremediation process, soil microorganisms use these hydrocarbons as a carbon source and, while making a microbial biomass, play a role in its decomposition and conversion to carbon dioxide. Furthermore, this type of contamination can affect soil microbial population and its enzyme activity. Soil microbiome, in turn, has effect on this contamination using relevant enzymes. Application and comparison of various bioremediation methods such as biostimulation, bioaugmentation and integrated treatment were the main aims of this study to bio-remove heavy naphtha from contaminated soil. Moreover, mmonitoring of soil enzyme activity changes (including dehydrogenase and lipase) in this condition under different bioremediation treatments was another goal of this research. For this purpose, in a heavy naphtha-contaminated sandy loam, a variety of bioremediation treatments, including biostimulation (including supply of nitrogen and phosphorus elements, addition of manure and Tween 80), bioaugmentation treatment (using a consortium of efficient bacteria) and integrated treatment (including all biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatments together) were tested.
Methodology
In this study, a sandy loam soil was used. Heavy naphtha was applied at a rate of 7% V/W to soil samples and various bioremediation treatments were performed as mentioned above. This experiment was carried out in a pot scale (containing 3 kg soil) based on split plot factorial design (pollution factor, bioremediation factor and time) with 3 replications, at room temperature for 120 days. During the experiment, the pots were aerated once a week and the soil moisture content was adjusted to 70-80% (W/W) of the soil water holding capacity twice a week. For bioaugmentation of bacterial isolates, a bacterial suspension (108 cfu mL-1) having a consortium of Arthrobacter sp. COD2-3, Stenotrophomonas nitritireducens COD5-6، Stenotrophomonas asidamainiphila COD1-1 with a ratio of 5% V/W were used. In biostimulation treatment, cow manure with 5% W/W was used. In NP treatment, N and P elements from ammonium nitrate and potassium phosphate (K2HPO4), were used with a ratio of 20:5:1 (C: N: P), considering soil organic carbon. Tween 80 as surfactant in the relevant treatments, was used at a rate of 0.3% V/W. In the integrated treatment, all the mentioned treatments were used together. On days 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120, subsamples were taken from each pot to measure the activity of dehydrogenase and lipase enzymes.
Findings
The results showed that during the experiment, bioremediation treatments reduced heavy naphtha contamination and the highest value for removal rate of this compound was 81% in the integrated treatment. Contamination also affected the enzymatic activity of soil so that the activity of dehydrogenase and lipase in all bioremediation treatments showed a decreasing trend. Dehydrogenase enzyme activity in cow manure treatment decreased from 1.67 to 0.59 (μg TPF g-1 h-1) and activity of soil lipase enzyme decreased from 33.82 to 26.24 (mU g-1) in the integrated treatment during the experiment. Among the bioremediation treatments, cow manure and integrated treatment had a greater effect on the elimination of heavy naphtha contamination than other treatments (p <0.01). It seems that the use of the above treatments were able to remove more heavy naphtha by providing optimal nutritional, moisture and aeration conditions while intensifying the activity of soil microorganisms.
Conclusion
In this study, to reduce heavy naphtha contamination in the soil, bioremediation treatments including biostimulation, bioaugmentation and integrated approaches were used. According to the results of changes in dehydrogenase and lipase activity in naphtha-contaminated soil, each treatment was able to reduce contamination individually, while the integrated treatment was both biostimulatory and bioenhancing treatments. However, in the integrated treatment, the efficiency of bioremediation process was higher, due to the simultaneous use of biostimulation and bioaugmentation treatments. The use of integrated treatment in soils contaminated with petroleum compounds, including heavy naphtha, can help to biologically eliminate these contaminants.

Keywords


Afsharnia M, Sarikhani MR and Zarei M, 2019. The use of Agropyron cristatum L. and tall fescue plants (Festuca arundinacea L.) inoculated with bacterial consortium and mycorrhizal-like fungi in the phytoremediation of oil-contaminated soils. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production 29: 285-300. (In Persian with English abstract).
Afsharnia M, Sarikhani MR, Zarei M, 2022. Isolation of oil degrading bacteria from oil contaminated soil around the oil refinery and petrochemical plants of Tabriz and identification of the efficient bacteria. Water and Soil Science 10.22034/WS.2021.45023.2408 (In Persian with English abstract).
Agamuthu P, Tan YS and Fauziah SH, 2013. Bioremediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soil using selected organic wastes. Procedia Environmental Sciences 18: 694– 702.
Agarry SE and Owabor CN, 2011. Anaerobic bioremediation of marine sediment artificially contaminated with anthracene and naphthalene. Environment Technology 32: 1375-1381.
Aliasgharzad N, 2010. Laboratory Methods in Soil Biology. Translated to Farsi. Tabriz University Press.
Altgelt KH and Boduszynski M, 1993. Composition and Analysis of Heavy Petroleum Fractions. CRC Press. Boca Raton
Ball JS, Dinneen GU, Smith JR, Bailey CW and  Meter RV, 1949. Composition of Colorado Shale-Oil Naphtha. Industerial and Engineering Chemistry 41: 581–587.
Cheng KY, Lai KM and Wong JWC, 2008. Effects of pig manure compost and nonionic-surfactant tween 80 on phenanthrene and pyrene removal from soil vegetated with Agropyron elongatum. Chemosphere 73: 791-797.
Christopher S, Hein P, Marsden J and Shurleff AS, 1988. Evaluation of methods 3540 (Soxhlet) and 3550 (Sonication) for evaluation of appendix IX analyses from solid samples. Pp. 523-546. S-CUBED, Report for EPA contract 68-03-33-75. Work assignment No.03SSS.
 Dashti N,  Ali N,  Eliyas M,  Khanafer M, Sorkhoh NA and  Radwan SS, 2015. Most hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria in the total environment are diazotrophic, which highlights their value in the bioremediation of hydrocarbon contaminants. Microbes and Environments 30: 70-75. (In Persian with English abstract)
Ebrahimi S, Ladan Sh and Malakouti MJ, 2009. Feasibility study of monitoring of oil pollutants in soil and presentation algorithm by pollutant type. Pp. 1-10. 11th Soil Science Congress of Iran. 12-14 July, Gorgan, Iran. (In Persian with English abstract)
Gomez F and Sartaj M, 2014. Optimization of field scale biopiles for bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil at low temperature conditions by response surface methodology (RSM). International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 89: 103–109.
Hassan Shahian M and Zeidabadinejad Z, 2017. Investigation of the effect of kerosene pollution on microbial population of desert soil and farm soil. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Research 4: 227-241. (In Persian with English abstract)
Joseph B, Ramtekeand PW and Thomas G, 2008. Cold active microbial lipases: Some hot issues and recent developments. Biotech Advances 26: 457-470.
Kuppusamy S, Thavamani P, Venkateswarlu K, Lee YB, Naidu R and Megharaj M, 2017. Remediation approaches for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contaminated soils: technological constraints, emerging trends and future directions. Chemosphere 168: 944–968.
Lee S, Oh B and Kim J, 2008. Effect of various amendments on heavy mineral oil bioremediation and soil microbial activity. Bioresource Technology 99: 2578–2587.
Liu S, Guo C, Liang X, Wu F and Dang Z, 2016. Nonionic surfactants induced changes in cell characteristics and phenanthrene degradation ability of Sphingomonas sp. GY2B. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 129: 210–218.
Margesin R, Walder G and Schinner F, 2000. The impact of hydrocarbon remediation (diesel oil and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) on enzyme activities and microbial properties of soil. Acta Biotechnologica 20: 313-333.
Margesin R, Zimmerbauer A and Schinner F, 2000. Monitoring of bioremediation by soil biological activities. Chemosphere 40: 339–346.
Orji FA, Abiye AI and Dike EN, 2012. Laboratory scale bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-polluted mangrove swamps in the Niger Delta using cow dung. International Journal of Environmental Bioremediation and Biodegradation 8:219-228.
Polyak YM, Bakina LG, Chugunova MV, Mayachkina NV, Gerasimov AO and Bure VM, 2018. Effect of remediation strategies on biological activity of oil-contaminated soil – a field study. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 126: 57–68.
Ramadass K, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K and Naidu R, 2015. Ecological implications of motor oil pollution: earthworm survival and soil health. Soil Biologhy and Biochemistry 85: 72–81.
Riffaldi R, Levi-Minzi R, Cardelli R, Palumbo S and Saviozzi A, 2006. Soil biological activities in monitoring the bioremediation of diesel oil-contaminated soil. Water Air and Soil Pollution 170:3-15.
Sakai Y, Hayatsu M and Hayano K, 2002. Use of tween 20 as a substrate for assay of lipase activity in soils. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 48: 729-734.
Sarikhani MR, Khoshru B, and Greiner R. 2019. Isolation and identification of temperature tolerant phosphate solubilizing bacteria as a potential microbial fertilizer. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 35:126.
Shen W, Zhu N, Cui J, Wang H, Dang Z, Wu P, Luo Y and Shi C, 2016. Ecotoxicity monitoring and bioindicator screening of oil-contaminated soil during bioremediation. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 124:120–128.
Silva-Castro GA, Uad I, Rodríguez-Calvo A, González-López J and Calvo C, 2015. Response of autochthonous microbiota of diesel polluted soils to land-farming treatments. Environmental Research 137:49–58.
Tan T and Yin C, 2003. The mechanism and kinetic model for glycerolysis by 1, 3 position specific lipase from Rhizopus arrhizus. Biochemistry Engineering Journals 25: 39–45.
Varjani SJ and Upasani VN, 2017. A new look on factors affecting microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 120: 71–83.
Wu M, Dick WA, Li W, Wang X, Yang Q, Wang T, Xu L, Zhang M and Chen L, 2016. Bioaugmentation and biostimulation of hydrocarbon degradation and the microbial community in a petroleum-contaminated soil. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 107: 158–164.
Wu M, Ye X, Chen K, Li W, Yuan J and Jiang X, 2017. Bacterial community shift and hydrocarbon transformation during bioremediation of short-term petroleum-contaminated soil. Environmental Pollution 223: 657-664.
Yu S, Li S, Tang Y and Wu X, 2011. Succession of bacterial community along with the removal of heavy crude oil pollutants by multiple biostimulation treatments in the Yellow River Delta, China. Journal of Environmental Science 23: 1533–1543.