Advertisement

Biodegradation

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 527–534 | Cite as

An exploratory study of peat and sawdust as enhancers in the (bio)degradation of n-dodecane

  • César Sáez-Navarrete
  • Claudio A. Gelmi
  • Lorenzo Reyes-Bozo
  • Alex Godoy-Faúndez
Original Paper

Abstract

Current practice for dealing with oil spills involves the use of adsorbent materials to contain the pollution prior to bioremediation of the contaminated soil and adsorbent. This work presents a study of the effects of bioavailable carbon sources in the adsorbents peat and sawdust as organic nutrients for microorganisms specialized in degrading n-dodecane in soil and sawdust contaminated with hydrocarbon mixtures. An experimental bioremediation system was developed using n-dodecane, biomass adapted to n-dodecane, inorganic nutrients and the two adsorbents (sterilized). Bioreactors containing peat enhanced cell growth the most and also evolved more CO2. An advantage of peat is that its soluble carbon sources can sustain higher cell densities compared to sawdust, and this may prove decisive when cultivating endogenous microorganisms for the aerobic bioremediation of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons. However, at the end of the 68-day experiment slightly higher n-dodecane removal was identified in the system containing sawdust-n-dodecane (99.6%) than in that with peat-n-dodecane (98.5%), evidencing the higher hydrocarbon retention capacity of peat. Based on this study, the use of sawdust instead of peat is recommended when an adapted inoculum is available for aerobic bioremediation of organic contaminants, whereas the use of peat is advisable to boost cell densities in order to improve the probability of sustaining a viable biomass in unfavorable conditions.

Keywords

Adsorbent Bioreactor Dodecane Mineralization Bioremediation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank an anonymous referee who made clear several inaccuracies, biases and errors in an earlier version of this manuscript. Also, we wish to thank Sigdo Kopper Ecología for the funding of this study and Loreto Bravo for technical support.

References

  1. Annunciado TR, Sydenstricker THD, Amico SC (2005) Experimental investigation of various vegetable fibers as sorbent materials for oil spills. Mar Pollut Bull 50:1340–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atlas RM, Bartha R (1998) Microbial ecology: fundamentals and applications, 4th edn. Pearson EducationGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres GH (1968) Quantitative chemical analysis. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Carmody O, Frost R, Xi Y, Kokot S (2007) Surface characterisation of selected sorbent materials for common hydrocarbon fuels. Surf Sci 601:2066–2076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coleman RJ (1994) Hazardous material dictionary. Technomics Publishing Company, Inc., Lancaster PAGoogle Scholar
  6. Geerdink MJ, van Loosdrecht MCM, Luyben ChAM (1996) Biodegradability of diesel oil. Biodegradation 7:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Godoy-Faúndez A, Antizar-Ladislao B, Reyes-Bozo L, Camaño A, Sáez-Navarrete C (2007) Bioremediation of contaminated mixtures of desert mining soil and sawdust with fuel oil by aerated in-vessel composting in the Atacama Region (Chile) J Haz Mat (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Kolthoff IM, Stenger VA (1947) Volumetric analysis, 2nd rev. ed., vol. 2, titration methods: acid-base, precipitation, and complex reactions. Interscience Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Lim T, Huang X (2007) Evaluation of kapok (Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn.) as a natural hollow hydrophobic–oleophilic fibrous sorbent for oil spill cleanup. Chemosphere 66:955–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lochhead AG, Thexton RH (1947) Growth and survival of bacteria in peat. I. Powdered peat and related products. Can J Res 25:1–13Google Scholar
  11. Margesin R, Schinner F (2001) Biodegradation and bioremediation of hydrocarbons in extreme environments. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 56:650–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin AM (1991) Peat as an agent in biological degradation: peat biofilters. In: Martin AM (ed) Biological degradation of wastes. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp 341–362Google Scholar
  13. Mohn W, Stewart G (2000) Limiting factors for hydrocarbon biodegradation at low temperature in Arctic soils. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1161–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rieman W, Neuss JD, Naiman B (1942) Quantitative analysis: a theoretical approach, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Shukla A, Zhang Y, Dubey P, Margrave JL, Shukla S (2002) The role of sawdust in the removal of unwanted materials from water. J Haz Mat B95:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Teas Ch, Kalligeros S, Zanikos F, Stournas S, Lois E, Anastopoulos G (2001) Investigation of the effectiveness of absorbent materials in oil spills clean up. Desalination 140:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Viraraghavan T, Ayyaswami A (1987) Use of peat in water pollution control: a review. Can J Civ Eng 14:230–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • César Sáez-Navarrete
    • 1
  • Claudio A. Gelmi
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Reyes-Bozo
    • 1
  • Alex Godoy-Faúndez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Bioprocess EngineeringPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations