Biodegradation

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Persistence and degrading activity of free and immobilised allochthonous bacteria during bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils

  • Valentina Rivelli
  • Andrea Franzetti
  • Isabella Gandolfi
  • Sergio Cordoni
  • Giuseppina Bestetti
Original Paper

Abstract

Rhodococcus sp. and Pseudomonas sp. bioremediation experiments were carried out using free and immobilized cells on natural carrier material (corncob powder) in order to evaluate the feasibility of its use in the bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis was performed on the 16S rRNA gene as molecular fingerprinting method in order to assess the persistence of inoculated strains in the soil over time. Immobilized Pseudomonas cells degraded hydrocarbons more efficiently in the short term compared to the free ones. Immobilization seemed also to increase cell growth and stability in the soil. Free and immobilized Rhodococcus cells showed comparable degradation percentages, probably due to the peculiarity of Rhodococcus cells to aggregate into irregular clusters in the presence of hydrocarbons as sole carbon source. It is likely that the cells were not properly adsorbed on the porous matrix as a result of the small size of its pores. When Rhodococcus and Pseudomonas cells were co-immobilized on the matrix, a competition established between the two strains, that probably ended in the exclusion of Pseudomonas cells from the pores. The organic matrix might act as protective agent, but it also possibly limited cell density. Nevertheless, when the cells were properly adsorbed on the porous matrix, the immobilization became a suitable bioremediation strategy.

Keywords

Biodegradation Bioaugmentation Corncob T-RFLP analysis Pseudomonas Rhodococcus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by Gio Eco Srl. (Segrate, Milan, Italy).

References

  1. Blackwood CB, Marsh T, Kim SH, Paul EA (2003) Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism data analysis for quantitative comparison of microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:926–932Google Scholar
  2. Boopathy R (2000) Factors limiting bioremediation technologies. Bioresource Technol 74:63–67Google Scholar
  3. de Carvalho CCCR, Wick LY, Heipieper HJ (2009) Cell wall adaptations of planktonic and biofilm Rhodococcus erythropolis cells to growth on C5 to C16 n-alkane hydrocarbons. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 82:311–320Google Scholar
  4. Cassidy MB, Lee H, Trevors JT (1996) Environmental applications of immobilized microbial cells: A review. J Ind Microbiol Biot 16(2):79–101Google Scholar
  5. El Fantorussi S, Aghatos SN (2005). Is bioaugmentation a feasible strategy for pollutant removal and site remediation? Curr Opin in Microbiol 8:268–275Google Scholar
  6. Franzetti A, Caredda P, Ruggeri C, La Colla P, Tamburini E, Papacchini M, Bestetti G (2009) Potential applications of surface active compounds by Gordonia sp. strain BS29 in soil remediation technologies. Chemosphere 75:810–807Google Scholar
  7. Gandolfi I, Sicolo M, Franzetti A, Fontanarosa E, Santagostino A, Bestetti G (2010) Influence of compost amendment on microbial community and ecotoxicity of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Bioresour Technol 101:568–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jimoh A (2004) Effect of immobilized materials on Saccharomyces cerevisiae. AU J Technol 8:62–68Google Scholar
  9. Junier P, Junier T, Witzel K-P (2008) TRiFLe, a program for in silico terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis with user-defined sequence sets. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:6452–6456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Labana S, Pandey G, Paul D, Sharma NK, Basu A, Jain RK (2005) Pot and field studies on bioremediation of p-nitrophenol contaminated soil using Arthrobacter protophormiae RKJ100. Environ Sci Technol 39:3330–3337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu WT, Marsh TL, Cheng H, Forney LJ (1997) Characterization of microbial diversity by determining terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms of genes encoding 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4516–4522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. McLoughlin AJ (1994) Controlled release of immobilized cells as a strategy to regulate ecological competence of inocula. In: Scheper T (ed) Biotechnics/wastewater. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole (1999) Decreto Ministeriale del 13/09/1999––“Metodi ufficiali di analisi chimica del suolo”Google Scholar
  14. Mishra S, Jyot J, Kuhad RC, Lal B (2001) In situ bioremediation potential of an oily sludge-degrading bacterial consortium. Curr Microbiol 43:328–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moslemy P, Neufeld RJ, Guiot SR (2002) Biodegradation of gasoline by gellan gum-encapsulated bacterial cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 80:175–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mrozik A, Piotrowska-Seget Z (2010) Bioaugmentation as a strategy for cleaning up of soils contaminated with aromatic compounds. Microbiol Res 165:363–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Philp JC, Atlas RM (2005) Bioremediation of contaminated soils and aquifers. In: Atlas RM, Philp J (eds) Bioremediation, ASM Press, Washington,DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Plangklang P, Reungsang A (2009) Bioaugmentation of carbofuran residues in soil using Burkholderia cepacia PCL3 adsorbed on agricultural residues. Int Biodeter Biodegr 63:515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ranjard L, Poly F, Nazaret S (2000) Monitoring complex bacterial communities using culture-independent molecular techniques: application to soil environment. Res Microbiol 151:167–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smalla K, Wachtendorf U, Heuer H, Liu W-T, Forney L (1998) Analysis of BIOLOG GN substrate utilization patterns by microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:1220–1225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Straube WL, Jones-Meehan J, Pritchard PH, Jones WR (1999) Bench-scale optimization of bioaugmentation strategies for treatment of soils contaminated with high molecular weight polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Res Conserv Recycl 27:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suzuki MT, Giovannoni SJ (1996) Bias caused by template annealing in the amplification of mixtures of 16S rRNA genes by PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:625–630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Suzuki MT, Rappe MS, Giovannoni SJ (1998) Kinetic bias estimates of coastal picoplankton community structure obtained by measurements of small-subunit rRNA gene PCR amplicon length heterogeneity. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:4522–4529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tyagi M, da Fonsec MMR, de Carvalho CCCR (2011) Bioaugmentation and biostimulation strategies to improve the effectiveness of bioremediation processes. Biodegradation 22:231–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Veen JA, van Overbeek LS, Elsas JD (1997) Fate and activity of microorganisms introduced into soil. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 61:121PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Rivelli
    • 1
  • Andrea Franzetti
    • 1
  • Isabella Gandolfi
    • 1
  • Sergio Cordoni
    • 2
  • Giuseppina Bestetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.GioEco srlSegrateItaly

Personalised recommendations