Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 481–491

Microbial community dynamics in uranium contaminated subsurface sediments under biostimulated conditions with high nitrate and nickel pressure

  • David Moreels
  • Garry Crosson
  • Craig Garafola
  • Denise Monteleone
  • Safiyh Taghavi
  • Jeffrey P. Fitts
  • Daniel van der Lelie
AREA 5.1 • MICROBIAL WASTE DISPOSAL • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • 243 Downloads

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

The subsurface at the Oak Ridge Field Research Center represents an extreme and diverse geochemical environment that places different stresses on the endogenous microbial communities, including low pH, elevated nitrate concentrations, and the occurrence of heavy metals and radionuclides, including hexavalent uranium [U(VI)]. The in situ immobilization of U(VI) in the aquifer can be achieved through microbial reduction to relatively insoluble U(IV). However, a high redox potential due to the presence of nitrate and the toxicity of heavy metals will impede this process. Our aim is to test biostimulation of the endogenous microbial communities to improve nitrate reduction and subsequent U(VI) reduction under conditions of elevated heavy metals.

Materials and methods

Column experiments were used to test the possibility of using biostimulation via the addition of ethanol as a carbon source to improve nitrate reduction in the presence of elevated aqueous nickel. We subsequently analyzed the composition of the microbial communities that became established and their potential for U(VI) reduction and its in situ immobilization.

Results

Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the microbial population changed from heavy metal sensitive members of the actinobacteria, α- and γ-proteobacteria to a community dominated by heavy metal resistant (nickel, cadmium, zinc, and cobalt resistant), nitrate reducing β- and γ-proteobacteria, and sulfate reducing Clostridiaceae. Coincidentally, synchrotron X-ray absorption spectroscopy analyses indicated that the resulting redox conditions favored U(VI) reduction transformation to insoluble U(IV) species associated with soil minerals and biomass.

Discussion

This study shows that the necessary genetic information to adapt to the implemented nickel stress resides in the endogenous microbial population present at the Oak Ridge FRC site, which changed from a community generally found under oligotrophic conditions to a community able to withstand the stress imposed by heavy metals, while efficiently reducing nitrate as electron donor. Once nitrate was reduced efficient reduction and in situ immobilization of uranium was observed.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that stimulating the metabolism of the endogenous bacterial population at the Oak Ridge FRC site by adding ethanol, a suitable carbon source, results in efficient nitrate reduction under conditions of elevated nickel, and a decrease of the redox potential such that sulfate and iron reducing bacteria are able to thrive and create conditions favorable for the reduction and in situ immobilization of uranium. Since we have found that the remediation potential resides within the endogenous microbial community, we believe it will be feasible to conduct field tests.

Recommendations and perspectives

Biostimulation of endogenous bacteria provides an efficient tool for the successful in situ remediation of mixed-waste sites, particularly those co-contaminated with heavy metals, nitrate and radionuclides, as found in the United States and other countries as environmental legacies of the nuclear age.

Keywords

Bioremediation Biostimulation Microbial ecology Nickel resistance Nitrate reduction Subsurface microbiology Uranium reduction 

References

  1. Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH (1995) Phylogenetic identification and in-situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev 59(1):143–169Google Scholar
  2. Balkwill DL, Casida LE (1979) Attachment to autoclaved soil of bacterial cells from pure cultures of soil isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 37(5):1031–1037Google Scholar
  3. Bastiaens L, Springael D, Wattiau P, Harms H, deWachter R, Verachtert H, Diels L (2000) Isolation of adherent polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-degrading bacteria using PAH-sorbing carriers. Appl Environ Microbiol 66(5):1834–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brina R, Miller AG (1992) Direct detection of trace levels of uranium by laser-induced kinetic phosphorimetry. Anal Chem 64:1413–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodie EL, DeSantis TZ, Joyner DC, Baek SM, Larsen JT, Andersen GL, Hazen TC, Richardson PM, Herman DJ, Tokunaga TK, Wan JM, Firestone MK (2006) Application of a high-density oligonucleotide microarray approach to study bacterial population dynamics during uranium reduction and reoxidation. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(9):6288–6298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbisier P (1997) Bacterial metal-lux biosensors for a rapid determination of the heavy metal bioavailability and toxicity in solid samples. Res Microbiol 148(6):534–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dichristina TJ (1992) Effects of nitrate and nitrite on dissimilatory iron reduction by Shewanella Putrefaciens 200. J Bacteriol 174(6):1891–1896Google Scholar
  8. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinformatics 5(113):1–19Google Scholar
  9. Everhart JL, McNear D, Peltier E, van der Lelie D, Chaney RL, Sparks DL (2006) Assessing nickel bioavailability in smelter-contaminated soils. Sci Total Environ 367(2–3):732–744Google Scholar
  10. Finneran KT, Housewright ME, Lovley DR (2002a) Multiple influences of nitrate on uranium solubility during bioremediation of uranium-contaminated subsurface sediments. Environ Microbiol 4(9):510–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finneran KT, Forbush HM, VanPraagh CVG, Lovley DR (2002b) Desulfitobacterium metallireducens sp nov, an anaerobic bacterium that couples growth to the reduction of metals and humic acids as well as chlorinated compounds. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 52(6):1929–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geets J, Borrernans B, Diels L, Springael D, Vangronsveld J, van der Lelie D, Vanbroekhoven K (2006) DsrB gene-based DGGE for community and diversity surveys of sulfate-reducing bacteria. J Microbiol Meth 66(2):194–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grass G, Fan B, Rosen BP, Lemke K, Schlegel HG, Rensing C (2001) NreB from Achromobacter xylosoxidans 31A is a nickel-induced transporter conferring nickel resistance. J Bacteriol 183(9):2803–2807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hugenholtz P, Huber T (2003) Chimeric 16S rDNA sequences of diverse origin are accumulating in the public databases. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 53(1):289–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ipsilantis I, Coyne MS (2007) Soil microbial community response to hexavalent chromium in planted and unplanted soil. J Environ Qual 36(3):638–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Istok JD, Senko JM, Krumholz LR, Watson D, Bogle MA, Peacock A, Chang YJ, White DC (2004) In situ bioreduction of technetium and uranium in a nitrate-contaminated aquifer. Environ Sci Technol 38(2):468–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macaskie LE, Empson RM, Cheetham AK, Grey CP, Skarnulis AJ (1992) Uranium bioaccumulation by a Citrobacter sp. as a result of enzymatically mediated growth of polycrystalline HUO2PO4. Sci 257(5071):782–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martinez RJ, Wang YL, Raimondo MA, Coombs JM, Barkay T, Sobecky PA (2006) Horizontal gene transfer of P-IB-type ATPases among bacteria isolated from radionuclide- and metal-contaminated subsurface soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(5):3111–3118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McLain E (2004) Characterization of metal-reducing microbial communities from acidic subsurface sediments contaminated with uranium (VI). Dissertation presented at the Department of Oceanography, Florida State University, College of Arts and Sciences, http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-12222004–153409/unrestricted/01EMEprelims.pdf
  20. Mergeay M, Nies D, Schlegel HG, Gerits J, Charles P, Vangijsegem F (1985) Alcaligenes eutrophus CH34 is a facultative chemolithotroph with plasmid-bound resistance to heavy metals. J Bacteriol 162(1):328–334Google Scholar
  21. North NN, Dollhopf SL, Petrie L, Istok JD, Balkwill DL, Kostka JE (2004) Change in bacterial community structure during in situ biostimulation of subsurface sediment cocontaminated with uranium and nitrate. Appl Environ Microbiol 70(8):4911–4920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nyman JL, Marsh TL, Ginder-Vogel MA, Gentile M, Fendorf S, Criddle C (2006) Heterogeneous response to biostimulation for U(VI) reduction in replicated sediment microcosms. Biodegradation 17(4):303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Page AL (1982) Methods of soils analysis. Part 2—chemical and microbiological characteristics. American Society of Agronomy, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  24. Petrie L, North NN, Dollhopf SL, Balkwill DL, Kostka JE (2003) Enumeration and characterization of iron(III)-reducing microbial communities from acidic subsurface sediments contaminated with uranium(VI). Appl Environ Microbiol 69(12):7467–7479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qureshi S, Richards BK, McBride MB, Baveye P, Steenhuis TS (2003) Temperature and microbial activity effects on trace element leaching from metalliferous peats. J Environ Qual 32(10):2067–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sakadevan K, Zheng H, Bavor HJ (1999) Impact of heavy metals on denitrification in surface wetland sediments receiving wastewater. Water Sci Technol 40:349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sani RK, Peyton BM, Amonette JE, Geesey GG (2004) Reduction of uranium(VI) under sulfate-reducing conditions in the presence of Fe(III)-(hydr)oxides. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 68(12):2639–2648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Senko JM, Istok JD, Suflita JM, Krumholz LR (2002) In-situ evidence for uranium immobilization and remobilization. Environ Sci Technol 36(7):1491–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suzuki Y, Kelly SD, Kemner KA, Banfield JF (2003) Microbial populations stimulated for hexavalent uranium reduction in uranium mine sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(3):1337–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taghavi S, Delanghe H, Lodewyckx C, Mergeay M, van der Lelie D (2001) Nickel-resistance-based minitransposons: new tools for genetic manipulation of environmental bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 67(2):1015–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tibazarwa C, Corbisier P, Mench M, Bossus A, Solda P, Mergeay M, Wyns L, van der Lelie D (2001) A microbial biosensor to predict bioavailable nickel in soil and its transfer to plants. Environ Pollut 113(1):19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vrionis HA, Anderson RT, Ortiz-Bernad I, O'Neill KR, Resch CT, Peacock AD, Dayvault R, White DC, Long PE, Lovley DR (2005) Microbiological and geochemical heterogeneity in an in situ uranium bioremediation field site. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(10):6308–6318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagner M, Roger AJ, Flax JL, Brusseau GA, Stahl DA (1998) Phylogeny of dissimilatory sulfite reductases supports an early origin of sulfate respiration. J Bacteriology 180(11):2975–2982Google Scholar
  34. Wan J, Tokunaga TK, Brodie EL, Wang Z, Zheng Z, Herman D, Hazen TC, Firestone MK, Sutton SR (2005) Reoxidation of bioreduced uranium under reducing conditions. Environ Sci Technol 39(16):6162–6169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu WM, Carley J, Fienen M, Mehlhorn T, Lowe K, Nyman J, Luo J, Gentile ME, Rajan R, Wagner D, Hickey RF, Gu B, Watson D, Cirpka OA, Kitanidis PK, Jardine PM, Criddle CS (2006a) Pilot-scale in situ bioremediation of uranium in a highly contaminated aquifer 1 Conditioning of a treatment zone. Environ Sci Technol 40(12):3978–3985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu WM, Carley J, Gentry T, Ginder-Vogel MA, Fienen M, Mehlhorn T, Yan H, Caroll S, Pace MN, Nyman J, Luo J, Gentile ME, Fields MW, Hickey RF, Gu B, Watson D, Cirpka OA, Zhou J, Fendorf S, Kitanidis PK, Jardine PM, Criddle CS (2006b) Pilot-scale in situ bioremedation of uranium in a highly contaminated aquifer 2 Reduction of U(VI) and geochemical control of U(VI) bioavailability. Environ Sci Technol 40(12):3986–3995CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Moreels
    • 1
  • Garry Crosson
    • 2
  • Craig Garafola
    • 1
  • Denise Monteleone
    • 1
  • Safiyh Taghavi
    • 1
  • Jeffrey P. Fitts
    • 2
  • Daniel van der Lelie
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentBrookhaven National LaboratoryUptonUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Sciences DepartmentBrookhaven National LaboratoryUptonUSA

Personalised recommendations