Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 1100–1107 | Cite as

An improved effective microorganism (EM) soil ball-making method for water quality restoration

  • Gun-Seok Park
  • Abdur Rahim Khan
  • Yunyoung Kwak
  • Sung-Jun Hong
  • ByungKwon Jung
  • Ihsan Ullah
  • Jong-Guk Kim
  • Jae-Ho ShinEmail author
Selected Papers from the 2nd Contaminated Land, Ecological Assessment and Remediation (CLEAR 2014) Conference: Environmental Pollution and Remediation

Abstract

Soil balls containing the so-called effective microorganisms (EM) have been applied to improve water quality of small ponds, lakes, and streams worldwide. However, neither the physical conditions facilitating their proper application nor the diversity of microbial community in such soil balls have been investigated. In this study, the application of 0.75 % of hardener to the soil balls exerted almost neutral pH (pH 7.3) which caused up to a fourfold increased hardness of the soil ball. Moreover, the 0.75 % of hardener in the soil ball also improved the water quality due to a significant reduction in dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen contents. Metagenomic analysis of the microbial community in the soil ball with 0.75 % hardener was compared with control (traditional soil ball) through next-generation sequencing. The traditional soil ball microbial community comprised 96.1 % bacteria, 2.7 % eukaryota, and 1 % archaea, whereas the soil ball with 0.75 % hardener comprised 71.4 % bacteria, 27.9 % eukaryota, and 0.2 % viruses. Additionally, metagenomic profiles for both traditional and improved soil balls revealed that the various xenobiotic biodegradation, such as those for caprolactam, atrazine, xylene, toluene, styrene, bisphenol, and chlorocyclohexane might be responsible for organic waste cleanup.

Keywords

Biodegradation Effective microorganisms Metagenome Microbial community Soil ball Water quality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored by the Korea Ministry of Environment as the Eco-Innovation project.

Compliance with ethical standards

The present research did not involve human participants and/or animals.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2015_5617_Fig5_ESM.jpg (134 kb)
Fig. A1

Soil ball dissociation in water tank after 7 days in controlled flow. a Soil ball containing 0 % (w/w) 3CaO∙SiO2 and b soil ball containing 0.75 % (w/w) 3CaO∙SiO2. (JPEG 134 kb)

11356_2015_5617_Fig6_ESM.jpg (251 kb)
Fig. A2

The shape of soil balls. a Soil ball making with loess and b soil ball making with send and zeolite. (JPEG 250 kb)

11356_2015_5617_Fig7_ESM.jpg (70 kb)
Fig. A3

Composition of microbial community pie charts of soil balls. a Traditional soil ball. b Improved soil ball with 0.5 % hardener. c Improved soil ball with 0.75 % hardener. (JPEG 70 kb)

References

  1. APHA (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn, Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Work Association, Water Environment Federation 252Google Scholar
  2. Buckley DH, Graber JR, Schmidt TM (1998) Phylogenetic analysis of nonthermophilic members of the kingdom Crenarchaeota and their diversity and abundance in soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:4333–4339Google Scholar
  3. Bundy JG, Paton GI, Campbell CD (2002) Microbial communities in different soil types do not converge after diesel contamination. J Appl Microbiol 92:276–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bustin S (2002) Quantification of mRNA using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR): trends and problems. J Mol Endocrinol 29:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen H, Hansen M, Sørensen J (1999) Counting and size classification of active soil bacteria by fluorescence in situ hybridization with an rRNA oligonucleotide probe. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:1753–1761Google Scholar
  6. Denman S, McSweeney C (2005) Quantitative (real-time) PCR. In: Makkar HS, McSweeney C (eds) Methods in gut microbial ecology for ruminants. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ekpeghere KI, Kim B-H, Son H-S, Whang K-S, Kim H-S, Koh S-C (2012) Functions of effective microorganisms in bioremediation of the contaminated harbor sediments. J Environ Sci Health A 47:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fierer N, Jackson JA, Vilgalys R, Jackson RB (2005) Assessment of soil microbial community structure by use of taxon-specific quantitative PCR assays. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:4117–4120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbride KA, Lee DY, Beaudette LA (2006) Molecular techniques in wastewater: understanding microbial communities, detecting pathogens, and real-time process control. J Microbiol Methods 66:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giovannoni SJ, Britschgi TB, Moyer CL, Field KG (1990) Genetic diversity in Sargasso Sea bacterioplankton. Nature 345:60–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green JL et al (2004) Spatial scaling of microbial eukaryote diversity. Nature 432:747–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grover M, Ali SZ, Sandhya V, Rasul A, Venkateswarlu B (2011) Role of microorganisms in adaptation of agriculture crops to abiotic stresses. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 27:1231–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heid CA, Stevens J, Livak KJ, Williams PM (1996) Real time quantitative PCR. Genome Res 6:986–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hesham Ael L, Qi R, Yang M (2011) Comparison of bacterial community structures in two systems of a sewage treatment plant using PCR-DGGE analysis. J Environ Sci (China) 23:2049–2054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higa T (1998) An earth saving revolution: a means to resolve our world’s problems through effective microorganisms (EM). Sunmark Publishing, Inc., Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  16. Higa T, Parr JF (1994) Beneficial and effective microorganisms for a sustainable agriculture and environment (vol. 1). Atami, JapanGoogle Scholar
  17. Javaid A (2010) Growth and yield response of wheat to EM (effective microorganisms) and parthenium green manure. Afr J Biotechnol 9:3373Google Scholar
  18. Kariminiaae-Hamedaani H-R, Kanda K, Kato F (2003) Wastewater treatment with bacteria immobilized onto a ceramic carrier in an aerated system. J Biosci Bioeng 95:128–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malik S, Beer M, Megharaj M, Naidu R (2008) The use of molecular techniques to characterize the microbial communities in contaminated soil and water. Environ Int 34:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mielczarek AT, Saunders AM, Larsen P, Albertsen M, Stevenson M, Nielsen JL, Nielsen PH (2013) The microbial database for Danish wastewater treatment plants with nutrient removal (MiDas-DK)—a tool for understanding activated sludge population dynamics and community stability. Water Sci Technol 67:2519–2526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moura A, Tacão M, Henriques I, Dias J, Ferreira P, Correia A (2009) Characterization of bacterial diversity in two aerated lagoons of a wastewater treatment plant using PCR-DGGE analysis. Microbiol Res 164:560–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:695–700Google Scholar
  23. NIAST (2000) Method of soil and plant analysis. National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology (NIAST), SuwanGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicol GW, Leininger S, Schleper C, Prosser JI (2008) The influence of soil pH on the diversity, abundance and transcriptional activity of ammonia oxidizing archaea and bacteria. Environ Microbiol 10:2966–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nogales B, Moore ER, Llobet-Brossa E, Rossello-Mora R, Amann R, Timmis KN (2001) Combined use of 16S ribosomal DNA and 16S rRNA to study the bacterial community of polychlorinated biphenyl-polluted soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:1874–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ranjard L, Richaume A (2001) Quantitative and qualitative microscale distribution of bacteria in soil. Res Microbiol 152:707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ravenschlag K, Sahm K, Knoblauch C, Jorgensen BB, Amann R (2000) Community structure, cellular rRNA content, and activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria in marine arctic sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:3592–3602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rhee SK, Liu X, Wu L, Chong SC, Wan X, Zhou J (2004) Detection of genes involved in biodegradation and biotransformation in microbial communities by using 50-mer oligonucleotide microarrays. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:4303–4317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritz K et al (2004) Spatial structure in soil chemical and microbiological properties in an upland grassland. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 49:191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rousk J, Brookes PC, Bååth E (2009) Contrasting soil pH effects on fungal and bacterial growth suggest functional redundancy in carbon mineralization. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:1589–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanz JL, Köchling T (2007) Molecular biology techniques used in wastewater treatment: an overview. Process Biochem 42:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shin S-E, Choi D, Lee C-B, Cha W-S (2006) Phosphorus removal in pilot plant using biofilm filter process from farm wastewater. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 11:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Small J, Call DR, Brockman FJ, Straub TM, Chandler DP (2001) Direct detection of 16S rRNA in soil extracts by using oligonucleotide microarrays. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4708–4716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teruo H, James FP (1994) Beneficial and effective microorganisms for a sustainable agriculture and environment. International Nature Farming Research Centre, NaganoGoogle Scholar
  35. Torsvik V, Salte K, Sorheim R, Goksoyr J (1990) Comparison of phenotypic diversity and DNA heterogeneity in a population of soil bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:776–781Google Scholar
  36. Zakaria Z, Gairola S, Shariff NM (2010) Effective microorganisms (EM) technology for water quality restoration and potential for sustainable water resources and management. Biol Programme Sch Distance Educ 11800:1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Applied BioscienceKyungpook National UniversityDaeguRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic EngineeringThe University of AgriculturePeshawarPakistan
  3. 3.School of Life Sciences and BiotechnologyKyungpook National UniversityDaeguRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations