Advertisement

Copper effect in petroleum hydrocarbons biodegradation by microorganisms associated to Juncus maritimus: role of autochthonous bioaugmentation

  • I. P. F. M. Montenegro
  • A. P. Mucha
  • I. Reis
  • P. Rodrigues
  • C. M. R. Almeida
Original Paper

Abstract

The bioremediation potential of microorganisms from a saltmarsh plant rhizosphere and application of bioaugmentation in estuarine sediment co-contaminated were investigated. Rhizosediment (sediment in contact with plant roots) of Juncus maritimus was contaminated with copper and/or petroleum, inoculated with different autochthonous microbial consortia (resistant to copper and/or with petroleum degraders) and put in vessels to which plants were transplanted. Vessels were irrigated through a system that simulated estuarine tides. After 5 months, vessels were dismantled and copper and petroleum content in rhizosediments were determined. Copper’s presence reduced the potential of the microorganisms associated to J. maritimus rhizosphere for bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in co-contaminated sediment. Indeed, hydrocarbons removal decreased from 39 to 25% when copper was present. In addition, bioaugmentation was not effective to overcome metal negative effects on petroleum hydrocarbons degradation, and the same removal rate was being observed (ca. 25%). Different methodologies for the formulation of consortia must be tested in this situation of co-contamination. Obtained results should be taken in consideration when planning the recovery of moderately impacted estuaries, aiming an effective protection and management of these areas, in the case of co-contamination.

Keywords

Bioremediation Co-contaminated soil Estuarine environment Saltmarsh plants 

Notes

Acknowledgements

To Rayra Santiago, Tânia Oliveira, Tatiana Necrasov, Catarina Magalhães for their help in the experiments assembling and dismantling of the vessels. This research was partially supported by the Strategic Funding UID/Multi/04423/2013 through national funds provided by FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), in the framework of the programme PT2020 and by the structured Program of R&D&I INNOVMAR—Innovation and Sustainability in the Management and Exploitation of Marine Resources, reference NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000035, namely within the Research Line ECOSERVICES (Assessing the environmental quality, vulnerability and risks for the sustainable management of the NW coast natural resources and ecosystem services in a changing world) within the R&D Institution CIIMAR (Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research), supported by the Northern Regional Operational Programme (NORTE2020), through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

Supplementary material

13762_2016_1215_MOESM1_ESM.docx (386 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 385 kb)

References

  1. Agarwal A, Liu Y (2015) Remediation technologies for oil-contaminated sediments. Mar Pollut Bull 101:483–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akpoveta OV, Egharevba F, Medjor GW (2011) A pilot study on the biodegradation of hydrocarbon and its kinetics on kerosene simulated soil. Intern J Environ Sci 2:54–67Google Scholar
  3. Alisi C, Musella R, Tasso F, Ubaldi C, Manzo S, Cremisni C, Sprocati NA (2009) Bioremediation with a microbial formula tailored with native strains selected for heavy metals resistance. Sci Total Environ 407:3024–3032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almeida CMR, Mucha AP, Vasconcelos MTSD (2004) Influence of the sea rush Juncus maritimus on metal concentration and speciation in estuarine sediment colonized by the plant. Environ Sci Technol 38:3112–3118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Almeida CMR, Mucha AP, Delgado MFC, Caçador M, Bordalo AA, Vasconcelos MTSD (2008) Can PAHs influence Cu accumulation by salt marsh plants? Mar Environ Res 66:311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Almeida CMR, Mucha AP, Vasconcelos MT (2011) Role of different salt marsh plants on metal retention in an urban estuary (Lima estuary, NW Portugal). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 91:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Almeida R, Mucha AP, Teixeira C, Bordalo AA, Almeida CMR (2013) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in estuarine sediments: metal influence. Biodegradation 24:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Almeida CMR, Couto N, Ribeiro H, Mucha AP, Bordalo A, Basto MC, Vasconcelos MTSD (2015) Salt marsh plants’ potential for the remediation of hydrocarbons-contaminated environments. In: Ansari AA, Gill SS, Gill R, Lanza GR, Newman L (eds) Phytoremediation: management of environmental contaminants, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 323–331. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10395-2_23 Google Scholar
  9. Amor L, Kennes C, Veiga MC (2001) Kinetics of inhibition in the biodegradation of monoaromatic hydrocarbons in presence of heavy metals. Bioresour Technol 78:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atagana HI (2006) Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in contaminated soil by biostimulation and biaugmention in the presence of copper(II) ions. World J Microb Biot 22:1145–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boonchan S, Britz ML, Stanley GA (2000) Degradation and mineralization of high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by defined fungal–bacterial cocultures. Appl Environ Microb 66:1007–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouchez M, Blanchet D, Bardin V, Haeseler F, Vandecasteele JP (1999) Efficiency of defined strains and of soil consortia in the biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures. Biodegradation 10:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chigbo C, Batty L, Bartlett R (2013) Interactions of copper and pyrene on phytoremediation potential of Brassica juncea in copper–pyrene co-contaminated soil. Chemosphere 90:2542–2548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colombo M, Cavalca L, Bernasconi S, Andreoni V (2011) Bioremediation of polyaromatic hydrocarbon contaminated soils by microflora and bioaugmentation with Sphingobium chlorophenolicum strain C3R: a feasibility study in solid- and slurry-phase microcosms. Int Biodeter Biodegr 65:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Couto MN, Borges JR, Guedes P, Almeida R, Monteiro E, Almeida CMR, Basto MCP, Vasconcelos MTSD (2014) An improved method for determination of petroleum hydrocarbons from soil using a simple ultrasonic extraction and Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometry. Pet Sci Technol 32:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dobler R, Saner M, Bachofen R (2000) Population changes of soil microbial communities induced by hydrocarbon and metal contamination. Bioremediat J 4:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doelman P, Jansen E, Michels M, Van Til M (1994) Effect of heavy metals in soil on microbial diversity and activity as shown by the sensitivity-resistance index, an ecologically relevant parameter. Biol Fert Soils 17:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerhardt KE, Huang XD, Glick BR, Greenberg BM (2009) Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation of organic soil contaminants: potential and challenges. Plant Sci 176:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez-Ginés MJ, Hernández AJ, Pérez-Leblic MI, Vangronsveld J (2014) Phytoremediation of soils co-contaminated by organic compounds and heavy metals: biossays with Lupinus luteus L. and associated endophytic bacteria. J Environ Manag 143:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hechmi N, Aissa NB, Abdenaceur H, Jedidi N (2015) Uptake and bioaccumulation of pentachlorophenol by emergent wetland plant Phragmites australis (Common reed) in cadmium co-contaminated soil. Int J Phytoremediat 17:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffman DR, Okon JL, Sandrin TR (2005) Medium composition affects the degree and pattern of cadmium inhibition of naphthalene biodegradation. Chemosphere 59:919–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoffman DR, Anderson PP, Schubert CM, Gault MB, Blanford WJ, Sandrin TR (2010) Carboxymethyl-β-cyclodextrin mitigates toxicity of cadmium, cobalt, and copper during naphthalene biodegradation. Bioresour Technol 101:2672–2677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hosokawa R, Nagai M, Morikawa M, Okuyama H (2009) Autochthonous bioaugmentation and its possible application to oil spills. World J Microb Biotechnol 25:1519–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karthikeyan R, Kulakow PA (2003) Soil plant microbe interactions in phytoremediation. In: Scheper T (ed) Phytoremediation: advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology, vol 78. Springer, Berlin, pp 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuppusamy S, Thavamani P, Megharaj M, Naidu R (2016) Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocabons (PAHS) by novel bacterial consortia tolerant to diverse physical settings—assessments in liquid- and slurry-phase systems. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 108:149–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lefeuvre J-C, Laffaille P, Feunteun E, Bouchard V, Radureau A (2003) Biodiversity in salt marshes: from patrimonial value to ecosystem functioning. The case study of the Mont-Saint-Michel bay. C R Biol 326:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin Q, Wang Z, Ma S, Chen Y (2006) Evaluation of dissipation mechanisms by Lolium perenne L., and Raphanus sativus for pentachlorophenol (PCP) in copper co-contaminated soil. Sci Total Environ 368:814–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin Q, Shen KL, Zhao HM, Li WH (2008) Growth response of Zea mays L. in pyrene-copper co-contaminated soil and the fate of the pollutants. J Hazard Mater 150:515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Long ER, MacDonald DD, Smith SL, Calder FD (1995) Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ Manag 19:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lorah MM, Majcher EH, Jones EJ, Voytek MA (2008) Microbial consortia development and microcosm and column experiments for enhanced bioremediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, west branch canal creek wetland area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5165. http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/sir.html
  31. Ma Y, Prasad MNV, Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2011) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and endophytes accelerate phytoremediation of metalliferous soils. Biotechnol Adv 29:248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Megharaj M, Ramakrishnan B, Venkateswarlu K, Sethunathan N, Nadia R (2011) Bioremediation approaches for organic pollutants: a critical perspective. Environ Int 37:1357–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olaniran AO, Balgobind A, Pillay B (2013) Bioavailability of heavy metals in soil: impact on microbial biodegradation of organic compounds and possible improvement strategies. Int J Mol Sci 14:10197–10228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oliveira T, Mucha AP, Reis I, Rodrigues P, Gomes CR, Almeida CMR (2014) Copper phytoremediation by salt marsh plant (Phragmites australis) enhanced by autochthonous bioaugmentation. Mar Pollut Bull 88:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peixoto RS, Vermelho AB, Rosado AS (2011) Petroleum-degrading enzymes: bioremediation and new prospects. Enzyme Res 2011:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pepper IL, Gentry TJ, Newby DT, Roane TM, Josephson KL (2002) The role of cell bioaugmentation and gene bioaugmentation in the remediation of co-contaminated soils. Environ Health Perspect 110:943–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pontes J, Mucha AP, Santos H, Reis I, Bordalo A, Bastos MC, Bernabeu A, Almeida CMR (2013) Potential of bioremediation for buried oil removal in beaches after an oil spill. Mar Pollut Bull 76:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rani R, Juwarkar A (2013) Interactions between plant growth promoting microbes and plants: implications for microbe-assisted phytoremediation of metal-contaminated soil. In: Leung DWM (ed) Recent advances towards improved phytoremediation of heavy metal pollution. Bentham Science Publishers, Sharjah, pp 3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rauret G, López-Sánchez JF, Sahuquillo A, Rubio R, Davidson C, Ure A, Quevauviller Ph (1999) Improvement of the BCR three step sequential extraction procedure prior to the certification of the new sediment and soil reference materials. J Environ Monitor 1:57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ribeiro H, Mucha AP, Almeida CMR, Bordalo AA (2011) Hydrocarbon degradation potential of salt marsh plant–microorganisms associations. Biodegradation 224:729–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ribeiro H, Almeida CMR, Mucha AP, Teixeira C, Bordalo AA (2013) Influence of natural rhizosediments characteristics on hydrocarbons degradation potential of microorganisms associated to Juncus maritimus roots. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 84:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ribeiro H, Mucha AP, Almeida CMR, Bordalo AA (2014) Potential of phytoremediation for the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated salt marsh sediments. J Environ Manag 137:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riis V, Babel W, Pucci OH (2002) Influence of heavy metals on the microbial degradation of diesel fuel. Chemosphere 49:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roane TM, Josephson KL, Pepper IL (2001) Dual-bioaugmentation strategy to enhance remediation of co-contaminated soil. Appl Environ Microb 67:3208–3215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Said WA, Lewis DL (1991) Quantitative assessment of the effects of metals on microbial degradation of organic chemicals. Appl Environ Microb 57:1498–1503Google Scholar
  46. Sandrin TR, Hoffman DR (2007) Bioremediation of organic and metal co-contaminated environments: effects of metal toxicity, speciation and bioavailability on biodegradation. In: Singh SN, Tripathi RD (eds) Environmental bioremediation technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandrin TR, Maier RM (2003) Impact of metals on the biodegradation of organic pollutants. Environ Health Perspect 111:1093–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sandrin TR, Chech AM, Maier RM (2000) A rhamnolipid biosurfactant reduces cadmium toxicity during naphthalene biodegradation. Appl Environ Microb 66:4585–4588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shilev S, Kuzmanova I, Sancho E (2009) Phytotechnologies: how plants and bacteria work together. In: Baveye P, Laba M, Mysiak J (eds) Uncertainties in environmental modelling and consequences for policy making. Springer, Netherlands, pp 385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singer AC, Bell T, Heywood CA, Smith JAC, Thompson IP (2007) Phytoremediation of mixed-contaminated soil using the hyperaccumulator plant Alyssum lesbiacum: evidence of histidine as a measure of phytoextractable nickel. Environ Pollut 147:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sprocati AR, Alisi C, Tasso F, Marconi P, Sciullo A, Pinto V, Chiavarini S, Ubaldi C, Cremisini C (2012) Effectiveness of a microbial formula, as a biaugmentation agent, tailored for bioremediation of diesel oil and heavy metal co-contaminated soil. Process Biochem 47:1649–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sun YB, Zhou QX, Xu YM, Wang L, Liang XF (2011) Phytoremediation for co-contaminated soils of benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) and heavy metals using ornamental plant Tagetes patula. J Hazard Mater 186:2075–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Teixeira C, Almeida CMR, Nunes da Silva M, Bordalo AA, Mucha AP (2014) Development of autochthonous microbial consortium of enhanced of salt-marsh sediments contaminated with cadmium. Sci Total Environ 493:757–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson IP, Van Der Gast CJ, Ciric L, Singuer AC (2005) Bioaugmentation for bioremediation: the challenge of strain selection. Environ Microbiol 7:909–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vogel TM (1996) Bioaugmentation as a soil bioremediation approach. Curr Opin Biotechnol 7:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang J, Zhang Z, Su Y, He F, Song H (2008) Phytoremediation of petroleum polluted soil. Pet Sci 5:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang K, Zhu Z, Huang H, Li T, He Z, Yang X, Alva A (2012) Interactive effects of Cd and PAHs on contaminants removal from co-contaminated soil planted with hyperaccumulator plant Sedum alfredii. J Soils Sedim 12:554–564Google Scholar
  58. Weyens N, Truyens S, Saenen E, Boulet J, Dupae J, Taghavi S, van der Lelie D, Carleer R, Vangronsveld J (2011) Endophytes and their potential to deal with co-contamination of organic contaminants (Toluene) and toxic metals (Nickel) during phytoremediation. Int J Phytoremediat 13:244–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Young LY, Liang W, Shor L, Kosson D, Rochne K, Taghon G (2002) Bioavailability of PAHs to bacteria in estuarine sediment. Soil Sediment Contam 11:488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang H, Dang Z, Zheng LC, Yi XY (2009) Remediation of soil co-contaminated with pyrene and cadmium by growing maize (Zea mays L.). Int J Environ Sci Technol 6:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang ZH, Rengel Z, Meney K, Pantelic L, Tamanovic R (2011) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) mediate cadmium toxicity to an emergent wetland species. J Hazard Mater 189:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. P. F. M. Montenegro
    • 1
  • A. P. Mucha
    • 1
  • I. Reis
    • 1
  • P. Rodrigues
    • 1
  • C. M. R. Almeida
    • 1
  1. 1.CIMAR/CIIMAR - Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e AmbientalUniversidade do PortoMatosinhosPortugal

Personalised recommendations