Advertisement

Effects of Different Electron Donor Feeding Patterns on TCE Reductive Dechlorination Performance

  • I. PanagiotakisEmail author
  • K. Antoniou
  • D. Mamais
  • M. Pantazidou
Article

Abstract

This study investigates how the feeding pattern of e donors might affect the efficiency of enhanced in situ bioremediation in TCE-contaminated aquifers. A series of lab-scale batch experiments were conducted using butyrate or hydrogen gas (H2) as e donor and a TCE-dechlorinating microbial consortium dominated by Dehalococcoides spp. The results of these experiments demonstrate that butyrate is similarly efficient for TCE dechlorination whether it is injected once or in doses. Moreover, the present work indicates that the addition of butyrate in great excess cannot be avoided, since it most likely provide, even indirectly, significant part of the H2 required. Furthermore, methanogenesis appears to be the major ultimate e accepting process in all experiments, regardless the e donor used and the feeding pattern. Finally, the timing of injection of H2 seems to significantly affect dechlorination performance, since the injection during the early stages improves VC-to-ETH dechlorination and reduce methanogenic activity.

Keywords

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Butyrate Hydrogen Reductive dechlorination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by a 4-year scholarship granted to Iraklis Panagiotakis and Kornilia Antoniou by the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering of the School of Civil Engineering of the National Technical University of Athens.

References

  1. Aulenta F, Majone M, Tandoi V (2006) Review: enhanced anaerobic bioremediation of chlorinated solvents: environmental factors influencing microbial activity and their relevance under field conditions. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 81:1463–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cord-Ruwisch R, Lovley DR, Schink B (1998) Growth of Geobacter sulfurreducens with acetate in syntrophic cooperation with hydrogen-oxidizing anaerobic partners. Appl Environ Microb 64:2232–2236Google Scholar
  3. Fennell DE, Gossett JM (2003) Microcosms for site-specific evaluation of enhanced biological reductive dehalogenation. In: Häggblom MM, Bossert ID (eds) Dehalogenation, microbial processes and environmental applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 385–420Google Scholar
  4. Hattori S (2008) Mini review, syntrophic acetate-oxidizing in methanogenic environments. Microbes Environ 23:118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heimann AC, Friis AK, Jakobsen R (2005) Effects of sulfate on anaerobic chloroethene degradation by an enriched culture under transient and steady-state hydrogen supply. Water Res 39:3579–3586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Henry BM (2010) Biostimulation for anaerobic bioremediation of chlorinated solvents. In: Stroo HF, Ward CH (eds) In situ remediation of chlorinated solvent plumes. Springer, New York, pp 357–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moran MJ, Zogorski JS, Squillace PJ (2007) Chlorinated solvents in groundwater of the United States. Environ Sci Technol 41:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Panagiotakis I, Mamais D, Pantazidou M, Marneri M, Parapouli M, Hatziloukas E, Tandoi V (2007) Dechlorinating ability of TCE-fed microcosms with different electron donor. J Hazard Mater 149:582–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Panagiotakis I, Mamais D, Pantazidou M, Rossetti S, Aulenta F, Tandoi V (2014) Predominance of Dehalococcoides in the presence of different sulfate concentrations. Water Air Soil Pollut 225:1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Smatlak CR, Gossett JM, Zinder SH (1996) Comparison kinetics of hydrogen utilization for reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene and methanogenesis in an anaerobic enrichment culture. Environ Sci Technol 30:2850–2858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. USΕPA (2006) In situ and ex situ biodegradation technologies for remediation of contaminated sites, EPA/625/R-6/015. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r06015/625r06015.pdf
  12. Yang Y, McCarty PL (1998) Competition for hydrogen within a chlorinated solvent dechlorinating anaerobic mixed culture. Environ Sci Technol 32:3591–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yang Y, McCarty PL (2000) Biomass, oleate, and other possible substrates for chloroethene reductive dehalogenation. Bioremediat J 4:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Panagiotakis
    • 1
    Email author
  • K. Antoniou
    • 1
  • D. Mamais
    • 1
  • M. Pantazidou
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensZografouGreece

Personalised recommendations