Advertisement

Restoring biochemical activity and bacterial diversity in a trichloroethylene-contaminated soil: the reclamation effect of vermicomposted olive wastes

  • Beatriz Moreno
  • Astrid Vivas
  • Rogelio Nogales
  • Cristina Macci
  • Grazia Masciandaro
  • Emilio BenitezEmail author
AREA 5.1 • MICROBIAL WASTE DISPOSAL • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

In this work, the potential for using olive-mill solid waste as an organic amendment for biochemical and biological restoration of a trichloroethylene-contaminated soil, which has previously been stabilized through vermicomposting processes, has been explored.

Materials and methods

Trichloroethylene-contaminated water was pumped into soil columns with a layer of vermicompost at 10-cm depth (biobarrier system). The impacts of the trichloroethylene on the microbial community were evaluated by determining: (1) the overall microbial activity (estimated as dehydrogenase activity) and enzyme activities related to the main nutrient cycles (β-glucosidase, o-diphenoloxidase, phosphatase, urease, and arylsulphatase activities). In addition, isoelectric focusing of the soil extracellular humic-β-glucosidase complexes was performed to study the enzymatically active humic matter related to the soil carbon cycle. (2) The soil bacterial diversity and the molecular mechanisms for the bacterial resistance to organic solvents were also determined. For this, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) was used to detect changes in bacterial community structure and PCR-single-strand conformational polymorphism (SSCP) was developed and optimised for detection and discrimination of the resistance-nodulation-division (RND) genes amplified from the contaminated soils.

Results

Vermicompost reduced, with respect to the unamended soil, about 30% of the trichloroethylene leaching during the first month of the experiment. Trichloroethylene had a marked negative effect on soil dehydrogenase, β-glucosidase, urease, phosphatase, and arylsulphatase activities. Nevertheless, the vermicompost tended to avoid this toxic effect. Vermicompost also displays stable humic-β-glucosidase complexes that increased the extracellular activity related to C-cycle in the contaminated soils. The isoelectric focusing technique showed a more biochemically active humic matter in the soil sampled under the vermicompost. The behaviour of the three main phyla of bacteria isolated from the DGGE bands was quite different. Bands corresponding to Actinobacteria disappeared, whereas those affiliated with Proteobacteria remained after the trichloroethylene contamination. The disappeared Actinobacteria became visible in the soil amended with the vermicompost. Bands corresponding to Bacteriodetes appeared only in columns of contaminated soils. In this study, six types of RND proteins were detected by PCR-SSCP in the natural soil, three in the trichloroethylene-contaminated soil and 7/5 in trichloroethylene-contaminated soil above/below the vermicompost in the biobarrier columns. Trichloroethylene tended to reduce or eliminate all the clones detected in the uncontaminated soil, whereas new efflux pumps appeared in the biobarrier columns.

Discussion

Although enzymes incorporated into the humic substances of vermicomposted olive wastes are quite stable, trichloroethylene also inhibited the background levels of the soil extracellular β-glucosidase activity in the amended soils. The decrease was less severe in the biobarrier system, but in any case, no relation was found between the levels of trichloroethylene in soil and extracellular β-glucosidase activity, or between the latter and the quantity of humic carbon in soils. The isoelectric focusing technique was carried out in the humic fraction to determine whether the loss of activity occurred in overall extracellular β-glucosidase or in that linked to stable humic substances (humic–enzyme complexes). The contaminated soils showed the lower enzyme activities, whereas contaminated and amended soils presented greater quantity of focalised (and therefore stable) humic carbon and spectra heterogeneity: very different bands with higher enzyme activities. No clear relationship between trichloroethylene concentration in soil and diversity of the bacterial population was noted. Similar patterns could be found when the community structures of bacteria and microbial activity were considered. Since the use of the dehydrogenase assay has been recognised as a useful indicator of the overall measure of the intensity of microbial metabolism, these results could be attributed to PCR-DGGE methodology, since the method reveals the presence of dominant populations regardless of their metabolic state. Trichloroethylene maintained or even increased the number of clones with the DNA encoding for RND proteins, except for the contaminated soil located above the vermicompost. However, the main effect of trichloroethylene was to modify the structure of the community in contaminated soils, considering the type of efflux pumps encoded by the DNA extracted from soil bacteria.

Conclusions

Trichloroethylene inhibited specific functions in soil and had a clear influence on the structure of the autochthonous bacterial community. The organic matter released by the vermicomposted olive waste tended to avoid the toxic effect of the contaminant. Trichloroethylene also inhibited the background levels of the soil extracellular β-glucosidase activity, even when vermicompost was present. In this case, the effect of the vermicompost was to provide and/or to stimulate the humic-β-glucosidase complexes located in the soil humic fraction >104, increasing the resistance of the enzyme to the inhibition. The bacterial community from the soil presented significantly different mechanisms to resistance to solvents (RND proteins) under trichloroethylene conditions. The effect of the vermicompost was to induce these mechanisms in the autochthonous bacterial community and/or incorporated new bacterial species, able to grow in a trichloroethylene-contaminated ambient. Coupled biochemical and molecular methodologies are therefore helpful approaches in assessing the effect of an organic amendment on the biochemical and biological restoration of a trichloroethylene-contaminated soil.

Recommendations and perspectives

Since the main biochemical and biological effects of the organic amendment on the contaminated soil seem to be the incorporation of biochemically active humic matter, as well as new bacterial species able to grow in a trichloroethylene-contaminated ambient, isoelectric focusing and PCR-SSCP methodologies should be considered as parts of an integrated approach to determine the success of a restoration scheme.

Keywords

Bacterial diversity Bioremediation RND transporters Soil enzymes Trichloroethylene Vermicomposting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been financed by the Education and Science Ministry through projects REN2003-05359, CSIC-CNR Project 2004IT0003 and B. Moreno’s grant. We would also like to thank C. Cifuentes for the technical assistance and David Nesbitt for assisting in the translation of the original manuscript into English.

References

  1. Bassam BJ, Caetano-Anolles G, Gresshoff PM (1991) Fast and sensitive silver staining of DNA in polyacrylamide gels. Anal Biochem 196:80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benitez E, Nogales R, Masciandaro G, Ceccanti B (2000) Isolation by isoelectric focusing of humic–urease complexes from earthworm (Eisenia foetida)-processed sewage sludges. Biol Fert Soils 31:489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benitez E, Sainz H, Melgar R, Nogales R (2002) Vermicomposting of a lignocellulosic waste from olive oil industry: a pilot scale study. Waste Manage Res 20:134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benitez E, Melgar R, Nogales R (2004) Estimating soil resilience to a toxic organic waste by measuring enzyme activities. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1615–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benitez E, Sainz H, Nogales R (2005) Hydrolytic enzyme activities of extracted humic substances during the vermicomposting of a lignocellulosic olive waste. Bioresource Technol 96:785–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns RG (1986) Interaction of enzymes with soil mineral and organic colloids. In: Interactions of soil minerals with natural organics and microbes. Special Publication No. 1. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 429–451Google Scholar
  7. Ceccanti B, Alcañiz-Baldellou JM, Gispert-Negrell M, Gassiot-Matas M (1986) Characterization of organic matter from two different soils by pyrolysis-gas chromatography and isoelectric focusing. Soil Sci 142:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceccanti B, Bonmati-Pont M, Nannipieri P (1989) Microdetermination of protease activity in humic bands of different sizes after analytical isoelectric focusing. Biol Fert Soils 7:202–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole JR, Chai B, Marsh TL, Farris RJ, Wang Q, Kulam SA, Chandra S, McGarrell DM, Schmidt TM, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM (2003) The Ribosomal Database Project (RDP-II) previewing a new autoaligner that allows regular updates and the new prokaryotic taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res 31:442–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crapez M, Tosta Z, Bispo M, Pereira D (2000) Acute and chronic impacts caused by aromatic hydrocarbons on bacterial communities at Boa Viagem and Forte do Rio Branco Beaches, Guanabara Bay, Brazil. Environ Pollut 108:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dilly O, Bloem J, Vos A, Munch JC (2004) Bacterial diversity in agricultural soils during litter decomposition. Appl Environ Microb 70:468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ensign SA, Hyman MR, Arp DJ (1992) Cometabolic degradation of chlorinated alkenes by alkene monooxygenase in a propylene-grown Xanthobacter strain. Appl Environ Microb 5:3038–3046Google Scholar
  13. Ensley BD (1991) Biochemical diversity of trichloroethylene metabolism. Annu Rev Microbiol 45:283–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fava F, Di Gioia D (2001) Soya lecithin effects on the aerobic biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls in an artificially contaminated soil. Biotechnol Bioeng 72:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Filip Z, Demmerova K (2006) Microbial resistance to chemical contaminants—an essential precondition of natural attenuation in groundwater aquifer. In: Management of intentional and accidental water pollution. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 113–127Google Scholar
  16. García C, Hernández MT, Costa F (1997) Potential use of dehydrogenase activity as an index of microbial activity in degraded soils. Commun Soil Sci Plan 28:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gasteiger E, Gattiker A, Hoogland C, Ivanyi I, Appel RD, Bairoch A (2003) ExPASy: the proteomics server for in-depth protein knowledge and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 31:3784–3788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gianfreda L, Rao MA, Piotrowska A, Palumbo G, Colombo C (2005) Soil enzyme activities as affected by anthropogenic alterations: intensive agricultural practices and organic pollution. Sci Total Environ 34:265–279Google Scholar
  19. Harris JA (2003) Measurements of the soil microbial community for estimating the success of restoration. Eur J Soil Sci 54:801–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heuer H, Wieland G, Schonfeld J, Schnwalder A, Gomes NCM, Smalla K (2001) Bacterial community profiling using DGGE or TGGE analysis. In: Rouchelle P (ed) Environmental molecular microbiology: protocols and applications. Horizon Scientific Press, Wymondham, UK, pp 177–190Google Scholar
  21. Ibekwe AM, Grieve CM (2004) Changes in developing plant microbial community structure as affected by contaminated water. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 48:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kandeler E, Dick RP (2006) Soil enzymes: spatial distribution and function in agroecosystems. In: Benckiser G, Schnell S (eds) Biodiversity in agricultural production systems. CRC/Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 263–285Google Scholar
  23. Katsenovich Y, Öztürk Z, Allen M, Wein G (2007) Evaluation of soil solid amendments for TCE biodegradation in a biobarrier system. Remediation J 17:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee SM, Jung JY, Chung YC (2000) Measurement of ammonia inhibition of microbial activity in biological wastewater treatment process using dehydrogenase assay. Biotechnol Lett 22:991–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li H, Zhang Y, Zhang CG, Chen GX (2005) Effect of petroleum-containing wastewater irrigation on bacterial diversities and enzymatic activities in a paddy soil irrigation area. J Environ Quality 34:1073–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. M.A.P.A. (1986) Metodos oficiales de analisis. Tomo III. Plantas, productos organicos, fertilizantes, suelos, agua, fertilizantes organicos. Publicaciones del Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, MadridGoogle Scholar
  27. Maidak BL, Cole JR, Lilburn TG, Parker CT Jr, Saxman PR, Farris RJ, Garrity GM, Olsen GJ, Schmidt TM, Tiedje JM (2001) The RDP-II (Ribosomal Database Project). Nucleic Acids Res 29:173–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maliszewska-Kordybuch B, Smreczek B (2003) Habitat function of agricultural soils as affected by heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contamination. Environ Int 28:719–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Masciandaro G, Ceccanti B, Garcia C (1997) Soil agro-ecological management: fertirrigation and vermicompost treatments. Bioresource Technol 59:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meguro N, Kodama Y, Gallegos MT, Watanabe K (2005) Molecular characterization of resistance-nodulation-division transporters from solvent- and drug-resistant bacteria in petroleum-contaminated soil. Appl Environ Microb 7:580–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified gene coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microb 59:695–700Google Scholar
  32. Nannipieri P, Ceccanti B, Cervelli S, Matarese E (1980) Extraction of phosphatase, urease, protease, organic carbon and nitrogen from soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:1011–1016Google Scholar
  33. Ndiaye EL, Sandeno JM, McGrath D, Dick RP (2000) Integrative biological indicators for detecting change in soil quality. Am J Altern Agri 15:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nei M, Li W (1979) Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 76:5269–5273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson MJK, Montgomery SO, O’Neill EJ, Pritchard PH (1986) Aerobic metabolism of trichloroethylene by a bacterial isolate. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 52:383–384Google Scholar
  36. Perucci P, Casucci C, Dumonet D (2000) An improved method to evaluate o-diphenol oxidase activity of soil. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1927–1933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pignatello JJ (1990) Slowly reversible sorption of aliphatic halocarbons in soils. I. Formation of residual fractions. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:1107–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramos JL, Duque E, Gallegos MT, Godoy P, Ramos-Gonzalez MI, Rojas A, Teran W, Segura A (2002) Mechanisms of solvent tolerance in Gram-negative bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 56:743–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Romero E, Benitez E, Nogales R (2005) Suitability of wastes from olive-oil industry for initial reclamation of a Pb/Zn mine tailing. Water Air Soil Poll 165:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rossel D, Tarradellas J, Bitton G, Morel JL (1997) Use of enzymes in ecotoxicology: a case for dehydrogenase and hydrolytic enzymes. In: Tarradellas J, Bitton G, Rossel D (eds) Soil ecotoxicology. CRC Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 179–192Google Scholar
  41. Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restor Ecol 13:569–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saavedra M, Benitez E, Cifuentes C, Nogales R (2006) Enzyme activities and chemical changes in wet olive cake after treatment with Pleurotus ostreatus or Eisenia fetida. Biodegradation 17:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwieger F, Tebbe CC (1998) A new approach to utilise PCR-single-strand-conformation polymorphism for 16S rRNA gene-based microbial community analysis. Appl Environ Microb 64:4870–4876Google Scholar
  44. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1963) The mathematical theory of communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  45. Sims JR, Haby VA (1971) Simplified colorimetric determination of soil organic matter. Soil Sci 112:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sinsabaugh RL (1994) Enzymic analysis of microbial pattern and process. Biol Fert Soils 17:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys, 2nd edn. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1969) Use of p-nitrophenylphosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity. Soil Biol Biochem 1:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1970) Arylsulfatase activity of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Proceedings 34:225–229Google Scholar
  50. Takami W, Horinouchi M, Nojiri H, Yamane H Omori T (1999) Evaluation of trichloroethylene degradation by E. coli transformed with dimethyl sulfide monooxygenase genes and/or cumene dioxygenase genes. Biotechnology Letters 21:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. von Mersi W, Schinner F (1991) An improved and accurate method for determining the dehydrogenase activity of soils with iodonitrotetrazolium chloride. Biol Fert Soil 11:216–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz Moreno
    • 1
  • Astrid Vivas
    • 1
  • Rogelio Nogales
    • 1
  • Cristina Macci
    • 2
  • Grazia Masciandaro
    • 2
  • Emilio Benitez
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ProtectionEstación Experimental del Zaidín (EEZ), CSICGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Ecosystem Study (ISE), CNRPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations