Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 817–829 | Cite as

Phyto/rhizoremediation studies using long-term PCB-contaminated soil

  • Martina Mackova
  • Petra Prouzova
  • Petr Stursa
  • Edita Ryslava
  • Ondrej Uhlik
  • Katarina Beranova
  • Jan Rezek
  • Veronika Kurzawova
  • Katerina Demnerova
  • Tomas MacekEmail author
COST ACTION 859 • PHYTOREMEDIATION • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) represent a large group of recalcitrant environmental pollutants, differing in the number of chlorine atoms bound to biphenyl ring. Due to their excellent technological properties, PCBs were used as heat-transfer media, for filling transformers and condensers, as paint additives, etc. With increasing knowledge of their toxicity, transfer to food chains and accumulation in living organisms, their production ended in most countries in the 1970s and in 1984 in the former Czechoslovakia. But even a quarter of century after the PCB production ceased, from contaminated areas, the volatile PCBs evaporate and contaminate much larger areas even at very distant parts of the world. For this reason, PCBs still represent a global problem. The main method of PCB removal from contaminated environment is at present the expensive incineration at high temperatures. With the aim of finding effective alternative approaches, we are studying biological methods for PCB removal from the environment. In this paper, we summarise 10 years of studies using long-term PCB-contaminated soil from a dumpsite in South Bohemia, targeted for the use of plants (phytoremediation) and their cooperation with microorganisms in the root zone (rhizoremediation).

Materials and methods

Long-term contaminated soil from Lhenice dumpsite, more than hundred kilograms of homogenised material, was used in microcosms (pots and buckets), and field plots were established at the site. Tested plants include among others tobacco, black nightshade, horseradish, alfalfa and willow. Aseptic plant cell and tissue cultures were from the collection of the IOCB. Microorganisms were our own isolates. The paper summarises experiments done between 1998 and 2008 with real contaminated soil, both vegetated and non-vegetated. PCB analysis was performed by GC-ECD, metabolic products identified mostly using 2D-GC/MS-MS and synthetic standards, whereas molecular methods included quantitative PCR and sequencing.

Results

The soil was used both for preparation of field plots at the site and for greenhouse and laboratory tests in microcosms. The results include analyses of changes in PCB content in untreated and vegetated soil, PCB uptake and distribution in different parts of various plant species, analysis of products formed, identification and characterisation of cultivable and non-cultivable bacteria both in rhizosphere and in bulk soil. Different treatments and amendments were also tested. Experiments in real contaminated soil were accompanied by in vitro experiments using aseptic cultures of plant biomass, genetically modified (GM) plants and bacteria, to allow identification of players responsible for PCB metabolisation in soil. The time-span of the experiments allows extrapolating some of the results and drawing conclusions concerning the effectivity of exploitation of various plant species and treatments to remove PCBs from soils.

Discussion

The approach using plants proved to represent a viable alternative to costly incineration of PCB-contaminated soils. The recent studies using molecular methods show that plants are responsible for the composition of consortia of microorganisms present in their root zone, including those with ability to degrade the chlorinated aromatic compounds.

Conclusions

In addition to uptake, accumulation and partial metabolisation of PCBs by plants, compounds produced by plants allow survival of microorganisms even in poor soils, serve as carbon and energy source, and can even induce the degradation pathways of different xenobiotics. Thus, the choice of proper plant species is crucial for effective cleaning of different polluted sites. Our study shows how the efficiency of PCB removal is dependent on the plant used.

Recommendations and perspectives

The use of plants in biological remediation of different organic xenobiotics proved to be a useful approach. Further improvement can be expected by application of specifically tailored GM plants and use of selective conditions ensuring high remediation potential based on optimal composition of the soil microbial consortia designed for the needs of given site.

Keywords

COST PCB-contaminated soil PCB uptake Phytoremediation Rhizoremediation Toxicity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the support of projects COST 859, the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic 525/09/1058, and projects funded by Czech Ministry of Education 2B06156, 6046137305, Z40550506. The help of many colleagues and students is highly appreciated. Especially, Mr. Rudolf Kaplanek deserves special thanks for his enthusiasm, patience and permission to access to site.

References

  1. Anonymous (2006) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2006. CERCLA priority list of hazardous compounds.Washington, DC. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cercla/05list.html
  2. Becher D, Specht M, Hammer E, Francke W, Schauer F (2000) Cometabolic degradation of dibenzofuran by biphenyl-cultivated Ralstonia sp. strain SBUG 290. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:4528–4531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borneman JP, Skroch PW, O’Sullivan PJA, Rumjanek NG, Jansen JL, Nienhuis J, Triplett EW (1996) Molecular microbial diversity of an agricultural soil in Wisconsin. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:1935–1943Google Scholar
  4. Burkhard J, Mackova M, Macek T, Kucerova P, Demnerova K (1997) Analytical procedure for the estimation of PCB transformation by plants. Anal Commun Roy Soc 34:287–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cebron AL, Bodrossy N, Stralis-Pavese AC, Singer IP, Thompson JI, Prosser IJ, Murrell JC (2007) Nutrient amendments in soil DNA stable isotope probing experiments reduce the observed methanotroph diversity. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chekol T, Vough LR, Chaney RL (2004) Phytoremediation of polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated soils: the rhizosphere effect. Environ Int 30:799–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chroma L, Mackova M, Kucerova P, in der Wiesche C, Burkhard J, Macek T, Chroma L, Mackova M, Kucerova P, in der Wiesche C, Burkhard J, Macek T (2002a) Enzymes in plant metabolism of PCBs and PAHs. Acta Biotechnologica 22:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chroma L, Mackova M, Demnerova K, Macek T (2002b) Decolorization of RBBR by plant cells and correlation with the transformation of PCBs. Chemosphere 49:739–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunningham SD, Berti WR (1993) Remediation of contaminated soils with green plants: an overview. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 29:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Carcer DA, Martin M, Mackova M, Macek T, Karlson U, Rivilla R (2007) The introduction of genetically modified microorganisms designed for rhizoremediation induces changes on native bacteria in the rhizosphere but not in the surrounding soil. ISME J 1:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demnerova K, Mackova M, Spevakova V, Beranova K, Kochankova L, Lovecka P, Ryslava E, Macek T (2005) Two approaches to biological decontamination of ground-water and soil polluted by aromatics-characterization of microbial populations. Int Microbiol 8:205–211Google Scholar
  12. Doran PM (ed) (1997) Hairy roots: culture and application. Harwood Academic Publishers, London, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  13. Doran PM (2009) Application of plant tissue cultures in phytoremediation research: incentives and limitations. Biotechnol Bioeng 103:60–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doty SL, James CA, Moore AL, Vajzovic A, Singleton GL, Ma C, Khan Z, Xin G, Kang JW, Park AY et al (2007) Enhanced phytoremediation of volatile environmental pollutants with transgenic trees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:16816–16821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dowling DN, Doty SL (2009) Improving phytoremediation through biotechnology. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erb RW, Wagner-Dobler I (1993) Detection of polychlorinated biphenyl degradation genes in polluted sediments by direct DNA extraction and polymerase chain reaction. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:4065–4073Google Scholar
  17. Fletcher JS, Donnelly PK, Hegde RS (1995) Biostimulation of PCB-degrading bacteria by compounds released from plant roots. In: Hinchee RE, Anderson DB, Hoeppel RE (eds) Bioremediation of recalcitrant organics. Battelle Press, Columbus, pp 131–136Google Scholar
  18. Gibson DT, Cruden DL, Haddock JD, Zylstra GJ, Brand JM (1993) Oxidation of polychlorinated biphenyls by Pseudomonas sp. LB400 and Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes KF707. J Bacteriol 175:4561–4564Google Scholar
  19. Gichner T, Lovecka P, Kochankova L, Mackova M, Demnerova K (2007) Monitoring toxicity, DNA damage, and somatic mutations in tobacco plants growing in soil heavily polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls. Mutat Res 629:1–6Google Scholar
  20. Griga M, Bjelkova M, Tejklova E (2003) Phytoextraction of heavy metals by fibre crops: Linum usitatissimum L. case study. In: Kalogerakis N, Psillakis E (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd European Bioremediation Conference, Chania, Crete, TU Crete, pp 353–356Google Scholar
  21. Hernandez BS, Koh SC, Chial M, Focht DD (1997) Terpene-utilizing isolates and their relevance to enhanced biotransformation of polychlorinated biphenyls in soil. Biodegradation 8:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holoubek I, Kocan A, Holoubkova I, Kohoutek J, Falandysz J, Roots O, Staffova K (2001) Polychlorinated biphenyls contaminated sites worldwide. The case of the Central and Eastern European countries. In: Robertson LW, Hansen LG (eds) PCBs. Recent advances in environmental, toxicology and health effects. The University Press of Kentucky, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Ionescu M, Beranova K, Dudkova V, Kochankova L, Demnerova K, Macek T, Mackova M (2009) Isolation and characterization of different plant associated bacteria and their potential to degrade polychlorinated biphenyls. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 63:667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jurcek O, Wimmerova M, Wimmer Z (2008) Selected chiral alcohols: enzymic resolution and reduction of convenient substrates. Coord Chem Rev 252:767–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kas J, Burkhard J, Demnerova K, Kostal J, Macek T, Mackova M, Pazlarova J (1997) Perspectives in biodegradation of alkanes and PCBs. Pure Appl Chem 69:2357–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kucerova P, Mackova M, Polachova L, Burkhard J, Demnerova K, Pazlarova J, Macek T (1999) Correlation of PCB transformation by plant tissue cultures with their morphology and peroxidase activity changes. Coll Czech Chem Commun 64:1497–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kucerova P, Mackova M, Chroma L, Burkhard J, Triska J, Demnerova K, Macek T (2000) Metabolism of polychlorinated biphenyls by Solanum nigrum hairy root clone SNC-9O and analysis of transformation products. Plant Soil 225:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leigh MB, Prouzova P, Mackova M, Macek T, Nagle DP, Fletcher JS (2006) Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-degrading bacteria associated with trees in a PCB-contaminated site. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:2331–2342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leigh MB, Pellizari VH, Uhlik O, Sutka R, Rodrigues J, Ostrom NE, Zhou J, Tiedje JM (2007) Biphenyl-utilizing bacteria and their functional genes in a pine root zone contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). ISME J 1:134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu W, Marsh T, Cheng H, Forney L (1997) Characterization of microbial diversity by determining terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms of genes encoding 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4516–4522Google Scholar
  31. Macek T, Kotrba P, Suchova M, Skacel F, Demnerova K, Ruml T (1994) Accumulation of cadmium by hairy root cultures. Biotechnol Lett 16:621–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macek T, Mackova M, Burkhard J, Demnerova K (1998) Introduction of green plants for the control of metals and organics in environmental remediation. In: Holm FW (ed) Effluents from alternative demilitarization technologies. NATO PS Series 1, vol. 12. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, pp 71–85Google Scholar
  33. Macek T, Mackova M, Kas J (2000) Exploitation of plants for the removal of organics in environmental remediation. Biotechnol Advance 18:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macek T, Kotrba P, Svatos A, Novakova M, Demnerova K, Mackova M (2008) Novel roles for genetically modified plants in environmental protection. Trends Biotechnol 26:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackova M, Macek T, Burkhard J, Ocenaskova J, Demnerova K, Pazlarova J (1997a) Biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls by plant cells. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 39:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mackova M, Macek T, Kucerova P, Burkhard J, Pazlarova J, Demnerova K (1997b) Degradation of polychlorinated biphenyls by hairy root culture of Solanum nigrum. Biotechnol Let 9:787–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackova M, Dowling D, Macek T (eds) (2006) Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation. Theoretical background. FOCUS on Biotechnology series, vol. 9A. Springer, Dordrecht, p 300Google Scholar
  38. Mackova M, Vrchotova B, Francova K, Sylvestre M, Tomaniova M, Lovecka P, Demnerova K, Macek T (2007) Biotransformation of PCBs by plants and bacteria, consequences of plant–microbe interactions. Eur J Soil Biol 43:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCutcheon SC, Schnoor JL (eds) (2003) Phytoremediation: transformation and control of contaminants. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. McGuiness M, Dowling D (2009) Plant-associated bacterial degradation of toxic organic compounds in soil. Int J Environ Res Public Health. doi: 10.3390/ijerph60x000x Google Scholar
  41. Narasimhan KC, Basheer VB, Bajic B, Swarup S (2003) Enhancement of plant-microbe interactions using a rhizosphere metabolomics-driven approach and its application in the removal of polychlorinated biphenyls. Plant Physiol 132:146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Novakova M, Mackova M, Chrastilova Z, Szekeres M, Demnerova K, Macek T (2009) Cloning the bacterial bphC gene into Nicotiana tabacum to improve the efficiency of PCB phytoremediation. Biotechnol Bioeng 102:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pavlikova D, Macek T, Mackova M, Pavlik M (2007) Monitoring native vegetation on a dumpsite of PCB-contaminated soil. Int J Phytoremed 9:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rezek J, Macek T, Mackova M, Triska J (2007) Plant metabolites of polychlorinated biphenyls in hairy root culture of black nightshade Solanum nigrum SNC-9O. Chemosphere 69:1221–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rezek J, Macek T, Mackova M, Triska J, Ruzickova K (2008) Hydroxy-PCBs, methoxy-PCBs and hydroxy-methoxy-PCBs: Metabolites of polychlorinated biphenyls formed in vitro by tobacco cells. Environ Sci Technol 42:5746–5751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rezek J, in der Wiesche C, Mackova M, Zadrazil F, Macek T (2009) Biodegradation of PAHs in long-term contaminated soil cultivated with European white birch (Betula pendula) and red mulberry (Morus rubra) tree. Int J Phytorem 11:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryslava E, Krejcik Z, Macek T, Novakova H, Demnerova K, Mackova M (2003) Study of PCB degradation in real contaminated soil. Fresen Environ Bull 12:296–301Google Scholar
  48. Safe SH (1994) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses, and implications for risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 24:87–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singer AC (2006) The chemical ecology of pollutant biodegradation. Bioremediation and phytoremediation from mechanistic and ecological perspectives. In: Mackova M, Dowling D, Macek T (eds) Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation. Theoretical background. Focus on biotechnology, 9A. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singer AC, Crowley DE, Thompson IP (2003) Secondary plant metabolites in phytoremediation and biotransformation. Trends Biotechnol 21:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soudek P, Podlipna R, Vanek T (1998) Phytoremediation of heavy metals by hairy root culture of Armoracia rusticana. Int J Biodeterior Biodegrad 42:235–236Google Scholar
  52. Sylvestre M (1980) Isolation method for bacterial isolates capable of growth on p-chlorobiphenyl. Appl Environ Microbiol 39:1223–1224Google Scholar
  53. Sylvestre M, Macek T, Mackova M (2009) Transgenic plants to improve rhizoremediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tillmann S, Strompl C, Timmis KN, Abraham WR (2005) Stable isotope probing reveals the dominant role of Burkholderia species in aerobic degradation of PCBs. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 52:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tlustos P, Pavlikova D, Szakova J, Fischerova Z, Balik J (2006) Exploitation of fast growing trees in metal remediation. In: Mackova M, Dowling D, Macek T (eds) Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation. Theoretical background. Focus on biotechnology series, vol. 9A. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  56. Uhlik O, Jecna K, Leigh MB, Mackova M, Macek T (2009a) DNA-based stable isotope probing: a link between community structure and function. Sci Total Environ 407:3611–3619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Uhlik O, Jecna K, Mackova M, Vlcek C, Hroudova M, Demnerova K, Paces V, Macek T (2009b) Biphenyl-metabolizing bacteria in the rhizosphere of horseradish and bulk soil contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls as revealed by stable isotope probing. Appl Environ Microbiol. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00466-09 Google Scholar
  58. Van Aken B (2008) Transgenic plants for phytoremediation: helping nature to clean up environmental pollution. Trends Biotechnol 26:225–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Villacieros M, Whelan CM, Mackova M, Molgaard J, Sanchez-Contreras M, Lloret J, Aguirre de Carcer D, Bolanos L, Oruezabal RI, Macek T, Karlson U, Dowling DN, Martin M, Rivilla R (2005) PCB rhizoremediation by Pseudomonas fluorescens F113 derivatives using a Sinorhizobium meliloti nod system to drive bph gene expression. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:2687–2694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weyens N, van der Lelie D, Taghavi S, Vangronsveld J (2009) Phytoremediation: plant–endophyte partnerships take the challenge. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilken A, Bock C, Bokern M, Harms H (1995) Metabolism of different PCB congeners in plant cell cultures. Environ Chem Toxicol 14:2017–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zarevucka M, Wimmer Z (2008) Plant products for pharmacology: application of enzymes in their transformations. Int J Mol Sci 9:2447–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhou J, Bruns MA, Tiedje JM (1996) DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:316–322Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Mackova
    • 1
  • Petra Prouzova
    • 1
  • Petr Stursa
    • 1
  • Edita Ryslava
    • 1
  • Ondrej Uhlik
    • 2
  • Katarina Beranova
    • 1
  • Jan Rezek
    • 2
  • Veronika Kurzawova
    • 1
  • Katerina Demnerova
    • 1
  • Tomas Macek
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of Food and Biochemical TechnologyICT PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Joint Laboratory of IOCB and ICT, Institute of Organic Chemistry and BiochemistryCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations