, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 341–352 | Cite as

Biodegradation of gasoline and BTEX in a microaerophilic biobarrier

  • Laleh Yerushalmi
  • Michelle F. Manuel
  • Serge R. Guiot


Continuous bioremediation of gasoline-contaminatedwater in a packed-bed biobarrier system underoxygen-limited conditions is discussed. This studywas part of an extensive effort to develop analternative technology for the in situbioremediation of hydrocarbons where there is alimited supply of oxygen. Protruded stainless steelpieces and granulated peat moss were used as packingmaterial to support microbial growth in twobiobarriers. The inoculum was an enrichment culture ofan indigenous microbial population from a soil sample.The biobarriers' inlet gasoline concentrations and thelinear liquid velocities were similar to thosecommonly found at in situ conditions. Gasolineremoval efficiencies ranged from 94% to 99.9% in thestainless steel-packed biobarrier, and from 86.6% to99.6% in the peat moss-packed biobarrier. Effluentgasoline concentrations below 0.03 mg/l were obtainedat gasoline loading rates less than 27.5 mg/l.d in thestainless steel-packed biobarrier. The remainingfraction of gasoline in the effluent consisted mainlyof three aliphatic compounds and not the aromaticcompounds. Both biobarrier packings supported nearcomplete removal of the most soluble aromatichydrocarbons of gasoline (BTEX) under all theconditions examined. The consumption of sulfate andthe presence of sulfate-reducing microorganismssuggested the presence of anaerobic metabolism duringthe degradation of gasoline. Up to 92% gasoline wasremoved during the first 3 cm of the biobarriers'length.

Gasoline biodegradation microaerophilic condition packed-bed biobarrier 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Appleton EL (1996) A nickel-iron wall against contaminated groundwater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30: 536–539.Google Scholar
  2. Barbaro JR, Barker JF & Butler BJ (1997) In situ bioremediation of gasoline residuals under mixed electron-acceptor conditions. In: Alleman BC & Leeson A (Eds), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium of In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation (pp. 21–26). New Orleans, April 28–May1.Google Scholar
  3. Barbash J & Roberts PV (1986) Volatile organic chemical contamination of groundwater resources in the US. J. Water Pollution Control Federation 58: 343–348.Google Scholar
  4. Brown RA & Norris RD (1994) The evolution of a technology: Hydrogen peroxide in in situ bioremediation. In: Hinchee RE, Alleman BC, Hoeppel RE & Miller RN (Eds), Hydrocarbon Bioremediation (pp. 148–162). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  5. Catwright GC (1991) Limitations of pump and treat technology. Pollution Eng. November, pp. 64–68.Google Scholar
  6. Chiang CY, Salanitro JP, Chai EY, Colthart JD & Klein CL (1989) Aerobic biodegradation of benzene, toluene, and xylene in a sandy aquifer-data analysis and computer modeling. Groundwater 27: 823–834.Google Scholar
  7. Cook EE, Kincannon DF (1971) An evaluation of trickling filter performance. Water and Sewage Works April, pp. 90–95.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards EA & Grbic-Galic D (1992) Complete mineralization of benzene by aquifer microorganisms under strictly anaerobic conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58: 2663–2666.Google Scholar
  9. Focht R, Vogan J & O'Hannesin S (1996) Field application of reactive iron walls for in-situ degradation of volatile organic compounds in groundwater. Remediation. Summer, pp. 81–94.Google Scholar
  10. Forget D, Deschenes L, Karamanev D & Samson R (1996) Caracterisation d'un nouveau milieu filtrant pour la biofiltration in situ des BTEX dans les eaux souterraines. In: Delisle CE & Bouchard MA (Eds), 19th International Symposium on Wastewater Treatment (pp. 263–274), Montreal, Canada, November 19–21.Google Scholar
  11. Gavaskar AR, Gupta N, Sass BM, Janosy, RJ & O'Sullivan D (1998) Permeable Barriers for Groundwater Remediation, pp. 1–14, Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  12. Hasbach A (1993) Moving beyond pump and treat, Pollution Eng. March: 36–39.Google Scholar
  13. Hutchins SR, Sewell GW, Kovacs DA & Smith GA (1991) Biodegradation of aromatic hydrocarbons by aquifer microorganisms under denitrifying conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25: 68–76.Google Scholar
  14. Hutchins SR, Wilson JT & Kampbell DH (1995) In situ bioremediation of a pipeline spill using nitrate as the electron acceptor. In: Hinchee RE, Kittel JA & Reisinger HJ (Eds), Applied Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, pp. 143–153. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn EP, Colberg PJ, Schnoor JL, Wanner O, Zehnder AJB & Schwarzenbach RP (1985) Microbial transformation of substituted benzenes during infiltration of river water to groundwater: Laboratory column studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19: 961–968.Google Scholar
  16. Lovley DR, Coates JD, Woodward JC & Phillips EJP (1995) Benzene oxidation coupled to sulfate reduction. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61: 953–958.Google Scholar
  17. Mallakin A & Ward OP (1996) Degradation of BTEX compounds in liquid media and in peat biofilters. J. Ind. Microbiol. 16: 309–318.Google Scholar
  18. Mehlman MA (1996) Dangerous and cancer-causing properties of products and chemicals in the oil-refining and petrochemical industry. Toxicol. Ind. Health 12: 613–627.Google Scholar
  19. Miksell MD, Kukor JJ & Olson RH (1993) Metabolic diversity of aromatic hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria from a petroleum-contaminated aquifer. Biodegradation 4: 249–259.Google Scholar
  20. Prince RC (1993) Petroleum spill bioremediation in marine environments. Critical Rev. Microbiol. 19: 217–242.Google Scholar
  21. Rael J, Shelton S & Dayaye R (1995) Permeable barriers to remove benzene: Candidate media evaluation. J. Env. Eng. May: 411–415.Google Scholar
  22. Starr RC & Cherry JA (1994) In situ remediation of contaminated groundwater: The funnel and gate system. Groundwater 32: 465–476.Google Scholar
  23. Stuart BJ, Bowlen GF & Kossen DS (1991) Competitive sorption of benzene, toluene and the xylenes onto soil. Environ. Prog. 10: 104–109.Google Scholar
  24. Su JJ & Kafkewitz D (1996) Toluene and xylene degradation by a denitrifying strain of Xanthomonas maltophilia with limited or no oxygen. Chemosphere 32: 1843–1850.Google Scholar
  25. Tahraoui K, Samson R & Rho D (1995) BTX degradation and dynamic parameters interaction in a 50-L biofilter. In: Hinchee RE, Kittel JA & Reisinger HJ (Eds), Applied Bioremediation of Petroleum hydrocarbons, pp. 257–262. Battelle press, Columbus, Richland.Google Scholar
  26. Thomson JAM, Day MJ, Sloan RL & Collins ML (1995) In Situ aquifer bioremediation at the french limited superfund site. In: Hinchee RE, Kittel JA & Reisinger HJ (Eds), Applied Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, pp. 453–459. Battelle Press, Columbus.Google Scholar
  27. Vidic RD & Pohland FG (1996) Treatment Walls, Technology Evaluation Report, TE–96–01. Pitsburgh, Pennsylvania: Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Center.Google Scholar
  28. Warner SD (1998) The feasibility of permeable reactive barriers for in situ groundwater treatment: The Sunnyvale “Iron Wall” and beyond. Subsurface Barrier Technologies Conference: Engineering Advancements and Application Considerations for Innovative Barrier Technologies, January 26–27. Tucson, AZ. International Business Communications, Southborough, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Warner SD, Yamane CL, Gallinati JD, Szerdy, FS & Hankins DA (1995) Assessing the feasibility of permeable reactive barriers for treating VOC-affected groundwater in situ: experience from the first full-scale commercial application in California. International Containment Technology Workshop, Permeable Reactive Barriers Subgroup, 29–31 August, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  30. Widdel F & Bak F (1992) Gram-negative mesophilic sulfate-reducing bacteria. In: Balows A, Truper HG, Dwokin M, Harder W & Schleifer KH (Eds), The Prokaryotes, pp. 3352–3378. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson LP & Bouwer EJ (1997) Biodegradation of aromatic compounds under mixed oxygen/denitrifying conditions: a review. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 18: 116–130.Google Scholar
  32. Yerushalmi L & Guiot SR (1998) Kinetics of biodegradation of gasoline and its hydrocarbon constituents. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 49: 475–481.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laleh Yerushalmi
    • 1
  • Michelle F. Manuel
    • 1
  • Serge R. Guiot
    • 1
    • 1
  1. 1.National Research Council CanadaBiotechnology Research InstituteMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations