Evaluation of Remediation by Community-Level Physiological Profiles

  • R. Michael Lehman
  • Seán P. O’Connell
  • Jay L. Garland
  • Frederick S. Colwell

Abstract

Community-level physiological profiles (CLPP) of microbial communities based on substrate utilization have proven useful for exploring a variety of aspects of microbial ecology and may have application in the field of environmental remediation and restoration. Development of CLPP for monitoring environmental restoration is illustrated with three experimental case studies. Bioremediation of diesel fuel contaminated soils was monitored over a one year period using CLPP. CLPP of soils from contaminated and control sites showed an effect due to the presence of total petroleum hydocarbons (TPH). Treatment during the first year of the study was not effective in reducing TPH and no corresponding effect was seen in substrate profiles although a seasonal effect was noted (second year data is pending). A significant effect due to sample holding time of soils prior to analysis was seen on the CLPP of soil microbes from both contaminated and uncontaminated sites. The second field site is a fractured basalt aquifer in eastern Idaho where a contaminant plume of chlorinated solvents, sewage and radionuclides exists. CLPP on groundwater from wells with similar lithology of the screened interval reflected the presence of TCE and other pollutants with heavily contaminated wells exhibiting similar patterns that differed from uncontaminated wells. At a third site in central Idaho, aquatic bacterioplankton and periphyton communities were profiled along a stream flowpath that varied in metal concentrations due to mine drainage input. CLPP from reference sites upstream of the metal input differed from those immediately downstream of the mine drainage. Further downstream from the point source where metal concentrations declined, community profiles began to resemble the reference sites with periphyton communities recovering faster than the bacterioplankton. CLPP of indigenous microbial communities may be useful in risk assessment of contaminated sites and monitoring subsequent remedial activities.

Keywords

Ecological risk assessment metabolic profiling community microbial remediation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bloom SA (1980) Multivariate quantification of community recovery. In: Cairns J (ed) The Recovery Process in Damaged Ecosystems, Ann Arbor Science Publications, Ann Arbor, pp. 141–151.Google Scholar
  2. Colwell FS, Lehman RM (1997) Microbial communities from hydrologically-distinct zones of a basalt aquifer. Microb Ecol (in press).Google Scholar
  3. Ellis RJ, Thompson IP, Bailey MJ (1995) Metabolic profiling as a means of characterizing plant-associated microbial communities. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 16: 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erdman J A, Modreski PJ (1984) Copper and cobalt in aquatic mosses and stream sediments from the Idaho cobalt belt. J Geochem Exploration 20: 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garland JL, Mills AL (1991) Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of community-level sole carbon source utilization. Appl Environ Microbiol 57: 2351–2359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Garland JL, Mills AL (1994) A community-level physiological approach for studying microbial communities. In: Ritz K, Dighton J, Giller KE (eds) Beyond the Biomass: Compositional and Functional Analysis of Soil Microbial Communities, John Wiley, Chichester, pp. 77–83.Google Scholar
  7. Garland JL (1996a) Analytical approaches to the characterization of samples of microbial communities using patterns of potential carbon source utilization. Soil Biol Biochem 28: 213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garland JL (1996b) Patterns of potential carbon source utilization by rhizosphere communities. Soil Biol Biochem 28: 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guckert JB, Nold SC, Boston HL, White DC (1992) Periphyton response in an industrial receiving stream: lipid-based physiological stress analysis and pattern recognition of microbial community structure. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49: 2578–2587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haack SK, Garchow H, Klug MJ, Forney LJ (1995) Analysis of factors affecting the accuracy, reproducibility and interpretation of microbial community carbon source utilization patterns. Appl Environ Microbiol 61: 1458–1468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Insam H, Amor K, Renner M, Crepaz C (1996) Changes in the functional abilities of the microbial community during composting of manure. Microb Ecol 31: 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joern A, Hoagland KD (1996) In defense of whole-community bioassays for risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 15: 407–409.Google Scholar
  13. Lehman RM, Colwell FS, Ringelberg DB, White DC (1995) Combined microbial community-level analyses for quality assurance of terrestrial subsurface cores. J Microbiol Meth 22: 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sayler GS, Nikbakht K, Fleming JT, Packard J (1992) Applications of molecular techniques to soil biochemistry. In: Stotzky G, Bollag J-M (eds) Soil Biochemistry (Vol 7), Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 131–172.Google Scholar
  15. Thomas JM, Lee MD, Ward CH (1987) Use of groundwater in assessment of biodegradation potential in the subsurface. Environ Toxicol Chem 6: 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tunlid A, White DC (1992) Biochemical analysis of biomass, community structure, nutritional status, and metabolic activity of microbial communities in soil. In: Stotzky G, Bollag J-M (eds) Soil Biochemistry (Vol 7), Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 229–262.Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989) Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference. EPA/600/3–89/013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Interim guidance on determination and use of water-effect ratios for metals. EPA-823-B-94-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. U.S. Department of Energy (1995) Record of Decision. Declaration of Technical Support Facility injection well (TSF-05) and surrounding groundwater contamination (TSF-23) and miscellaneous no action sites final remedial action. Operable Unit 1–07B. Waste Area Group 1, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls.Google Scholar
  20. Winding AK (1994) Fingerprinting bacterial soil communities using Biolog microtiter plates. In: Ritz K, Dighton J, Giller KE (eds) Beyond the Biomass: Compositional and Functional Analysis of Soil Microbial Communities, John Wiley, Chichester, pp. 85–94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Michael Lehman
    • 1
  • Seán P. O’Connell
    • 1
  • Jay L. Garland
    • 2
  • Frederick S. Colwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Biotechnologies DepartmentIdaho National Engineering LaboratoryIdaho FallsUSA
  2. 2.Dynamac CorporationKennedy Space CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations