Biosurfactants pp 121-134 | Cite as

Applications of Biological Surface Active Compounds in Remediation Technologies

  • Andrea Franzetti
  • Elena Tamburini
  • Ibrahim M. Banat
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 672)

Abstract

Many microorganisms synthesize a wide range of surface active compounds (SACs), classified according to their molecular weights, properties and localizations. The low molecular weight SACs or biosurfactants lower the surface tension at the air/water interfaces and the interfacial tension at oil/water interfaces, whereas the high molecular weight SACs, also known as bioemulsifiers, are more effective in stabilizing oil-in-water emulsions. The ability to biosynthesize SACs is, often, coupled with the ability of these microorganisms to grow on immiscible carbon sources, such as hydrocarbons. Different mechanisms are involved in the SACs interactions between microbial cells and immiscible hydrocarbons including: (i) emulsification, (ii) micellarization, (iii) adhesion-deadhesion of microorganisms to and from hydrocarbons and (iv) desorption of contaminants. These naturally occurring phenomena can be exploited by adding bioemulsifiers and biosurfactants into environments where bioremediation/biodegradation rates of organic pollutants is to be enhanced. However, analysis of the current literature show some cases where the complex interactions among SACs, microbial cells, organic substrates and environmental media led to an inhibition of the biodegradation. The understanding of the different physiological roles of SACs in microbial communities is fundamental in order to develop more effective remediation technologies exploiting both synthetic surfactants and microbial SACs. The physio-chemical properties of some microbial SACs have been exploited in hydrocarbon-contaminated soils washing and in mobilisation of soil-bound metal in metal-contaminated soils. Our ability to analyse the microbial diversity in the natural environments will expand our knowledge on microbial SACs with respect to their exploitation for commercial applications and their roles in the physiology of the producing microorganisms.

Keywords

Pseudomonas Candida Trehalose Autochthonous Brij 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Neu T. Significance of bacterial surface-active compounds in interaction of bacteria with interfaces. Microbiol Rev 1996; 60:151–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenberg E, Ron EZ. High-and low-molecular-mass microbial surfactants. Appl Microbial Biotechnol 1999; 52:154–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desai JD, Banat IM. Microbial production of surfactants and their commercial potential. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 1997; 61:47–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper DG, Goldenberg BG. Surface-active agents from two bacillus species. App Environ Microbiol 1987; 53:224–229.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenberg E, Zuckerberg A, Rubinovitz C et al. Emulsifier of arthrobacter RAG-1: isolation and emulsifying properties. Appl Environ Microbiol 1979; 37:402–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ito S, Inoue S. Sophorolipids from torulopsis bombicola: possible relation to alkane uptake. Appl Environ Microbiol 1982; 43:1278–1283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kretschmer A, Bock H, Wagner F. Chemical and physical characterization of interfacial-active lipids from rhodococcus erythropolis grown on n-alkanes. Appl Environ Microbiol 1982; 44:864–870.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lang S, Philp JC. Surface-active lipids in rhodococci. Anton Leeuw Int J G 1998; 74:59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ron EZ, Rosenberg E. Natural roles of biosurfactants. Environ Microbiol 2001; 3:229–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodour AA, Drees KP, Maier RM. Distribution of biosurfactant-producing bacteria in undisturbed and contaminated arid southwestern soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003; 6:3280–3287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bento FM, Camargo FA, Okeke BC et al. Diversity of biosurfactant producing microorganisms isolated from soils contaminated with diesel oil. Microbiol Res 2005; 160:249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Batista SB, Mounteer AH, Amorim FR et al. Isolation and characterization of biosurfactant/bioemulsifierproducing bacteria from petroleum contaminated sites. Bioresour Technol 2006; 97:868–875.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruggeri C, Franzetti A, Bestetti G et al. Isolation and screening of surface active compound-producing bacteria on renewable substrates. Proceedings of second international conference on environmental, industrial and applied microbiology. Seville, Spain. In press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bodour AA, Guerrero-Barajas C, Jiorle BV et al. Structure and characterization of flavolipids, a novel class of biosurfactants produced by flavobacterium sp. Strain MTN11. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004; 70:114–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pepi M, Cesàro A, Liut G et al. An antarctic psychrotrophic bacterium halomonas sp. ANT-3b, growing on n-hexadecane, produces a new emulsyfying glycolipid. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2005; 53:157–166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bonilla M, Olivaro C, Corona M et al. Production and characterization of a new bioemulsifier from pseudomonas putida ML2. J Appl Microbiol 2005; 98:456–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Makkar RS, Cameotra SS. An update on the use of unconventional substrates for biosurfactant production and their new application. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2002; 58:428–434.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Hamme JD, Singh A, Ward OP. Physiological aspects. Part 1 in a series of papers devoted to surfactants in microbiology and biotechnology. Biotechnol Adv 2006; 24:604–620.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Hamme JD, Singh A, Ward OP. Recent advances in petroleum microbiology. Microbiol Mol Biol R 2003; 6:503–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bouchez-Naitali M, Rakatozafy H, Marchal R et al. Diversity of bacterial strains degrading hexadecane in relation to the mode of substrate uptake. J Appl Microbiol 1999; 8:421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Urum K, Pekdemir T. Evaluation of biosurfactants for crude oil contaminated soil washing. Chemosphere 2004; 57:1139–1150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sutcliff IC. Cell envelope composition and organisation in the genus rhodococcus. Anton Leeuw Int J G 1998; 74:49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Hamme JD, Ward OP. Physical and metabolic interactions of pseudomonas sp. Strain JA5-B45 and rhodococcus sp. Strain F9-D79 during growth on crude oil and effect of a chemical surfactant on them. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001; 67:4874–4879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Franzetti A, Bestetti G, Caredda P et al. Surface-active compounds and their role in bacterial access to hydrocarbons in Gordonia strains. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2008; 63:238–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosenberg E, Gottlieb A, Rosenberg M. Inhibition of bacterial adherence to hydrocarbons and epithelial cells by emulsan. Infect Immun 1983; 39:1024–1028.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF. An evaluation of technologies for the heavy metal remediation of dredged sediments. J Hazard Mater 2001; 85:145–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Christofi N, Ivshina IB. Microbial surfactants and their use in field studies of soil remediation. J Appl Microbiol 2002; 93:915–929.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mulligan CN. Environmental applications for biosurfactants. Environ Pollut 2005; 133:183–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Banat IM, Makkar RS, Cameotra SS. Potential commercial applications of microbial surfactants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2000; 53:495–508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kourkoutas Y, Banat IM. Biosurfactant production and application. In: Pandey AP, ed. The Concise Encyclopedia of Bioresource Technology. Philadelphia: Haworth Reference Press, 2004:505–515.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh A, Van Hamme JD, Ward OP. Surfactants in microbiology and biotechnology: Part 2. Application aspects. Biotechnol Adv 2007; 25:99–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barkay T, Navon-Venezia S, Ron EZ et al. Enhancement of solubilization and biodegradation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons by the bioemulsifier Alasan. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999; 65:2697–2702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beal R, Betts WB. Role of rhamnolipid biosurfactants in the uptake and mineralization of hexadecane in pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Appl Microbiol 2000; 89:158–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maier RM, Soberón-Chávez G. Pseudomonas aeruginosa rhamnolipids: biosynthesis and potential applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2000; 54:625–633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Noordman WH, Janssen DB. Rhamnolipid stimulates uptake of hydrophobic compounds by pseudomonas aeruginosa. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002; 68:4502–4508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rahman KSM, Rahman TJ, Kourkoutoas Y et al. Enhanced bioremediation of n-alkane in petroleum sludge using bacterial consortium amended with rhamnolipid and micronutrients. Bioresour Technol 2003; 90:159–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mata-Sandoval JC, Karns J, Torrents A. Influence of rhamnolipids and triton X-100 on the biodegradation of three pesticides in aqueous phase and soil slurries. J Agric Food Chem 2001; 49:3296–3303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Awasthi N, Kumar A, Makkar R et al. Enhanced biodegradation of endosulfan, a chlorinated pesticide in presence of a biosurfactant. J Environ Sci Health 1999; B34:793–803.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Colores GM, Macur RE, Ward DM et al. Molecular analysis of surfactant-driven microbial population shifts in hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000; 66:2959–2964.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bramwell DP, Laha S. Effects of surfactant addition on the biomineralization and microbial toxicity of phenanthrene. Biodegradation 2000; 11:263–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Billingsley KA, Backus SM, Ward OP. Effect of surfactant solubilization on biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners by pseudomonas LB400. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1999; 52:255–260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goudar C, Strevett K, Grego J. Competitive substrate biodegradation during surfactant-enhanced remediation. J Environ Eng 1999; 125:1142–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Franzetti A, Di Gennaro P, Bestetti G et al. Selection of surfactants for enhancing diesel-hydrocarbons contaminated media bioremediation. J Hazard Mater 2008; 252:1309–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shreve GS, Inguva S, Gunnan S. Rhamnolipid biosurfactant enhancement of hexadecane biodegradation by pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol 1995; 4:331–337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang Y, Miller RM. Enhanced octadecane dispersion and biodegradation by a pseudomonas rhamnolipid surfactant (biosurfactant). Appl Environ Microbiol 1992; 58:3276–3282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Al-Tahhan RA, Sandrin TR, Bodour AA et al. Rhamnolipid-induced removal of lipopolysaccharide from pseudomonas aeruginosa: Effect on cell surface properties and interaction with hydrophobic substrates. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000; 66:3262–3268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhong H, Zeng GM, Yuan XZ et al. Adsorption of dirhamnolipid on four microorganisms and the effect on cell surface hydrophobicity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2007; 77:447–455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chen P, Pickard MA, Gray MR. Surfactant inhibition of bacterial growth on solid anthracene. Biodegradation 2000; 11:341–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weber WJ Jr, Huang W, Le Boeuf EJ. Geosorbent organic matter and its relationship to the binding and sequestration of organic contaminants. Colloids Surf A 1999; 151:167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fortin J, Jury WA, Anderson MA. Enhanced removal of trapped non-aqueous phase liquids from saturated soil using surfactant solutions. J Contam Hydrol 1997; 24:247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mulder H, Wassink GR, Breure AM et al. Effect of non-ionic surfactants on naphthalene dissolution and biodegradation. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998; 60:397–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bai GY, Brusseau ML, Miller RM. Biosurfactant-enhanced removal of residual hydrocarbon from soil. J Contam Hydrol 1997; 25:157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Edwards DA, Adeel Z, Luthy RG. Distribution of non-ionic surfactant and phenanthrene in a sediment/aqueous system. Environ Sci Technol 1994; 28:1550–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Noordman WH, Wachter JH, de Boer GJ et al. The enhancement by surfactants of hexadecane degradation by pseudomonas aeruginosa varies with substrate availability. J Biotechnol 2002; 94:195–212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ron EZ, Rosenberg E. Biosurfactants and oil bioremediation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2002; 13:249–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lee M, Kang H, Do W. Application of non-ionic surfactant-enhanced in situ flushing to a diesel contaminated site. Water Res 2005; 39:139–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Urum K, Pekdemir T, Gopur M. Optimum conditions for washing of crude oil-contaminated soil with biosurfactant solutions. T I Chem Eng-Lond 2003; 81B:203–209.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Harvey S, Elashi I, Val des JJ et al. Enhanced removal of exxon valdez spilled oil from alaskan gravel by a microbial surfactant. Biotechnology 1990; 8:228–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Van Dyke MI, Couture P, Brauer et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa UG2 rhamnolipid biosurfactants: structural characterization and their use in removing hydrophobic compounds from soil. Can J Microbiol 1993; 39:1071–1078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vipulanandan C, Ren X. Enhanced solubility and biodegradation of naphthalene with biosurfactant. J Environ Eng 2000; 126:629–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Cameotra SS, Bollag JM. Biosurfactant-enhanced bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 2003; 30:111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chu W. Remediation of contaminated soils by surfactant-aided soil washing. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manage 2003; 7:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Saichek RE, Reddy KR. Effects of system variables on surfactant enhanced electrokinetic removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from clayey soils. Environ Technol 2003; 24:503–515.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Miller RM. Biosurfactant-facilitated remediation of metal-contaminated soils. Environ Health Perspect 1995; 103 Suppl 1:59–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tan H, Champion JT, Artiola JF et al. Complexation of cadmium by a rhamnolipid biosurfactant. Environ Sci Technol 1994; 28:2402–2406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ochoa-Loza FJ, Artiola JF, Maier RM. Stability constants for the complexation of various metals with a rhamnolipid biosurfactant. J Environ Qual 2001; 30:479–485.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mulligan CN, Yong RN. The use of biosurfactants in the removal of metals from oil-contaminated soil. In: Yong RN, ed. Contaminated Ground: Fate of Pollutants and Remediation. London: Thomas Telford Publishers, 1997:461–466.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Maslin P, Maier RM. Rhamnolipid-enhanced mineralization of phenanthrene in organic-metal cocontaminated soils. Biorem J 2000; 4:295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gutnick DL, Bach H. Engineering bacterial biopolymers for the biosorption of heavy metals; new products and novel formulations. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2000; 54:451–460.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bodour AA, Maier RM. Application of a modified drop-collapse technique for surfactant quantification and screening of biosurfactant-producing microorganisms. J Microbiol Methods 1998; 32:273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chen CY, Baker SC, Darton RC. The application of a high throughput analysis method for the screening of potential biosurfactants from natural sources. J Microbiol Methods 2007; 70:503–510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Torsvik V, Øvreås L, Thingstad TF. Prokaryotic diversity-magnitude, dynamics and controlling factors. Science 2002; 296:1064–1066.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Keller M, Zengler K. Tapping into microbial diversity. Nat Rev Microbiol 2004; 2:141–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Franzetti
    • 1
  • Elena Tamburini
    • 2
  • Ibrahim M. Banat
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Science and TechnologyUniversity of CagliariMonserratoItaly
  3. 3.School of Biomedical SciencesUniversity of UlsterColeraineNorthern IrelandUK

Personalised recommendations