Carrier
mounted bacterial consortium facilitates oil remediation in the marine
environment
Simons et al 2013
Oil pollution in the marine
environment is a serious environmental hazard and the impact of the long term
presence of oil upon the oceans’ ecosystem remains unknown. Weathered oil is
persistent in the environment due to recalcitrant compounds with a high molecular
weight that are not easily removed or degraded. Removal of oil from the marine
environment is a difficult task. Often this results in either more chemicals
applied (dispersants added to assist in the removal of the oil) or the presence
of large amounts of oil remaining in the form of weathered oil. Removal of oil
from the marine environment is a difficult task. Often this results in either
more chemicals being applied, (dispersants added to assist in the removal of
the oil) or the presence of large amounts remaining as weathered oil. Microbial
degradation of hydrocarbons occurs at the hydrocarbon/water interface as it is
essential for microbes to have direct contact with hydrocarbons. Studies have
demonstrated the effectiveness of carrier materials to enhance degradation,
this combines bio-augmentation and bio-stimulation in a complementary manner to
deliver both microbes and nutrients to an oil-contaminated region of the ocean.
In this study, Simons et al investigated the capacity of two cost effective and
sustainable materials (shell grit and alginate) that contained additional
nutrients as carriers to dispense a concentrated bacterial consortia consisting
of 6 novel hydrocarbon degrading strains in a laboratory tank mesocosm. Furthermore,
they assessed the two carrier materials to determine which was the most efficient
in terms of degrading weathered oil. Finally, they looked to see if any toxic
substances were produced.
This is the first study that
directly assessed the efficacy of two carrier materials that had been
bio-augmented and bio-stimulated. The shell grit material significantly reduced
the presence of hydrocarbons, resulting in 75% degradation whereas the oil
degradation shown by the alginate was 20%. This indicated that not only was the
shell grit an economical and sustainable material, it is the most effective in the
removal of hydrocarbons. The weathered oil applied in this study had a strong
presence of high chain (>32C) hydrocarbons, indicating that recalcitrant
compounds like PAH’s may have been degraded but this was not tested. Also the
authors highlight that there may have been efficacy issues in the bacterial
consortia’s access to hydrocarbon on the alginate because it was immobilised. In
contrast, the bacterial consortia were not immobilised onto the shell grit, so
their exposure was not limited, to the best of my knowledge they did not
justify why this was done, so it could be argued that these results may not be
comparable. To determine if the presence of carrier materials caused an immediate
change in the diversity of microbial communities, the four tanks were assessed
by DGGE, this showed that there was no change to the original consortia,
indicating that these could be successfully implemented in the wild.
So in summary this study
demonstrated the effectiveness of shell grit as a carrier material in the
remediation of marine weathered oil. The shell grit material significantly
reduced (75%) the presence of the weathered oil. There was also a significant
amount of degradation of the contaminant oil in the presence of the nutrients
and bacterial consortia. However, this is a lab study, so the results are
limited. The effects of environmental factors need to considered for future
based field studies. The carrier materials applied is this study did not
significantly influence the indigenous marine microbe population, as determined
by DGGE assessment. The ecotoxicity data also supported the application of the shell
grit carrier material as an effective remediation method. Future studies will
be required to further develop this remediation method to address the unique
problems associated with marine water remediation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852413001843
Hi James
ReplyDeleteDo you recon the bacterial consortia were immobilized as part of the method or this occurred as a function of the carrier materials they were using?
Sean.
Hi James
ReplyDeleteI was just wondering if the authors made any mention of any extraneous ecological effects? For example, adding a copious amount of shell grit to a system would surely have an impact on the chitinase producing bacteria which "eat" animal shells?
Thanks Harri
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteI think that this question is sort of covered by Harri, but when you say that the shell grit was sustainable, and then later say that it's use was supported by ecotoxicity data, do you mean that there are no other known toxicological effects of it's use? If this is not what you mean, then do you know if there are any other adverse effects?
Thanks,
Robyn
Hi All, thank you for your interest.
ReplyDeleteSean- The authors made no mention of the immobilsation in the method, so i have no idea if this was intentional. This is all i could find on it in the discussion "across the alginate to access the immobilised bacterial consortia. In contrast, as the bacterial consortia are not immobilised onto the shell grit, exposure to the contaminant oil is not limited by the oil chemistry. As such, there may be greater flexibility for the bacteria to degrade the oil"
Harri- Great point but i disagree. The carrier materials in this study were not 100% shell grit or alginate they comprised of a mix of the materials with a "biostimulation mix" containing the bacteria consortia. Perhaps i could have made this a bit clearer in my blog. Also the environment you will be adding this oil plumes. A study by Hazen et al 2010 used a microarray in a oil plume and found that 90% of the bacterial population present in this plume were closely related to known bacteria which degrade oil. So in this type of environment i dont think chitinase could be a suffiecent abundances to be effected, thats even if they are there, but this is just my speculation. What do you think?
Robyn- interesting point because i tried to deviate away from this slightly in my blog. One of the aims of this investigation was to test for any toxic products that could have been produced by adding these carrier materials. There seemed to be potential toxic compounds produced in some of the dilutions in the ecotoxicology analysis but this was not made very clear. Overall the authors concluded that "the ecotoxicity data supports the application of the shell grit carrier material as an effective remediation method.". As for other adverse effects....this comes back to the point Harri made, i did not see the authors mention its persistence, i think this is a point they need to consider before making this transition into a feild study.
Thanks James that's cleared things up for me!
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the point that Harri raised concerning the effects of adding a large amount of shell grit constituting a rise in chitinase producing bacteria, would these effects (if they occur) really be any worse than the effects of the oil pollution it's self?
James, you're point concerning the assemblage found in oil plumes, makes sense, though maybe the effects would be seen later on - say after the oil degraders have had their fill, either way there seems to be room for further studies looking at this in the field, such a study may consider the cost/benefits of using such methods vs the effects of oil pollution ...
Thanks James. I think it's a real shame that they didn't look in to that further, although as you say, definitely a point for further research!
ReplyDelete