J Crit Rev, Vol 2, Issue 1, 20-25 Review Article


STRATEGIES FOR REMEDIATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS FROM CONTAMINATED SOIL-AN OVERVIEW

NILANJANA DAS*, DEVLINA DAS

Bioremediation Laboratory, SBST, VIT University, Vellore 632014, Tamil Nadu, India.
Email: nilanjanamitra@vit.ac.in

Received: 05 Oct 2014 Revised and Accepted: 23 Dec 2014


ABSTRACT

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are one of the most prevalent contaminants having toxicity, mutagenecity and carcinogenicity. Pollution caused by PAHs is a serious problem throughout the world. To solve the problem, substantial research efforts have been directed worldwide to adopt sustainable technologies for the treatment of PAHs containing soil. PAH compounds are transferred, degraded and sequestered in soils. They are relocated in the environment through volatilization, adsorption, leaching and erosion without alteration in their structure. Degradation causes alteration of PAHs structures from their original form though biological and chemical processes and sequestration occurs when PAHs are removed from bioavailable pools and stored for a long period of time. The conventional techniques for PAH removal involve excavation of contaminated soil and its incineration which are quite expensive and in many cases pollutants are transferred from one phase to another. The commonly employed biological methods for PAHs remediation in soil are landfarming, composting, bioaugmentation, biostimulation, phytoremediation etc. and chemical methods include photooxidation, ozone treatment, Fenton processes etc. This article critically reviews the updated information on various strategies implemented for remediation of PAHs from soil which will provide insights into this research frontier.

Keywords: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Remediation, Strategies.


INTRODUCTION

During the last few decades, extensive attention has been paid on the remediation of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) because of their genotoxicity, mutagenecity and carcinogenicity [1,2]. Pollution caused by PAHs is a widespread problem due to their low solubility and persistence in soil [3]. PAH contaminated soil is highly dangerous [4] and is mainly originated from various anthropogenic sources viz. leaking underground storage tanks [5], abandoned manufactured gas sites [6] and industrial sources [7,8]. Forest fires and volcanic activity can also cause PAH contamination in soil [9,10]. A detailed review on biodegradation of PAHs has been done [11]. Recently, computational approaches such as molecular dynamics, docking, density functional theory and database retrieval have been employed for investigating the enzymatic mechanism of PAHs degradation [12]. In the present article, updated information on various remediation strategies reported by a number of researchers for the clean-up of PAH contaminated soil have been critically reviewed.

Sources of PAHs

The common sources of PAHs in an environment include natural as well as anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include forest fires, exudates from trees, oil seeps and volcanic eruptions. Anthropogenic sources of PAH mainly include combustion of fossil fuels, wood burning, municipal and industrial waste incineration, coal tar, coke, asphalt roads, roofing tar, discharges from industrial plants, waste water treatment plants, hazardous waste sites, coal gasification sites, smoke houses, atmospheric contamination of leafy plants, cigarette smoke etc.[11]. PAHs are formed mainly through pyrolytic processes which mainly involve incomplete combustion of organic materials during industrial and other human activities, such as coal and crude oil processing, natural gas combustion, combustion of refuse, cooking and tobacco smoking, as well as in natural processes such as carbonization [13].

Biological strategies for remediation of PAHs

Landfarming is a commonly used, inexpensive remediation technology for PAH removal from contaminated soils [14, 15]. The purpose of landfarming include stimulation of indigenous microorganisms to degrade PAHs via (a) addition of nutrients and a carbon source (amendments) (b) mixing soil to better distribute amendments (c) introducing oxygen into soil at depth and (d) increasing the chance of microbial contacts with contaminants [16].

Reductions were much higher for LMW PAHs (50-80%) than for HMW PAHs (10%) after nine weeks. Hansen et al [17] evaluated the efficacy of different cultivation and maintenance schedules during bioremediation of contaminated soil containing high concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs -13 000 ppm) from a wood treatment facility. Two pilot-scale land-treatment units (LTUs) were used. Traditional landfarming practice of regular cultivation was compared with a gas-phase composition based cultivation strategy in the first treatment phase, and both the landfarming units were intensively monitored. The two strategies showed similar contaminant concentration profiles with time during the first phase. Different microbial populations were developed in the two-landfarming units. The second treatment phase involved without moisture control and nutrient delivery beyond the initial adjustments. Similar behaviour was noted for both the strategies again. GC/MS analysis of the soil samples showed that PAHs with four-ring homologues were removed. Significant reductions in leaching of low molecular weight PAHs from soil were noted after 6 and 22 months of operation. Extended treatment resulted in leaching of high molecular weight PAHs. Considerable degradation of two-, three-, four and five-ring aged PAHs was reported through the introduction of oxygen with landfarming (i. e. tillage) [18].

Composting is a remediation technique consisting of nutrient additions, moisture and oxygen control in a contained system. This technique is most commonly used for the treatment of municipal solid wastes and was demonstrated to be effective in biodegrading polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) also [19,20]. The soil to compost ratios of 2:1 on a dry weight basis produced highest degradation of PAHs compared to those with higher ratios [21,22]. Potter et al.[19] used cow manure and activated sewage sludge as a bulking agent, keeping a C: N: P ratio of 100:5:1. Extensive degradation of two-, three- and four-ring PAHs during composting was noted but five- and six-ring PAHs were not degraded. The degradation of 16 (USEPA)-listed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) present in an aged coal tar contaminated soil amended was studied with green waste using in-vessel composting–under laboratory conditions [23]. The influence of various temperature (T: 38, 55, and 70 °C and soil/green waste ratio (S: GW, 0.6:1, 0.7:1, 0.8:1, and 0.9:1) on dry weight basis, moisture content (MC: 40 %,60 % and 80 %) was investigated following 98 days of treatment. The highest removal of PAHs was observed at temperature 38 °C, S: GW=0.8:1 (75.2%) and MC (60 %). In-vessel composting-bioremediation of the same coal-tar soil amended with fresh green waste compost could reduce PAH concentrations by 62% (FGWC-Site 1) and 54% (FGWC-Site 2) after 56 days at 38 °C. Thus, green waste as composting amendment instead of fresh green waste compost could serve as a better compost to achieve a higher disappearance of PAHs using a constant temperature 38 °C [24].

Removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from soil amended with biosolid or vermicompost in presence of earthworms (Eisenia fetida) was reported [25]. Soil amended with earthworms showed increased removal of PAHs such as 91% of anthracene, 16% benzo[a]pyrene and 99% phenanthrene compared to 42%, 3% and 95% in unamended soil. Biosolid and to a lesser extent vermicompost increased the removal of PAHs from soil. Therefore, application of earthworms to a contaminated site might be an environmentally friendly approach to remove PAHs from soil.

Biostimulation is a process by which the activity of the indigenous population of microbes already present at a site can be increased by addition of nutrients and / or a terminal electron acceptor (TEA). Different combinations and levels of macro- and micronutrients were tested to enhance the bioremediation of an aged gas manufacturing plant soil (pH 7.5, organic carbon: 3.5%, and total PAH: 620 mg kg-1) through biostimulation [26]. The best nutrient combination for remediation was a low level of macronutrients with phosphorous as the dominant macronutrient in combination with high levels of micronutrients. Application of fungal substrate from commercial mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) production was reported for bioremediation of creosote contaminated soil. Use of spent mushroom compost (SMC) was noted to remediate PAH-contaminated soil samples which showed enhanced PAH-degrading efficiency of 82% [27]. Lee et al. [28] reported that addition of carbon in the form of pyruvate stimulated the microbial growth and accelerated the adaptation of P. putida G7 to naphthalene which enhanced the rate of in situ bioremediation. Biostimulation with linoleic acid produced by plant roots was tested for remediation of pyrene [29]. Soil spiked with pyrene and 43 different plant root extracts were tested for their ability to stimulate degradation. It was inferred that linoleic acid increased the numbers of degrading bacteria and acted as a surfactant to increase the bioavailability of the PAH. In addition, linoleic acid formed a coating on soil particles which increased the attachment of bacteria to hydrophobic sites causing their enhanced proximity to PAH compounds. Mushroom cultivation substrate (MCS) was reported as potential remediation agent for remediation of PAH contaminated soil [30]. After two months of incubation, 32.9% dissipation of the 15 studied PAHs was observed. The results of this study suggested that MCS can serve as a cost-effective and green biostimulation agent which can provide support for the development of MCS-based biostimulation of PAH-contaminated soil.

Bioaugmentation is the introduction (or inoculation) of a specific potential microbe or group of microbes to improve the metabolic capacity of other indigenous microbial population [31]. In a greenhouse study, 87% reduction of total PAHs were observed in highly contaminated, aged PAH soil containing 13,000 mg kg-1 total PAHs, following the introduction of P. aeruginosa strain 64 on a vermiculite carrier [60]. An increase in the degradation of pyrene and anthracene (but not benzo[a]pyrene) in spiked soil was reported when either aged PAH contaminated soil, sewage sludge, or decaying rice straw were added [32]. Dramatic reductions in aqueous PAH concentrations and bioavailability of pollutants to diverse estuarine biota through AC amendment was reported [33]. Comparative studies on natural attenuation and bioremediation in the form of biostimulation and bioaugmentation with activated carbon (AC) amendment as potential treatments for polluted sediment containing 16.4 -7.3 mg/g PAHs was done [34]. Creosote, a widely used wood preservative is a complex mixture of persistent organic compounds derived from coal pyrolysis. Remediation of creosote polluted soil using in situ bioremediation treatments viz. bioaugmentation, biostimulation, bioaugmentation and biostimulation in combination, and natural attenuation was reported [35]. Significant reduction in creosote was noted for all the treatments. However, biostimulation was found to be more effective for some specific polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and showed the highest microbial biodiversity. The Pseudomonas genus was identified as the predominant bacteria during the creosote biodegradation processes.

The problem of removing the high-molecular-weight fraction (HMW-PAHs) from contaminated soils has been widely reported. Lladó et al. [36] reported the remediation of biotreated aged creosote-polluted soil contaminated with HMW-PAHs. The results showed that the 4-ring PAHs were degraded most by the autochthonous microbial community. Microbial community analysis of fungal and eubacterial populations showed that eubacterial genera viz. Chryseobacterium, Pusillimonas and Sphingobium which were concomitant with the autochthonous fungal genus Fusarium played an important role during HMW-PAH degradation in polluted soils.

A diversified approach on remediation of real industrial creosote polluted soil containing HMW-PAHs was demonstrated through biostimulation (BS) of indigenous microbial populations with a lignocellulosic substrate (LS) or fungal bioaugmentation with two strains of white-rot fungi (WRF) (i. e., Trametes versicolor and Lentinus tigrinus) after a 180-d pilot-scale biopiling treatment [37]. The impact of two mobilizing agents (MAs) viz. soybean oil and Brij 30 and bivalent manganese ions were also tested on the degradation performances of biostimulated and bioaugmented microcosms. Highest biodegradation of HMW-PAHs (with five aromatic rings) by enhanced native microbiota was noted by means of LS amendment after 60 days of treatment. The growth of HMW-PAH degrading bacteria were specifically inhibited when non-ionic surfactant Brij 30 was amended. The concomitant LS addition with fungal inoculants failed due to the LS-promoted growth of indigenous fungal and bacterial populations. It was concluded that a lab-scale assessment of interactions between indigenous microbiota and the selected allochthonous species is necessary for implementation of bioremediation strategies.

To remove high molecular weight PAHs having 3-5 benzene rings, the potentiality of native bacteria associated with humic acids (HA), sugar cane bagasse (SCB), vermicompost (VC) and the earthworm Eisenia andrei (EaW) were tested [38]. Isolation of bacteria was done on previous enrichment of the organic sources (OS) with mineral salts and kerosene and an average of 25 bacteria were isolated from each OS. The strain evaluation was carried out with hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria at fixed concentration (FCHB), supernatant of the non-enriched OS (NES), and supernatant of the enriched OS (ES). The FCHB inocula, particularly the strains provided by the HA and SCB, showed the best performance on five PAH removal under study.

Phytoremediation is an emerging on-site green remediation strategy that uses plants to reclaim contaminated soil and water containing toxic pollutants mainly through increasing microbial activity in the rhizosphere by breaking down the organic compounds in contaminated soils by metabolic processes [39]. There are reports on plant mediated PAHs degradation. The plants include Agropyron smithii Andropogon gerardii, Geranium viscosissimum, Helianthus maximiliani, Lolium perenne L. Lotus corniculata, Melilotus officinali, Panicum coloratum and Trifolium pretense, Aster novae-anglicae, Hystrix patula, Panicum virgatum, Scirpus atrovirens, Spiraea alba, Bouteloua gracili and Bouteloua curtipendula, Buchloe dactyloides, Daucus carota, Festuca arundinaceae Schreb, Sorghum bicolor and Stenotaphrum Secundatum, Triticum aestivum [40-46]. The remediation of soil containing hydrocarbon mixture viz. n-alkanes (C10, C14–C18, C22, C24), along with pristane, hexadecane, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene using the plant rye grass was reported [47]. The soil planted with rye grass lost a greater amount of a mixture of hydrocarbons than unplanted soil. It was concluded that large number of microbes and their activity in the planted soil enhanced the biodegradation of the hydrocarbons. A phenanthrene-degrading bacterial strain Pseudomonas sp. GF3 was tested for plant-growth promoting effects and phenanthrene removal in soil artificially contaminated with low and high levels of phenanthrene [48]. Strain GF3 was able to degrade phenanthrene effectively in the unplanted and planted soils. The concentration of phenanthrene in soil in which wheat was grown was significantly lower than in unplanted soil and 62.2% and 42.3% of phenanthrene had disappeared from planted soils after a period of 80 days. The influence of sunflower rhizosphere on the biodegradation of PAHs in the soil was reported [49]. The concentration of total PAHs was found to be decreased by 93% in 90 days when the contaminated soil was cultivated with sunflowers which represented an improvement of 16% compared to contaminated soil without plants. This was the first report which analyzed the effect of the rhizosphere on autochthonous bacterial community structure from a real PAH-polluted soil. Future research can be carried out to explore the exact contribution of the direct effects of the sunflower exudates and the effects related to the ecology of soil microorganisms.

Recently, a microbial/plant combination strategy has been proposed for the successful bioremediation of an aged and heavily PAHs contaminated soil [50]. Comparative studies on three strategies viz. microbial remediation, phytoremediation, and microbial/phytoremediation were done and soil bacterial community dynamics (using a 454-pyrosequencing method), plant biomass, and activity levels of certain enzymes was monitored. Members of the phylum Acidobacteria were found to be useful indicators of the progress. The PAH removal efficiency was found to be in the order: microbial/phytoremediation > microbial remediation ≈ phytoremediation > control. The combined strategy of microbial/phytoremediation showed the removal percentage twice that of control. Inoculation of the strain Kocuria sp P10 greatly promoted PAH removal and ryegrass growth. Increase in dehydrogenase activity was noted which showed negative correlation with total PAH content. The data indicated that biodiversity of the soil bacterial community gradually increased with time and were slightly lower in control, as indicated by operational taxonomic unit (OTU) numbers and Shannon–Wiener indices. Data from a sequencing method suggested that the phylum Acidobacteria could serve as useful indicator of this process and the findings may provide new insights for the application of bioremediation and its assessment on a large scale. Fig. 1 shows the various biological strategies for PAHs remediation from soil.

Chemical strategies for remediation of PAHs

Among the chemical strategies, photooxidation is an important process for surface and atmospheric degradation of PAHs involving sunlight. The PAHs are directly oxidized after the absorption of sunlight radiation during direct photooxidation and they absorb radiation above 290-335 nm. Chemical transformation occurs during photooxidation and the rates of chemical transformation depend upon sunlight intensity, and overlapping spectral characteristics of solar radiation. Indirect photooxidation occurs when other substances like clay, organic matter, and inorganics absorb sunlight energy and transmit the energy to the PAHs through electron orbital interactions [51].

Fig. 1: Application of biological techniques for remediation of PAHs in soil

The photocatalytic degradation of phenanthrene, pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene on soil surfaces in the presence of TiO2 using ultraviolet (UV) light was investigated [52]. The temperature maintained in the photo chamber was 30°C. The effects of various factors, viz. TiO2, soil pH, humic acid, and UV wavelength, on the degradation performance of PAHs were studied. The photodegradation of phenanthrene, pyrene and benzo[a]pyrene was accelerated significantly with the catalyst TiO2 and their half-lives were reduced from 533.15 to 130.77 h, 630.09 to 192.53 h and 363.22 to 103.26 h, respectively. The photocatalytic degradation rates of the PAHs were greater in acidic or alkaline conditions compared to neutral conditions. Humic acid significantly enhanced the PAH photocatalytic degradation by sensitizing radicals capable of oxidizing PAHs. The combined effect of UV irradiation and TiO2 catalysis was found to be more efficient for degradation of PAHs in contaminated soil.

The photocatalytic degradation of phenanthrene and pyrene on soil surfaces in the presence of nanometer rutile TiO2 under UV radiation was reported [53]. Soil samples were spiked with phenanthrene and pyrene, and then loaded with different dosages of nanometer rutile TiO2 (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 wt %) and were exposed to UV-irradiation for 25 h. The results indicated that phenanthrene and pyrene on soil surfaces could be successfully degraded by the method of photocatalytic degradation in the presence of nanometer rutile TiO2. This method can serve as better choice for the treatments of PAHs polluted soil in the future. The photooxidation of four polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), namely phenanthrene, anthracene, acenaphthene and benz[a]anthracene were studied using solid solution GaN: ZnO before and after Pt modification as photocatalysts [54]. GaN: ZnO is a new type of oxynitride with a wurtzite-type structure which showed excellent activity for the photodegradation of PAHs. The reactivity of PAHs was decreased in the order: phenanthrene> benz[a]anthracene > anthracene> anthracene. The degradation of PAHs was induced by the formation of holes and active H species in the photocatalytic system. In Fentons system, Fentons reagent treatment, peroxide at different concentrations ranging from 3 to 35% along with ferrous iron (Fe II) is used as a catalyst to oxidize organic chemicals [55]. Peroxide (H2O2) is decomposed into highly reactive nonspecific hydroxyl radicals with the help of ferrous iron. Optimum pH needed for the reaction to occur is 3-5. If the pH is too high, iron will precipitate as iron oxides and will decompose peroxide. The iron can be artificially added with the peroxide, but if the soil has high enough iron oxide content (goethite, hematite or magnetite), addition of iron is not needed [56,57]. The decomposition process of peroxide is exothermic. The success of a Fentons system is strongly dependent on solid matrix characteristics and the contaminant availability [58,59]. Hydrophobic contaminants in aged soils are less susceptible to chemical oxidation because of their adsorption to organic material and diffusion into micropores. The presence of black carbon limits the availability of PAHs to chemical oxidation [59]. Gan et al.[60] investigated the impacts of ethyl lactate (EL) based Fenton treatment on soil quality for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)-contaminated soils. Among the oxygenated-PAHs (oxy-PAHs), the compound 9,10-anthraquinone (ATQ) were accumulated in contaminated soil abundantly, but lower accumulation of ATQ was reported for ethanol (EL) based Fenton treatment compared to ethanol (ET) based Fenton treatment. The EL based Fenton treatment showed both positive and negative impacts on soil physicochemical properties. The treatment was found to be most suitable for soil with native pH > 6.2 for re-vegetation.

Recently, an effective technology for the treatment of pyrene in cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC)-aided soil washing wastewater (SWW) using pyrite Fenton reaction system has been reported [61]. Pyrite Fenton system showed more enhanced degradation of pyrene compared to the classic Fenton system. Pyrene in the presence of CPC was gradually degraded by 96% in the pyrite Fenton system in 180 min at initial pH 7 whereas in a classic Fenton system, pyrene was degraded by 35% in the presence of CPC in 180 min at initial pH 3.0. Pyrene in presence of CPC was mainly degraded by OH radicals. This study on pyrite Fenton system could successfully degrade pyrene in the CPC-aided SWW without accumulation of toxic oxy-pyrenes. CPC was degraded (95 %) in the pyrite Fenton system and formed carbon dioxide and ammonium as main degradation products. Therefore, it was concluded that the pyrite Fenton system can serve as an eco-friendly alternative to remediate pyrene in CPC-aided SWW without accumulating the toxic oxy-pyrenes.

Ozone treatment is the use of gaseous ozone for PAH remediation was described earlier [62] Among the technologies for the removal of PAHs, ozonation may be a good alternative, since PAHs react very fast with ozone due to their molecular structures [63]. The benefits of ozone treatment include the ability to use higher concentrations of gas compared to what could be used in the aqueous phase. Moreover, higher diffusivity of gaseous ozone facilitates the delivery of ozone to contaminated areas. In-situ ozonation has been reported as an attractive option for PAH removal at numerous contaminated sites [64,65]. The influence of gas flow-rate, ozone concentration and reaction time on remediation of soil contaminated with four PAHs viz. acenaphthene, phenanthrene, anthracene and fluoranthene was assessed [66]. Gas flow-rate showed no influence on the process efficiency and ozone concentration exerted a slight positive effect. It was concluded that reactivity of PAHs might differ in soils and liquid solvents, nature and composition of soil played an important role in influencing the reactivity. The ozonation of pyrene spiked soil (300 ppm) at various pH levels 2, 6, and 8 and three moisture contents was reported [67]. Soil pH, moisture content, and contamination age showed a significant impact on the effective oxidation of PAH. In the air-dried soils, pyrene removal efficiencies was found to increase from 95 to 97% at pH 6 and pH 8 at a dose of 2.22 mg O3/mg Pyr. Ozone treatment for 4 h resulted 81 to 98% removal efficiencies at all pH levels. Increase in soil moisture content resulted more rapid ozone breakthrough causing reduced pyrene degradation. To compare the efficiency of PAH removal in freshly contaminated soil and aged soils, PAH contaminated soils were stored for 6 months. PAH adsorption to soil was increased with longer exposure time and required much higher doses of ozone to oxidize pyrene effectively. Anthracene decomposition in soils was studied using conventional ozonation [68] and the degree of anthracene decomposition was found depend on soil matrix, water and organic matter content. The total anthracene decomposition was studied in the two systems (sand-ozone and burned soil-ozone). In case of baked sand, anthracene was decomposed completely by simple ozonation during 15 min. In burned soil, anthracene degradation was observed during 5 min of treatment. The efficiency of ozonation was depended on the water content in treated soil samples. In the moist sand, the total decomposition of anthracene was obtained after 30 min of ozonation. The anthracene degradation in an agricultural soil (free water) was only 30% after 90 min of ozonation. Fig. 2 represents the various chemical strategies for PAHs remediation from soil.

Fig. 2: Application of chemical techniques for remediation of PAHs in soil


CONCLUSION

Developing health based cleanup standards and remediation strategies for PAHs contaminated soils seem to be a complex and controversial task. Various strategies involving biological viz. landfarming, composting, biostimulation, bioaugmentation, phytoremediation and chemical methods viz. photooxidation, Fenton system and ozonation have been proposed by various researchers for the remediation of PAHs from contaminated soil. There are several drawbacks for both the biological as well as chemical methods. Among the various strategies, use of microorganisms, biowaste materials or plants may be suggested as the cost effective technology for remediation of PAHs from contaminated sites. The application of bio-nano hybrid system using nanoparticles may be tested for remediation of PAHs from soil as a new strategy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors greatly acknowledge VIT University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India for providing support in research and the necessary facilities.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared

REFERENCES

  1. Santodonato J. Review of the estrogenic and antiestrogenic activity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: relationship to carcinogenicity. Chemosphere 1997;34:835–48.
  2. Bostrom CE, Gerde P, Hanber A, Jernstrom B, Johansson C, Kyrklund T, et al. Cancer risk assessment, indicators, and guidelines for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the ambient air. Environ Health Perspect 2002;110:451–88.
  3. Couto M, Monteiro E, M Vasconcelos M. Mesocosm trials of bioremediation of contaminated soil of a petroleum refinery: comparison of natural attenuation, biostimulation and bioaugmentation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2010;17:1339 –46.
  4. Das P, Mukherjee S, Sen R. Improved bioavailability and biodegradation of a model polyaromatic hydrocarbon by a biosurfactant producing bacterium of marine origin. Chemosphere 2008;72:1229–34.
  5. Baek SO, Field RA, Goldstone ME. A review of atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: sources fate and behavior. Water Air Soil Pollut 1991;60(3-4):279-300.
  6. Atlas RM. Bioremediation, In: Chemical and Engineering News; 1995. p. 32-42.
  7. Ellis B. Reclaiming contaminated land: in-situ/ex-situ remediation of creosote and petroleum contaminated land. In: Flatham P, Jerger D, Exner J. (Eds.) Bioremediation: field experience reclaiming contaminated land. lewis, boca raton; 1994. p. 107-43.
  8. Cutright TJ, Fullerton KL, Lee S. Study of the biological destructive separation of hazardous contaminants from town gas soils. Separ Technol 1995;5:129–32.
  9. Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry [ATSDR]. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Prepared by Clement International Corporation, Contract No. 205-88-0608, US Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA; 1993.
  10. Huang JW, Chen J, Berti WR, Cunningham SD. Environmental Impact of Soil Component Interactions,Volume I: Natural and Anthropogenic Organics. Lewis; 1995.
  11. Haritash AK, Kaushik CP. Biodegradation aspects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH): a review. J Hazard Mater 2009;169:1–15.
  12. Librando V, Pappalardo M. In silico bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon: a frontier in environmental chemistry. J Mol Graph Model 2013;44:1-8.
  13. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), In: Air quality guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 1987. p. 105–17.
  14. Gray MR, Bannerjee DK, Dudas MJ, Pickard MS. Protocols to enhance biodegradation of hydrocarbon contaminants in soil. Bioremed J 2000;(4):249−57.
  15. Harmsen J, Rulkens WH, Sims RC, Rijtema PE, Zweers AJ. Theory and application of landfarming to remediate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mineral oil contaminated sediments: beneficial reuse. J Environ Qual 2007;36:1112-22.
  16. Straube WL, Nestler CC, Hansen LD, Ringleberg D, Pritchard PH, Jones-Meehan J. Remediation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) through landfarming with biostimulation and bioaugmentation. Acta Biotechnol 2003;23(2-3):179-96.
  17. Hansen LD, Nestler C, Ringelberg D, Bajpai R. Extended bioremediation of PAH/PCP contaminated soils from the POPILE wood treatment facility. Chemosphere 2004;54:1481–93.
  18. Lei L, Khodadoust AP, Suidan MT, Tabak HH. Biodegradation of sediment-bound PAHs in field-contaminated sediment. Water Res 2005;39:349-61.
  19. Potter CL, Glaser JA, Chang LW, Meier JR, Dosani MA, Herrmann RF. Degradation of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons under bench-scale compost conditions. Environ SciTechnol 1999;33:1717-25.
  20. Canet R, Birnstingl JG, Malcolm DG, Lopez-Real JM, Beck AJ. Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by native microflora and combinations of white-rot fungi in a coal-tar contaminated soil. Bioresour Technol 2001;76:113–7.
  21. Stegmann R, Lotter S, Jeerenklage J. Biological treatment of oil-contaminated soils in bioreactors. In: Hinchee RE, Olfenbuttel RF.(Eds.) On-site Bioreclamation Processes for Xenobiotic and Hydrocarbon Treatment, Butterworth-Heinemann, MA; 1991.
  22. Dooley MA, Taylor K, Allen B. Composting of herbicide-contaminated soil in bioremediation of recalcitrant organics. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH; 1995.
  23. Antizar-Ladislao B, Lopez-Real J, Beck AJ. Degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in an aged coal-tar contaminated soil under in-vessel composting conditions. Environ Pollut 2006a;141:459 –68.
  24. Antizar-Ladislao B, Lopez-Real J, Beck AJ. Bioremediation of polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAH) in an aged coal tar contaminated soil using in-vessel composting approaches. J HazardMater 2006 b;137:1583– 8.
  25. Contreras-Ramos SM, lvarez-Bernal DA, Dendooven L. Removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from soil amended with biosolid or vermicompost in the presence of earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Soil Biol Biochem 2008;40:1954–9.
  26. Liebega EW, Cutright TJ. The investigation of enhanced bioremediation through the addition of macro and micro nutrients in a PAH contaminated soil. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad1999;44:55-64.
  27. Lau KL, Tsang YY, Chiu SW. Use of spent mushroom compost to bioremediate PAH-contaminated samples. Chemosphere 2003;52:1539–46.
  28. Lee K, Park JW, Ahn IS. Effect of additional carbon source on naphthalene biodegradation by Pseudomonas putida G7. J Hazard Mater 2003;105:157– 67.
  29. Yi H, Crowley DE. Biostimulation of PAH degradation with plants containing high concentrations of linoleic acid. Environ Sci Technol2007;41:4382-8.
  30. Li X, Wu Y, Lin X, Zhang J, Zeng J. Dissipation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil microcosms amended with mushroom cultivation substrate. Soil Biol Biochem 2012;47:191-7.
  31. Gentry TJ, Rensing C, Pepper IL. New approaches for bioaugmentation as a remediation technology. Environ Sci Technol 2004;34:447-94.
  32. Hamdi H, Benzarti S, Manusadzianas L, Aoyama I, Jedidi N. Bioaugmentation and biostimulation effects on PAH dissipation and soil ecotoxicity under controlled conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 2007;39:1926–35.
  33. Cornelissen G, Breedveld GD, Naes K, Oen AMP, Ruus A. Bioaccumulation of native polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from sediment by a polychaete and a gastropod: freely dissolved concentrations and activated carbon amendment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2006;25 (9):2349-55.
  34. Hale SE, Meynet P. Davenport RJ, Martin Jones D, Werner D. Changes in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon availability in river tyne sediment following bioremediation treatments or activated carbon amendment. Water Res 2010;44:4529–36.
  35. Simarroa R, Gonzáleza LF, Bautistab N, Molinaa MC. Assessment of the efficiency of in situ bioremediation techniques in a creosote polluted soil: change in bacterial community. JHazard Mater 2013;262:158– 67.
  36. Lladóa S, Covinob S, Solanasa AM, Vi˜nasc M, Petruccioli M, D’annibaled A. Comparative assessment of bioremediation approaches to highly recalcitrant PAH degradation in a real industrial polluted soil. J Hazard Mater 2013a;248-249:407–14.
  37. Lladó S, Gràcia E, Solanas AM, Viñas M. Fungal and bacterial microbial community assessment during bioremediation assays in an aged creosote-polluted soil. Soil Biol Biochem 2013b;67:114-23.
  38. García-Díaz C, Ponce-Noyola MT, Esparza-García, Rivera-Orduña FF, Barrera-Cortés J. PAH removal of high molecular weight by characterized bacterial strains from different organic sources. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 2013;85:311-22.
  39. Dzantor EK, Beauchamp RG. Phytoremediation, part I: fundamental basis for use of plants in removal of organic and metal contamination. Environ Pract 2002;4(2):77-87.
  40. Aprill W, Sims RC. Evaluation of the use of prairie grasses for stimulating polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon treatment in soil. Chemosphere 1990;20:253-65.
  41. Qui X, Leland TW, Shah SI, Sorensen DL, Kendall EW. Field study: grass remediation for clay soil contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In: Kruger EL, Anderson TA, Coats JR, (Eds.). Phytoremediation of soil and water contaminants. American Chemical Society, Washington DC; 1997. p. 186-99.
  42. Kucovera P, In der Wiesche C, Wolter M, Macek TF, Zadrazil F, Mackova M. The ability of different plant species to remove polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls from incubation media. Biotechnol Lett 2001;23:1355-9.
  43. Robinson SL, Novak JT, Widdowson MA, Crosswell SB, Fetteroll GJ. Field and laboratory evaluation of the impact of tall fescue on polyaromatic hydrocarbon degradation in an aged creosote-contaminated surface soil. J Environ Eng 2003;129(3):232-40.
  44. Huang XD, El-Alawi Y, Penrose DM, Glick BR, Greenberg BM. A multi-process phytoremediation system for removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from contaminated soils. Environ Pollut 2004;130:465-76.
  45. Olson PE, Castro A, Joern M, DuTeau NM, Pilon-Smits EAH, Reardon KF. Comparison of plant families in a greenhouse phytoremediation study on aged polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. J Environ Qual 2007;36:1461-9.
  46. Rugh C, Thomas JC, Russell DK, Leinauer B, Carreira L. Ecological influences on PAH-phytoremediation. Int J Phytorem 2004;6:186-7.
  47. Gunther T, Dornberger U, Fritsche W. Effects of ryegrass on biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil. Chemosphere 1996;33 (2):203–15
  48. Sheng XF, Gong JX. Increased degradation of phenanthrene in soil by Pseudomonas sp. GF3 in the presence of wheat. Soil Biol Biochem 2006;38:2587– 92.
  49. Tejeda-Agredano MC, Gallego S, Vila J, Grifoll M, Ortega-Calvo JJ, Cantos M. Influence of sunflower rhizosphere on the biodegradation of PAHs in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 2013;57:830-40.
  50. Xu Y, Sun GD, Jin JH, Liu Y, Luo M, Zhong ZP, et al. Successful bioremediation of an aged and heavily contaminated soil using a microbial/plant combination strategy. JHazard Mater2014;264:430–8.
  51. Pierzynski GM, Sims JT, Vance GF. Soils and environmental quality, Second Edition. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL; 2000.
  52. Zhang L, Li P, Gong Z, Li X. Photocatalytic degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on soil surfaces using TiO2 under UV light. J Hazard Mater 2008;158:478– 84.
  53. Dong D, Li P, Li X, Xu C, Gong D, Zhanga Y, Zhaoa Q, et al. Photocatalytic degradation of phenanthrene and pyrene on soil surfaces in the presence of nanometer rutile TiO2 under UV-irradiation. Chem Eng J 2010;158:378–83.
  54. Koua J, Li Z, Guo Y, Gao J, Yang M, Zoua Z. Photocatalytic degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in GaN: ZnO solid solution-assisted process: Direct hole oxidation mechanism. J Mol Catal A Chem 2010;325:48–54.
  55. Flotron V, Delteil C, Padellec Y, Camel V. Removal of sorbed polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons from soil, sludge and sediment sample using the Fenton’s reagent process. Chemosphere 2005;59:1427–37.
  56. Watts RJ, Stanton PC, Howsawkeng J, Teel AL. Mineralization of a sorbed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in two soils using catalyzed hydrogen peroxide. Water Res 2002;36:4283–92.
  57. Kawahara FK, Davila B, Alabed SR, Vesper SJ, Ireland JC, Rock S. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) release from soil during treatment with Fenton’s reagent. Chemosphere 1995;31:4131–42.
  58. Nam K, Rodriguez W, Kukor JJ. Enhanced degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by biodegradation combined with a modified Fenton reaction. Chemosphere 2001;45:11–20.
  59. Lundstedt S, Persson Y, Oberg LG. Transformation of PAHs during ethanol-Fenton treatment of an aged gasworks soil. Chemosphere 2006;65:1288–94.
  60. Gan S, Yap LC, Ng HK, Venny. Investigation of the impacts of ethyl lactate based Fenton treatment on soil quality for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)-contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 2013;262:691-700.
  61. Choi K, Bae S, Lee W. Degradation of pyrene in cetylpyridinium chloride-aided soil washing wastewater by pyrite fenton reaction. Chem Eng J 2014;249:34–41.
  62. Masten SJ, Davies SHR. Efficacy of in-situ ozonation for the remediation of PAH contaminated soils. J Contam Hydrol 1997;28:327–35.
  63. Haapea P, Tuhkanen T. Integrated treatment of PAH contaminated soil by soil washing, ozonation and biological treatment. J Hazard Mater 2006;B136:244–50.
  64. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). Technical and regulatory guidance for in situ chemical oxidation of contaminated soil and groundwater, second ed; 2005.
  65. Rivas FJ. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons sorbed on soils: a short review of chemical oxidation based treatments. J Hazard Mater 2006;138(2):234–51.
  66. Rivas J, Gimeno O, de la Calle RG, Beltrán FJ. Ozone treatment of PAH contaminated soils: Operating variables effect. J Hazard Mater 2009;169:509-15.
  67. Luster-Teasleya SN, Ubaka-Blackmoorea N, Masten SJ. Evaluation of soil pH and moisture content on in-situ ozonation of pyrene in soils. J Hazard Mater 2009;167:701–6.
  68. Gómez-Alvarez M, Poznyak T, Ríos-Leal E, Silva-Sánchez C. Anthracene decomposition in soils by conventional ozonation. J Environ Manage2012;113:545-51.


About this article

Title

STRATEGIES FOR REMEDIATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS FROM CONTAMINATED SOIL-AN OVERVIEW

Date

23-12-2014

Additional Links

Manuscript Submission

Journal

Journal of Critical Reviews
Vol 2, Issue 1, 2015 Page: 20-25

Online ISSN

2394-5125

Statistics

733 Views | Downloads

Authors & Affiliations

Nilanjana Das

Devlina Das


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.