Genotoxicity of bioremediated soils from the Reilly Tar site, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.

Hughes, Thomas J.; Claxton, Larry D.; Brooks, Lance R.; Warren, Sarah H.; Brenner, Richard C.; Kremer, Fran

doi:10.1289/ehp.98106s61427

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, they could not determine whether observed increases in genotoxicity were due to the processes themselves or to the amendments added to the soil. 32 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Effects of Bioremediation on Genotoxicity of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soil Using Genetically Engineered, Higher Eukaryotic Cell Lines

Nakamura

Richardson

et al. 2012

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioremediation is one of the commonly applied remediation strategies at sites contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). However, remediation goals are typically based on removal of the target contaminants rather than on broader measures related to health risks. We investigated changes in the toxicity and genotoxicity of PAH-contaminated soil from a former manufactured-gas plant site before and after two simulated bioremediation processes: a sequencing batch bioreactor system and a continuous-flow column system. Toxicity and genotoxicity of the residues from solvent extracts of the soil were determined by the chicken DT40 B-lymphocyte isogenic cell line and its DNA-repair-deficient mutants. Although both bioremediation processes significantly removed PAHs from the contaminated soil (bioreactor 69% removal; column 84% removal), bioreactor treatment resulted in an increase in toxicity and genotoxicity over the course of a treatment cycle, whereas long-term column treatment resulted in a decrease in toxicity and genotoxicity. However, when screening with a battery of DT40 mutants for genotoxicity profiling, we found that column treatment induced DNA damage types that were not observed in untreated soil. Toxicity and genotoxicity bioassays can supplement chemical analysis-based risk assessment for contaminated soil when evaluating the efficacy of bioremediation.

show abstract

“…However, they could not determine whether observed increases in genotoxicity were due to the processes themselves or to the amendments added to the soil. 32 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Effects of Bioremediation on Genotoxicity of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soil Using Genetically Engineered, Higher Eukaryotic Cell Lines

Nakamura

Richardson

et al. 2012

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, the bioremediation treatments (BP, BS, CMP, and LT) were successful in reducing the priority pollutant PAHs by 48% or more (Table 1). However, when the soil extracts from the bioremediation treatments and the UTS (extracted at the same time as the treatment soils) were tested in the Salmonella mutagenicity assay in strain YG1041, two treatments (BS and BP) had increased mutagenic activity, both with and without S9 addition, when compared to UTS (4). All four bioremediation treatments and the UTS were fractionated by HPLC and tested in a microsuspension modification of the Salmonella mutagenicity assay using strain YG1041, which yielded mutagrams (Figures 1 and 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The BS had air bubbled to the bottom of the reaction vessels at the rate of 1.5 ml/min and was stirred at 500 rpm (4 occur. CMP had 1% cow manure added, but the treatment vessel was not aerated, and was mixed once a day by rolling the vessel for 30 min.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioassay-directed fractionation and chemical identification of mutagens in bioremediated soils.

Brooks

Hughes

Claxton

et al. 1998

Environ Health Perspect

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As shown in a companion paper, the mutagenicity of two treatments (BS and BP) was significantly greater than the mutagenicity of the untreated soil. Mutagenic fractions (>500 revertants) were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). PAH analysis of the soils indicated that all treatments were effective in reducing the total PAH concentration (48-74%). Qualitative GC/MS analysis of the mutagenic fractions from the BS and BP treatments indicated that they contained azaarenes, which are mutagens. The CMP and LT processes were the most effective and least toxic bioremediation procedures based on mutagenic potency and chemical analysis. This research demonstrated that the combination of bioassays and chemical analysis provided a more accurate determination of toxicity in these complex environmental mixtures.

show abstract

“…Overall, the genotoxicity of remediated soil will depend both on the remaining parent compounds (including PAHs and other contaminants) and the formation or removal of any products of incomplete microbial metabolism. Reduction of parent-PAH concentrations does not always correspond to a reduction in genotoxicity (Hughes et al, 1998;Gillespie et al, 2007;Lemieux et al, 2009;Hu et al, 2012). Because second-stage treatment made the soil less cytotoxic, but more genotoxic, it is possible that surfactant treatment causes transformation of cytotoxic compounds that are not genotoxic themselves into genotoxic products.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Biodegradation in Contaminated Soil Through Low-Level Surfactant Addition After Conventional Bioremediation

Adrion

Singleton

Nakamura

et al. 2016

Environmental Engineering Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficacy of bioremediation for soil contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) may be limited by the fractions of soil-bound PAHs that are less accessible to PAH-degrading microorganisms. In previous test-tube-scale work, submicellar doses of nonionic surfactants were screened for their ability to enhance the desorption and biodegradation of residual PAHs in soil after conventional bioremediation in a laboratory-scale, slurry-phase bioreactor. Polyoxyethylene sorbitol hexaoleate (POESH) was the optimum surfactant for enhancing PAH removal, especially the high-molecular weight PAHs. This work extends that concept by treating the effluent from the slurry-phase bioreactor in a second-stage batch reactor, to which POESH was added, for an additional 7 or 12 days. Surfactant amendment removed substantial amounts of the PAHs and oxy-PAHs remaining after conventional slurry-phase bioremediation, including more than 80% of residual 4-ring PAHs. Surfactant-amended treatment decreased soil cytotoxicity, but often increased the genotoxicity of the soil as measured using the DT-40 chicken lymphocyte DNA damage response assay. Potential ecotoxicity, measured using a seed germination assay, was reduced by bioreactor treatment and was reduced further after second-stage treatment with POESH. Of bacteria previously implicated as potential PAH degraders under POESH-amended conditions in a prior study, members of the genus were associated with differences in high-molecular weight PAH removal in the current study. Research using submicellar doses of surfactant as a second-stage treatment step is limited and these findings can inform the design of bioremediation systems at field sites treating soil contaminated with PAHs and other hydrophobic contaminants that have low bioaccessibility.

show abstract

Genotoxicity of bioremediated soils from the Reilly Tar site, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.

Cited by 29 publications

References 58 publications

Evaluating the Effects of Bioremediation on Genotoxicity of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soil Using Genetically Engineered, Higher Eukaryotic Cell Lines

Evaluating the Effects of Bioremediation on Genotoxicity of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soil Using Genetically Engineered, Higher Eukaryotic Cell Lines

Bioassay-directed fractionation and chemical identification of mutagens in bioremediated soils.

Improving Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Biodegradation in Contaminated Soil Through Low-Level Surfactant Addition After Conventional Bioremediation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About