In situ bioremediation of soils contaminated with radioactive elements and toxic heavy metals

Groudev, Stoyan; Spasova, Irena; Georgiev, Plamen

doi:10.1016/s0301-7516(00)00061-2

Cited by 40 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SRB inoculum was a consortium, kindly furnished by the research group of Professor Groudev (Department of Engineering Geoecology, University of Mining and Geology, Sofia, Bulgaria), who collected it in the Curilo mine district near Sophia [21]. This area is located near the uranium deposit "C" and it has been contaminated with radioactive elements (uranium, radium, thorium) and heavy metals (copper, zinc, cadmium) as a result of mining and in situ leaching activities carried out for a long period of time.…”

Section: Sulphate Reducing Bacteria (Srb)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of solid reactive mixtures for the development of biological permeable reactive barriers

Pagnanelli

Viggi

Mainelli

et al. 2009

Journal of Hazardous Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sulphate Reducing Bacteria (Srb)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of solid reactive mixtures for the development of biological permeable reactive barriers

Pagnanelli

Viggi

Mainelli

et al. 2009

Journal of Hazardous Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The precipitate formed can be uraninite (UO 2 ), identified by X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy (Gorby and Lovley, 1992). Groudev et al (2000) studied the transformation of U as it passed through a wetland. They identified and enumerated a number of both aerobic and anaerobic microbial consortia in the low redox sediments, and documented the presence of uraninite.…”

Section: Stage 3: Reduction/transformation/biomineralizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The removal of uranium from mining waste water using algal/microbial biomass

Kalin¹,

Wheeler²,

Meinrath³

2005

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity

303

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a three step process for the removal of uranium (U) from dilute waste waters.Step one involves the sequestration of U on, in, and around aquatic plants such as algae. Cell wall ligands efficiently remove U(VI) from waste water. Growing algae continuously renew the cellular surface area.Step 2 is the removal of U-algal particulates from the water column to the sediments.Step 3 involves reducing U(VI) to U(IV) and transforming the ions into stable precipitates in the sediments. The algal cells provide organic carbon and other nutrients to heterotrophic microbial consortia to maintain the low E H , within which the U is transformed.Among the microorganisms, algae are of predominant interest for the ecological engineer because of their ability to sequester U and because some algae can live under many extreme environments, often in abundance. Algae grow in a wide spectrum of water qualities, from alkaline environments (Chara, Nitella) to acidic mine drainage waste waters (Mougeotia, Ulothrix). If they could be induced to grow in waste waters, they would provide a simple, longterm means to remove U and other radionuclides from U mining effluents. This paper reviews the literature on algal and microbial adsorption, reduction, and transformation of U in waste streams, wetlands, lakes and oceans.

show abstract

“…15 Bacteria were propagated using standard procedures and a cultivation medium (C Medium) with the following composition:…”

Section: Experimental Sulphate Reducing Bacteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Sulphate bioreduction for the treatment of polluted waters: solid versus liquid organic substrates

Viggi

Pagnanelli

Toro

2009

J of Chemical Tech & Biotech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: In this study a comparison between two continuously operating fixed-bed column systems was performed in order to select the best operating conditions in terms of organic sources for sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB). The first column system (solid substrate, SS) was filled with a solid reactive mixture containing the organic matter necessary for SRB growth, while the second one (liquid substrate, LS) was filled with inert material and continuously fed by ethanol. RESULTS: In the SS column 50 +/- 10% sulphate abatement was reached at steady state, while metals were totally removed. Blank tests showed that biosorption was mainly responsible for both sulphate and metal removal. In the LS column, sulphate abatement was 70 +/- 10% at steady state against 10 +/- 5% of an identical column without inoculum (blank liquid substrate, BLS). Comparison with BLS showed that the main mechanism operating in this system was bioprecipitation. Estimated degradation rate constants for both SS and LS columns indicate similar performances (0.008 +/- 0.001 and 0.0085 +/- 0.0005 d(-1) for SS and LS, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: LS column systems offer a valid alternative to conventional SS systems, avoiding the use of potentially harmful wastes as organic sources for SRB metabolism. (C) 2009 Society of Chemical Industr

show abstract

In situ bioremediation of soils contaminated with radioactive elements and toxic heavy metals

Cited by 40 publications

References 1 publication

Assessment of solid reactive mixtures for the development of biological permeable reactive barriers

Assessment of solid reactive mixtures for the development of biological permeable reactive barriers

The removal of uranium from mining waste water using algal/microbial biomass

Sulphate bioreduction for the treatment of polluted waters: solid versus liquid organic substrates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About