Bioremediation of PAHs - Limitations and soultions

Introduction 1.1 Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the environment Worldwide industrial and agricultural developments have released a large number of natural and synthetic hazardous compounds into the environment due to careless waste disposal, illegal waste dumping and accidental spills. As a result, there are numerous sites in the world that require cleanup of soils and groundwater. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are one of the major groups of these contaminants (Da Silva et al., 2003). PAHs constitute a diverse class of organic compounds consisting of two or more aromatic rings with various structural configurations (Prabhu and Phale, 2003). Being a derivative of benzene, PAHs are thermodynamically stable. In addition, these chemicals tend to adhere to particle surfaces, such as soils, because of their low water solubility and strong hydrophobicity, and this results in greater persistence under natural conditions. This persistence coupled with their potential carcinogenicity makes PAHs problematic environmental contaminants (Cerniglia, 1992; Sutherland, 1992). PAHs are widely found in high concentrations at many industrial sites, particularly those associated with petroleum, gas production and wood preserving industries (Wilson and Jones, 1993). 1.2 Remediation technologies Conventional techniques used for the remediation of soil polluted with organic contaminants include excavation of the contaminated soil and disposal to a landfill or capping - containment - of the contaminated areas of a site. These methods have some drawbacks. The first method simply moves the contamination elsewhere and may create significant risks in the excavation, handling and transport of hazardous material. Additionally, it is very difficult and increasingly expensive to find new landfill sites for the final disposal of the material. The cap and containment method is only an interim solution since the contamination remains on site, requiring monitoring and maintenance of the isolation barriers long into the future, with all the associated costs and potential liability. A better approach than these traditional methods is to completely destroy the pollutants, if possible, or transform them into harmless substances. Some technologies that have been used are high-temperature incineration and various types of chemical decomposition (for example, base-catalyzed dechlorination, UV oxidation). However, these methods have significant disadvantages, principally their technological complexity, high cost , and the lack of public acceptance. Bioremediation, on the contrast, is a promising option for the complete removal and destruction of contaminants. 1.3 Bioremediation of PAH contaminated soil & groundwater Bioremediation is the use of living organisms, primarily microorganisms, to degrade or detoxify hazardous wastes into harmless substances such as carbon dioxide, water and cell biomass Most PAHs are biodegradable unter natural conditions (Da Silva et al., 2003; Meysami and Baheri, 2003) and bioremediation for cleanup of PAH wastes has been extensively studied at both laboratory and commercial levels- It has been implemented at a number of contaminated sites, including the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989, the Mega Borg spill off the Texas coast in 1990 and the Burgan Oil Field, Kuwait in 1994 (Purwaningsih, 2002). Different strategies for PAH bioremediation, such as in situ , ex situ or on site bioremediation were developed in recent years. In situ bioremediation is a technique that is applied to soil and groundwater at the site without removing the contaminated soil or groundwater, based on the provision of optimum conditions for microbiological contaminant breakdown.. Ex situ bioremediation of PAHs, on the other hand, is a technique applied to soil and groundwater which has been removed from the site via excavation (soil) or pumping (water). Hazardous contaminants are converted in controlled bioreactors into harmless compounds in an efficient manner. 1.4 Bioavailability of PAH in the subsurface Frequently, PAH contamination in the environment is occurs as contaminants that are sorbed onto soilparticles rather than in phase (NAPL, non aqueous phase liquids). It is known that the biodegradation rate of most PAHs sorbed onto soil is far lower than rates measured in solution cultures of microorganisms with pure solid pollutants (Alexander and Scow, 1989; Hamaker, 1972). It is generally believed that only that fraction of PAHs dissolved in the solution can be metabolized by microorganisms in soil. The amount of contaminant that can be readily taken up and degraded by microorganisms is defined as bioavailability (Bosma et al., 1997; Maier, 2000). Two phenomena have been suggested to cause the low bioavailability of PAHs in soil (Danielsson, 2000). The first one is strong adsorption of the contaminants to the soil constituents which then leads to very slow release rates of contaminants to the aqueous phase. Sorption is often well correlated with soil organic matter content (Means, 1980) and significantly reduces biodegradation (Manilal and Alexander, 1991). The second phenomenon is slow mass transfer of pollutants, such as pore diffusion in the soil aggregates or diffusion in the organic matter in the soil. The complex set of these physical, chemical and biological processes is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, biodegradation processes are taking place in the soil solution while diffusion processes occur in the narrow pores in and between soil aggregates (Danielsson, 2000). Seemingly contradictory studies can be found in the literature that indicate the rate and final extent of metabolism may be either lower or higher for sorbed PAHs by soil than those for pure PAHs (Van Loosdrecht et al., 1990). These contrasting results demonstrate that the bioavailability of organic contaminants sorbed onto soil is far from being well understood. Besides bioavailability, there are several other factors influencing the rate and extent of biodegradation of PAHs in soil including microbial population characteristics, physical and chemical properties of PAHs and environmental factors (temperature, moisture, pH, degree of contamination). Figure 1: Schematic diagram showing possible rate-limiting processes during bioremediation of hydrophobic organic contaminants in a contaminated soil-water system (not to scale) (Danielsson, 2000). 1.5 Increasing the bioavailability of PAH in soil Attempts to improve the biodegradation of PAHs in soil by increasing their bioavailability include the use of surfactants , solvents or solubility enhancers.. However, introduction of synthetic surfactant may result in the addition of one more pollutant. (Wang and Brusseau, 1993).A study conducted by Mulder et al. showed that the introduction of hydropropyl-ß-cyclodextrin (HPCD), a well-known PAH solubility enhancer, significantly increased the solubilization of PAHs although it did not improve the biodegradation rate of PAHs (Mulder et al., 1998), indicating that further research is required in order to develop a feasible and efficient remediation method. Enhancing the extent of PAHs mass transfer from the soil phase to the liquid might prove an efficient and environmentally low-risk alternative way of addressing the problem of slow PAH biodegradation in soil.

L’appropriation locale de la démocratie: Analyse des élections municipales à Parakou, République du Bénin, 2002/03 /// Arbeitspapiere / Institut für Ethnologie und Afrikastudien ; 39b

Bénin, démocratie, décentralisation, pouvoirs locaux, élections, parties politiques

Outcome, quality of life and cognitive function of patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer treated with whole brain radiotherapy combined with gefitinib or temozolomide. A randomised phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK 70/03)

Patients with brain metastases (BM) rarely survive longer than 6months and are commonly excluded from clinical trials. We explored two combined modality regimens with novel agents with single agent activity and radiosensitizing properties.

Multicenter phase II trial of gefitinib first-line therapy followed by chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): SAKK protocol 19/03

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib is active in patients with pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated the activity and toxicity of gefitinib first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC followed by chemotherapy at disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 63 patients with chemotherapy-naive stage IIIB/IV NSCLC received gefitinib 250 mg/day. At disease progression, gefitinib was replaced by cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 for up to six 3-week cycles. Primary end point was the disease stabilization rate (DSR) after 12 weeks of gefitinib. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of gefitinib, the DSR was 24% and the response rate (RR) was 8%. Median time to progression (TtP) was 2.5 months and median overall survival (OS) 11.5 months. Never smokers (n = 9) had a DSR of 56% and a median OS of 20.2 months; patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation (n = 4) had a DSR of 75% and the median OS was not reached after the follow-up of 21.6 months. In all, 41 patients received chemotherapy with an overall RR of 34%, DSR of 71% and median TtP of 6.7 months. CONCLUSIONS: First-line gefitinib monotherapy led to a DSR of 24% at 12 weeks in an unselected patients population. Never smokers and patients with EGFR mutations tend to have a better outcome; hence, further trials in selected patients are warranted.

Bronchial and bronchovascular sleeve resection for treatment of central lung tumors

BACKGROUND: To improve postoperative pulmonary reserve, we have employed parenchyma-sparing resections for central lung tumors irrespective of pulmonary function. The results of lobectomy, pneumonectomy, and sleeve resection were analyzed retrospectively. METHODS: From October 1995 to June 1999, 422 typical lung resections were performed for lung cancer. Of these, 301 were lobectomies (group I), 81 were sleeve resections (group II), and 40 were pneumonectomies (group III). RESULTS: Operative mortality was 2% in group I, 1.2% in group II, and 7.5% in group III (group I and II vs. group III, p<0.03). Mean time of intubation was 1.0+/-4.1 days in group I, 0.9+/-1.3 days in group II, and 3.6+/-11.2 days in group III (groups I and II vs. group III, p<0.01). The incidence of bronchial complications was 1.3% in group I, none in group II, and 7.5% in group III (group I and II vs group III, p<0.001). After 2 years, survival was 64% in group I, 61.9% in group II, and 56.1% in group III (p = NS). Freedom from local disease recurrence was 92.1% in group I, 95.7% in group II, and 90.9% in group III after 2 years (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Sleeve resection is a useful surgical option for the treatment of central lung tumors, thus avoiding pneumonectomy with its associated risks. Morbidity, early mortality, long-term survival, and recurrence of disease after sleeve resection are similar to those seen after lobectomy.