Bioremediation has been used to treat soils contaminated with complex mixtures of organic compounds such as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), oil and grease (O&G), or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Despite the common use and cost-effectiveness of bioremediation for treating hydrocarbon-contaminated soils, it has been observed that a residual fraction remains undegraded in the soil even when optimal biodegradation conditions have been provided. This paper provides a brief review of the two major conceptual models that have been used to explain why a residual hydrocarbon fraction remains in the soil after bioremediation treatment. The contaminant sequestration model is based on the assumption that a certain fraction of hydrocarbons is “locked up” in small soil pores within soil particles or aggregates. These sorbed hydrocarbons are believed to be inaccessible to soil microorganisms. Consequently, limitations in bioavailability are thought to be the major reason for incomplete hydrocarbon biodegradation, particularly in aged or weathered soils. Alternatively, according to the inherent recalcitrance model, incomplete TPH biodegradation may be caused by the presence of certain hydrocarbons that are inherently recalcitrant to biodegradation or are only extremely slowly degradable even under optimal conditions. Each conceptual model provides different explanations regarding the potential risks of the residual hydrocarbon fraction. If the residual TPH is truly sequestered within the soil pore space, it is unlikely that these compounds will pose any significant risk to human or environmental receptors. By contrast, these risks may be considerably greater if the residual TPH fraction consists of inherently recalcitrant compounds that reside mostly on the surface of soil particles and therefore are much more available to potential receptors. Both conceptual models and their implications for the potential risk of the residual TPH fraction are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael H. Huesemann (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: