生物淋洗法修复2,4-DNT-3-SA污染土壤

doi:10.13209/j.0479-8023.2017.094

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用静态生物淋洗法处理含 2,4-二硝基甲苯-3-磺酸钠(2,4-DNT-3-SA)的土壤。考察供氧条件、土水比及温度对2,4-DNT-3-SA去除效果的影响, 结果表明, 在好氧、37ºC、土水比为10:5的条件下, 2,4-DNT-3-SA去除率最高, 达到 98.75%。采用高通量测序法分析土壤中微生物菌落结构及多样性, 结果表明, 土壤中的优势菌属主要为假单胞菌属、鞘脂菌属和芽孢乳杆菌属。

关键词: 生物淋洗, 2,4-DNT-3-SA, 土壤, 高通量测序

Abstract:

A static biological leaching method was used to treat the 2,4-DNT-3-SA contaminated soil. The effects of oxygen conditions, soil to water ratio and temperature on the removal efficiency of 2,4-DNT-3-SA were evaluated. The result suggested that under the aerobic and 37ºC conditions, the removal efficiency of 2,4-DNT-3-SA reached more than 98% when the ratio of soil to water was 10:5. High-throughput sequencing results indicated that the dominant bacteria in the soil were Genus Pseudomonas, Sphingobium and Sporolactobacillus.

Key words: biological leaching, 2,4-DNT-3-SA, soil, high-throughput sequencing

张天宇, 赵泉林, 张振中, 姜振明, 苏宏平, 高学文, 叶正芳. 生物淋洗法修复2,4-DNT-3-SA污染土壤[J]. 北京大学学报自然科学版, 2017, 53(5): 899-904.

Tianyu ZHANG, Quanlin ZHAO, Zhenzhong ZHANG, Zhenming JIANG, Hongping SU, Xuewen GAO, Zhengfang YE. Treatment of 2,4-DNT-3-SA Contaminated Soil by a Biological Leaching Method[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2017, 53(5): 899-904.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://xbna.pku.edu.cn/CN/10.13209/j.0479-8023.2017.094

https://xbna.pku.edu.cn/CN/Y2017/V53/I5/899

图/表 8

参考文献 27

[1]	Anasonye F, Festus E, Winquist K T, et al.Bioreme-diation of TNT contaminated soil with fungi under laboratory and pilot scale conditions. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 2015, 105: 7-12
[2]	徐文杰, 张振中, 赵泉林, 等. 物化法修复火炸药污染土壤研究进展. 环境科学与技术, 2015, 38(6): 294-298
[3]	Tognetti V B, monti M R, Valle E M, et al. Detoxification of 2,4-dinitrotoluene by transgenic tobacco plants expressing a bacterial flavodoxin. Environment Science & Technology, 2007, 41(41): 4071-4076
[4]	Wen Donghui, Li Guozheng, Xing Rui, et al.2,4-DNT removal in intimately coupled photobiocatalysis: the roles of adsorption, photolysis, photocatalysis, and biotransformation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2012, 95(1): 263-272
[5]	Wintz H, Yoo L J, Loguinov A, et al.Gene expression profiles in fathead minnow exposed to 2,4-DNT. Toxicological Sciences, 2006, 94(1): 71-82
[6]	Gong P, Kuperman R G, Sunahar G I.Genotoxicity of 2,4- and 2,6-dinitrotoluene as measured by the Trades- cantia micronucleus (Trad-MCN) bioassay. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology & Environmental Muta-genesis, 2003, 538(1/2): 13-18
[7]	谯华. TNT污染土壤的生物泥浆反应器修复机理研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2011: 18-19
[8]	巩宗强, 李培军, 台培东, 等. 污染土壤的淋洗法修复研究进展. 环境污染治理技术与设备, 2002, 3(7): 45-50
[9]	Cassidy D, Northup A, Hampton D.The effect of three chemical oxidants on subsequent biodegradation of 2,4 -dinitro-toluene (DNT) in batch slurry reactors. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 2009, 84(6): 820-826
[10]	Kalderis D, Hawthorne S B, Clifford A A, et al.Interaction of soil, water and TNT during degradation of TNT on contaminated soil using SB critical water. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2008, 159(2): 329-334
[11]	Bier E L, Singh J, Li Zhengming, et al.Remediating hexahydro-1,3,5-tribitro-1,2,5-trazine-contaminatedwater and soil by Fenton oxidation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1999, 18(6): 1078-1084
[12]	Ge H, Jensen P D, Batstone D J.Increased tempera-ture in the thermophilic stage in temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) improves degradability of waste activated sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2011, 187: 355-361
[13]	Clark B, Boopathy R.Evaluation of bioremediation methods for the treatment of soil contaminated with explosives in Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Minden, Louisiana. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2007, 143(3): 643-648
[14]	Anasonye F, Winquist E, Räsänen M, et al.Bioreme-diation of TNT contaminated soil with fungi under laboratory and pilot scale conditions. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 2015, 105: 7-12
[15]	Khan M I, Yang J, Yoo B, et al.Improved RDX detoxification with starch addition using a novel nitrogen-fixing aerobic microbial consortium from soil contaminated with explosives. Journal of Hazar-dous Materials, 2015, 287(6): 243-251
[16]	Preiss A, Bauer A, Berstermann H M, et al.Advanced high-performance liquid chromatography method for highly polar nitroaromatic compounds in ground water samples from ammunition waste sites. Journal of Chromatography, 2009, 1216(25): 4968-4975
[17]	辛宝平, 卢佳新, 李是坤, 等. 泥浆体系中的 TNT生物降解研究. 北京理工大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 28(7): 638-642
[18]	Boopathy R, Manning J, Kulpa C F.Biotransforma-tion of explosives by anaerobic consortia in liquid culture and in soil slurry. International Biodeteriora-tion & Biodegradation, 1998, 41(1): 67-74
[19]	谯华, 沈东升, 王何灵, 等. 生物泥浆反应器修复炸药污染土壤的影响因素. 科技通报, 2009, 25(2): 238-242
[20]	Singh S.Sensors — an effective approach for the detection of explosives. Journal of Hazardous Mater-ials, 2007, 144(s1/s2): 15-28
[21]	Okuda T, Alcántara-Garduño E, Suzuk M, et al.Enhancement of biodegradation of oil adsorbed on fine soils in a bioslurry reactor. Chemosphere, 2007, 68(2): 281-286
[22]	Muyzer G, Wall E C, Uitterlinden A G.Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1993, 59: 695-700
[23]	肖勇, 杨朝晖, 曾光明, 等. DEEG 研究出来垃圾渗滤液序批式生物膜反应器(SBBR)中的细菌多样性. 环境科学, 2007, 28(5): 1095-1101
[24]	王洁. 高通量测序等分子生物学技术研究研究填埋场生物反应器脱氮微生物群落变化[D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2014
[25]	Whittaker R H.Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon, 1972, 21(2/3): 213-251
[26]	Bitetti M S D. The distribution of grooming among female primates: testing hypotheses with the Shannon-Wiener diversity index. Behaviour, 2000, 137(11): 1517-1540
[27]	杨萌青, 李立明, 李川, 等. 石油污染土壤微生物群落结构与分布特性研究. 环境科学, 2013, 34(2): 789-794

门	相对丰度/%
门	A1	A2	A3	A4	B1	B2	B3	B4
Proteobacteria	60.64	78.03	34.95	40.39	56.64	38.64	87.65	27.86
Firmicutes	26.83	15.50	28.09	46.81	35.74	36.93	5.81	59.32
Actinobacteria	8.68	3.11	29.87	9.14	4.77	18.98	5.24	9.86
Bacteroidetes	3.10	2.04	0.78	1.82	1.70	4.21	0.27	1.95
Chloroflexi	0.11	0.22	4.29	0.67	0.46	0.56	0.25	0.44
Gemmatimonadetes	0.02	0.09	0.61	0.27	0.06	0.09	0.13	0.07
Verrucomicrobia	0.01	0.41	0	0.09	0	0	0.39	0.01
Cyanobacteria	0.02	0	0	0.24	0.06	0.08	0.01	0
Thermotogae	0	0	0.22	0	0.03	0	0	0.12
Crenarchaeota	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.07	0

门	相对丰度/%
门	A1	A2	A3	A4	B1	B2	B3	B4
Proteobacteria	60.64	78.03	34.95	40.39	56.64	38.64	87.65	27.86
Firmicutes	26.83	15.50	28.09	46.81	35.74	36.93	5.81	59.32
Actinobacteria	8.68	3.11	29.87	9.14	4.77	18.98	5.24	9.86
Bacteroidetes	3.10	2.04	0.78	1.82	1.70	4.21	0.27	1.95
Chloroflexi	0.11	0.22	4.29	0.67	0.46	0.56	0.25	0.44
Gemmatimonadetes	0.02	0.09	0.61	0.27	0.06	0.09	0.13	0.07
Verrucomicrobia	0.01	0.41	0	0.09	0	0	0.39	0.01
Cyanobacteria	0.02	0	0	0.24	0.06	0.08	0.01	0
Thermotogae	0	0	0.22	0	0.03	0	0	0.12
Crenarchaeota	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.07	0

属	相对丰度/%
属	A1	A2	A3	A4	B1	B2	B3	B4
Sporolactobacillus	1.88	8.96	8.45	9.67	1.51	3.71	3.80	16.1
Sphingobium	4.00	4.88	4.76	11.08	24.87	16.87	16.69	15.15
Pseudomonas	20.51	16.68	26.59	26.31	9.49	10.09	12.22	7.63
Lactococcus	7.89	5.78	2.29	0.08	4.05	4.24	5.72	0.90
Clostridium	1.82	4.15	6.15	0.27	2.16	4.00	3.02	7.29
Halomonas	0.13	0.35	0.49	0	0.09	0.85	0.60	0.49
Staphylococcus	0	0.09	0	2.62	0	0.50	0.08	3.33
Citrobacter	2.3	1.64	10.64	3.73	1.95	3.58	4.43	5.39
Cellulomonas	4.38	0.69	0.50	0.20	0.28	0.46	1.48	4.13
Azospirillum	0.46	0.39	0.23	0.76	0.70	0.88	0.34	3.12

属	相对丰度/%
属	A1	A2	A3	A4	B1	B2	B3	B4
Sporolactobacillus	1.88	8.96	8.45	9.67	1.51	3.71	3.80	16.1
Sphingobium	4.00	4.88	4.76	11.08	24.87	16.87	16.69	15.15
Pseudomonas	20.51	16.68	26.59	26.31	9.49	10.09	12.22	7.63
Lactococcus	7.89	5.78	2.29	0.08	4.05	4.24	5.72	0.90
Clostridium	1.82	4.15	6.15	0.27	2.16	4.00	3.02	7.29
Halomonas	0.13	0.35	0.49	0	0.09	0.85	0.60	0.49
Staphylococcus	0	0.09	0	2.62	0	0.50	0.08	3.33
Citrobacter	2.3	1.64	10.64	3.73	1.95	3.58	4.43	5.39
Cellulomonas	4.38	0.69	0.50	0.20	0.28	0.46	1.48	4.13
Azospirillum	0.46	0.39	0.23	0.76	0.70	0.88	0.34	3.12