Loading…

Priming effects on PAH degradation and ecotoxicity during a phytoremediation experiment

An experiment was conducted to distinguish priming effects from the effects of phytoremediation of a creosote-polluted soil. The concentration of 13 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and their combined soil toxicity (using four bioassays), was determined on recently excavated, homogenized soi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental pollution (1987) 2004-01, Vol.128 (3), p.429-435
Main Authors: Joner, Erik J., Hirmann, Doris, Szolar, Oliver H.J., Todorovic, Dragana, Leyval, Corinne, Loibner, Andreas P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:An experiment was conducted to distinguish priming effects from the effects of phytoremediation of a creosote-polluted soil. The concentration of 13 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and their combined soil toxicity (using four bioassays), was determined on recently excavated, homogenized soil and on such soil subjected to a time-course phytoremediation experiment with lucerne. The results showed a high priming effect, with minor positive and synergistic effects of planting and fertilization on PAH degradation rates. At the end of the experiment, PAH degradation reached 86% of the initial 519 mg PAHs kg −1. Two of the four toxicity tests (bioluminescence inhibition and ostracod growth inhibition) corroborated the chemical data for residual PAHs, and indicated a significant reduction in soil toxicity. We conclude that priming effects can easily surpass treatment effects, and that an unintentional pre-incubation that ignores these effects can jeopardize the full quantitative assessment of in situ bioremediation of contaminated soil. Priming effects during set-up of bioremediation laboratory experiments may largely surpass treatment effects.
ISSN:0269-7491
1873-6424
DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.005