All Issue

2022 Vol.55, Issue 1 Preview Page

Original research article

Assessment of Soil Enzyme Activities in TPH-Contaminated Soil after Soil Washing and Landfarming Application
Jin Wook Kim1
,
Young Kyu Hong1
,
Hyuck Soo Kim2
,
Eun Jee Oh3
,
Yong-Ha Park4*
,
Sung Chul Kim5*
1Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Bio-Environmental Chemistry, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
2Professor, Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea
3Researcher, Korea Environment Institute, Sejong 30147, Korea
4Research Fellow, Korea Environment Institute, Sejong 30147, Korea
5Professor, Department of Bio-Environmental Chemistry, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
*Corresponding Author
28 February 2022. pp. 13-19
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Soil washing and landfarming processes are mainly used to remediate total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contaminated soil, but the effect of these remediation processes on soil enzyme activity is not well known. Soil enzymes catalyze biochemical reactions in the soil and play a very important role in the circulation of nutrients. In addition, soil enzyme activity is widely used as a biological indicator of soil quality. Four groups (non-contaminated soil, TPH contaminated soil, after soil washing, and landfarming soil) were collected to assess chemical properties and soil enzyme activity. As a result, TPH decreased the arylsulfatase and urease activity, and the soil remediation process can recover soil enzyme activities. Arylsulfatase activity slightly increased after the soil washing and landfarming process. However, urease activity increased significantly after landfarming. In contrast, beta-glucosidase activity did not change after the soil remediation processes. In conclusion, it suggests that the measurement of soil enzyme activity in TPH-contaminated and remediated soils can enable a comprehensive evaluation of soil quality.

Arylsulfatase (A), beta-glucosidase (B), urease (C) activities in four soil groups collected in April and July 2021 (CS, TPH contaminated soil; SW, soil washing; LF, landfarming).
Keywords
Bioremediation
Chemical remediation
Soil enzyme activity
Soil quality
TPH
References
1
Alkorta, I., A. Aizpurua, P. Riga, I. Albizu, I. Amézaga, and C. Garbisu. 2003. Soil enzyme activities as biological indicators of soil health. Rev. Environ. Health 18(1):65-73. 10.1515/REVEH.2003.18.1.65
2
An, K.-H., S. Kim, and S.-W. Jeong. 2020. Changes in soil properties after soil washing of metal-contaminated soil near the former Janghang smelter. J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng. 42(10):482-492. 10.4491/KSEE.2020.42.10.482
3
Bandick, A.K. and R.P. Dick. 1999. Field management effects on soil enzyme activities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 31(11):1471-1479. 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00051-6
4
Besalatpour, A., M. Hajabbasi, A. Khoshgoftarmanesh, and V. Dorostkar. 2011. Landfarming process effects on biochemical properties of petroleum-contaminated soils. Soil Sediment Contam. 20(2):234-248. 10.1080/15320383.2011.546447
5
Dick, R.P. 1994. Soil enzyme activities as indicators of soil quality. p. 107-124. In J.W. Doran et al. (ed.) Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment, SSSA Special Publication, Vol. 35. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA. 10.2136/sssaspecpub35.c7
6
Dindar, E., F.O. Topaç Şağban, and H.S. Başkaya. 2015. Variations of soil enzyme activities in petroleum-hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 105:268-275. 10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.09.011
7
Eivazi, F. and M. Tabatabai. 1988. Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 20(5):601-606. 10.1016/0038-0717(88)90141-1
8
Feng, D., L. Lorenzen, C. Aldrich, and P. Mare. 2001. Ex situ diesel contaminated soil washing with mechanical methods. Miner. Eng. 14(9):1093-1100. 10.1016/S0892-6875(01)00114-5
9
Hui, L., Y. Zhang, I. Kravchenko, X. Hui, and C.-g. Zhang. 2007. Dynamic changes in microbial activity and community structure during biodegradation of petroleum compounds: A laboratory experiment. J. Environ. Sci. 19(8):1003-1013. 10.1016/S1001-0742(07)60163-6
10
Im, J., K. Yang, E.H. Jho, and K. Nam. 2015. Effect of different soil washing solutions on bioavailability of residual arsenic in soils and soil properties. Chemosphere 138:253-258. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.06.00426086811
11
Jung, S. 2003. Environmental impact assessment schemes considering fate and transport of soil contaminants. p. 8-28. Korea Environment Institute, Seoul, Korea.
12
Kandeler, E. and H. Gerber. 1988. Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colorimetric determination of ammonium. Biol. Fertil. Soils 6(1):68-72. 10.1007/BF00257924
13
Khan, F.I., T. Husain, and R. Hejazi. 2004. An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J. Environ. Manage. 71(2):95-122. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.02.00315135946
14
Kuhlman, M. and T. Greenfield. 1999. Simplified soil washing processes for a variety of soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 66(1-2):31-45. 10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00212-X
15
Mann, M.J. 1999. Full-scale and pilot-scale soil washing. J. Hazard. Mater. 66(1-2):119-136. 10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00207-6
16
Mao, X., R. Jiang, W. Xiao, and J. Yu. 2015. Use of surfactants for the remediation of contaminated soils: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 285:419-435. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.12.00925528485
17
Nadim, F., G.E. Hoag, S. Liu, R.J. Carley, and P. Zack. 2000. Detection and remediation of soil and aquifer systems contaminated with petroleum products: An overview. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 26(1-4):169-178. 10.1016/S0920-4105(00)00031-0
18
Nannipieri, P., E. Kandeler, and P. Ruggiero. 2002. Enzyme activity as monitors of soil microbial functional diversity. p. 234-251. In R.G. Burns et al. (ed.) Enzymes in the environment: Activity, ecology and applications. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA.
19
Nwankwegu, A.S. and C.O. Onwosi. 2017. Bioremediation of gasoline contaminated agricultural soil by bioaugmentation. Environ. Technol. Innovation 7:1-11. 10.1016/j.eti.2016.11.003
20
O’Brien, P.L., T.M. DeSutter, F.X. Casey, A.F. Wick, and E. Khan. 2017. Evaluation of soil function following remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons-a review of current remediation techniques. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 3(3):192-205. 10.1007/s40726-017-0063-7
21
Skujiņš, J. and R. Burns. 1976. Extracellular enzymes in soil. CRC Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 4(4):383-421. 10.3109/10408417609102304780056
22
Tabatabai, M. and J. Bremner. 1970. Arylsulfatase activity of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 34(2):225-229. 10.2136/sssaj1970.03615995003400020016x
23
Turner, B.L., D.W. Hopkins, P.M. Haygarth, and N. Ostle. 2002. β-Glucosidase activity in pasture soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 20(2):157-162. 10.1016/S0929-1393(02)00020-3
24
Walkley, A. and I.A. Black. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37(1):29-38. 10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
25
Yi, Y., G. Kim, and K. Sung. 2013. Effects of soil remediation methods on the biological properties of soils. J. Soil Groundwater Environ. 18(3):73-81. 10.7857/JSGE.2013.18.3.073
Information
  • Publisher :Korean Society of Soil Science and Fertilizer
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국토양비료학회
  • Journal Title :Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국토양비료학회 학회지
  • Volume : 55
  • No :1
  • Pages :13-19
  • Received Date : 2021-12-27
  • Revised Date : 2021-12-30
  • Accepted Date : 2021-12-31
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2022.55.1.013
Journal Informaiton Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
KJSSF Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close