However, with careful study and by concretely linking a degradative capacity with an enzyme and a group of bacteria, certain bioaugmentation inocula have been repeatedly shown effective at contaminated sites. Some inocula that were being touted as cure-alls did not have enough scientific research to support their claims. In scientific studies, these treatments often resulted in no improvement. Since these treatments were usually recommended by commercial enterprises, site evaluations and a negative, treatment-free control were rarely included. In the 1980s and 1990s, bioaugmentation originally had a mixed reputation due to the ill-advised application of bioaugmentation inocula. For example, bioaugmentation of a site contaminated with petroleum rarely results in faster degradation since MNA is often sufficient, as many bacteria are capable of degrading hydrocarbons. Sites polluted with recalcitrant compounds often respond better to bioaugmentation since the persistence of the chemical corresponds to the rarity of its degradation genes. The type of pollutant will also play a major role as to whether bioaugmentation is an appropriate strategy. However, it is worth the site operator’s time and money to consider MNA and biostimulation, as both treatments may be more cost-effective.
The commercialization of bioaugmentation inocula is a thriving business, and many site operators may be convinced that bioaugmentation should be the primary bioremediation strategy. The decision to bioaugment should be made after a thorough site evaluation and, if possible, microcosm studies to evaluate the feasibility of the treatment ( Figure 1).
0 kommentar(er)
