Christos Dimoulis Eveready BioremediationNegCD 4/13/2010 page 1 of 6

Bioremediation: Neg
1. OPENER: 1.1. It has benefits but....... 2. INHERENCY: 2.1. Bioremediation one of the fastest growing markets 3. SOLVENCY: 3.1. What works in lab might not work on sight 3.2. Lab Experiments may misrepresent success in the field 3.3 Difficult to predict success in real life 3.4. Many failures do to lack of understanding of requirements 3.5. Bioremediation involves many complex factors 3.6. Bioremediation is limited to certain compounds 3.7. Biological processes highly specific 3.8. More research is needed 3.9. Bioremediation takes a long time compared to other methods 3.10. Difficult to evaluate performance 3.11. EPA inhibits bio-clean-ups under the TSCA 4. DISADVANTAGE 1: ENVIRONMENT HURT 4.1. Concern that products of biodegradation toxic 4.2. Introduction of foreign microorganisms = hurt ecosystems 5. DISADVANTAGE 2: HUGE REGULATORY MESS 5.1. Huge Governmental regulatory roadblocks

1. OPENER: 1.1. (Opener) It has benefits but.........

Christos Dimoulis Eveready BioremediationNegCD 4/13/2010 page 2 of 6 M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf Bioremediation is an option that offers the possibility to destroy or render harmless various contaminants using natural biological activity. As such, it uses relatively low-cost, low-technology tech- niques, which generally have a high public acceptance and can often be carried out on site. It will not always be suitable, however, as the range of contaminants on which it is effective is limited, the time scales involved are relatively long, and the residual contaminant levels achievable may not always be appropriate. Although the methodologies employed are not technically complex, considerable experience and expertise may be required to design and implement a successful bioremediation program, due to the need to thoroughly assess a site for suitability and to optimize conditions to achieve a satisfactory result. 2. INHERENCY: 2.1. Bioremediation one of the fastest growing markets Molecular plant biotechnology, (Molecular-Plant-Biotechnology.info is an web site designed to provide useful and interesting Biotechnology informational resources to you. Our vision was to create a site with an international reach that was free, informative and a place where people could easily find Biotechnology related reference resource) “Bioremediation Market”, http://www.molecular-plant-biotechnology.info/biotechnologyenvironments/bioremediation-phytoremediation/bioremediation-market.html Bioremediation currently comprises only a small fraction of the very large hazardous-waste treatment market. However, it is one of the fastest growing sectors in the environment management. The commercialization of bioremediation industry in USA far exceeds that in other countries. US bioremediation market was about US $ 60 million in 1990, and was US $ 100 million in 1993, which reached US $ 175 to $300 million by 1995.

3. SOLVENCY: 3.1. What works in lab might not work on sight Princeton.edu, “Bioremediation Conclusion”, http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Bioremediation/Conclusion.htm Each new site represents a different set of conditions, and what works in the lab may not translate to the field.

3.2. Lab Experiments may misrepresent success in the field

Christos Dimoulis Eveready BioremediationNegCD 4/13/2010 page 3 of 6 Princeton.edu, “Bioremediation Conclusion”, http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Bioremediation/Conclusion.htm Laboratory experiments can be carefully controlled, but these optimal conditions may not be possible at the site and may misrepresent possibility for success in the field. 3.3. Difficult to predict success in real life M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf It is difficult to extrapolate from bench and pilot-scale studies to full-scale field operations. 3.4. Many failures do to lack of understanding of requirements T. C. Hazen, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA, “In Situ: Groundwater Bioremediation”, 2010, http://www.google.com/search? hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs=EAB&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US %3Aofficial&q=Bioremediation+failures&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= (this is the google address, since the article had no URL) A patent for in situ bioremediation of groundwater contaminated with gasoline by stimulating indigenous bacteria via nutrient injection into the terrestrial subsurface was issued to Dick Raymond in 1974 (US Patent 3,846,290). He successfully demonstrated this technology and began commercial applications in 1972 (Raymond et al., 1977). Clearly in situ groundwater bioremediation has been used successfully for more than 50 years and much is understood about where it is applicable, especially for petroleum contaminants. The really new bioremediation applications that have been done in the last 20 years are in the area of solvent, PAH, PCB, dioxin, MTBE, and metals. Bioremediation has been around for a long time, only its application breadth in terms of types of contaminants and environments has increased in the last 20 years. This explosive proliferation of new applications and environments in the last 20 years, especially by companies trying to establish themselves with a proprietary edge, has lead to a large number of terms, many of which are highly redundant, in what they try to uniquely describe. Also, the bioremediation field applications that have been reported, frequently lack comprehensive field data, especially in the terrestrial subsurface. Though bioremediation has been used at a large number of sites these applications were nearly all done by companies trying to do the study for (1) clients, who usually wanted to remain confidential, (2) the least possible cost to the client and the vendor, and (3) protecting the vendors proprietary edge for their product. This has lead to a paucity of peer-reviewed data, miss application of terminology, and confusion as to what some terms mean. More importantly it has also lead to many ‘‘failures’’ of in situ groundwater bioremediation due to a lack of fundamental understanding of requirements, and limitations, in terms of hydrology, geology, and biogeochemistry at various scales.

Christos Dimoulis Eveready BioremediationNegCD 4/13/2010 page 4 of 6 3.5. Bioremediation involves many complex factors M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf The control and optimization of bioremediation processes is a complex system of many factors. These factors include: the existence of a microbial population capable of degrading the pollutants; the avail- ability of contaminants to the microbial population; the environment factors (type of soil, temperature, pH, the presence of oxygen or other electron acceptors, and nutrients). 3.6. Bioremediation is limited to certain compounds M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf Bioremediation is limited to those compounds that are biodegradable. Not all compounds are susceptible to rapid and complete degradation. 3.7. Biological processes highly specific M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf Biological processes are often highly specific. Important site factors required for success include the presence of metabolically capable microbial populations, suitable environmental growth conditions, and appropriate levels of nutrients and contaminants. 3.8. More research is needed M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf Research is needed to develop and engineer bioremediation technologies that are appropriate for sites with complex mixtures of contaminants that are not evenly dispersed in the environment. Contaminants may be present as solids, liquids, and gases. 3.9. Bioremediation takes a long time compared to other methods M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf

Christos Dimoulis Eveready BioremediationNegCD 4/13/2010 page 5 of 6 Bioremediation often takes longer than other treatment options, such as excavation and removal of soil or incineration. 3.10. Difficult to evaluate performance M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf There is no accepted definition of “clean”, evaluating performance of bioremediation is difficult, and there are no acceptable endpoints for bioremediation treatments. 3.11. EPA inhibits bio-clean-ups under the TSCA Henry I. Miller, The Heartland Institute, “EPA Regulation Impedes Oil-spill Cleanups”, 05/01/2003, http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment %20climate/article/12092/EPA_Regulation_Impedes_Oilspill_Cleanups.html The answer was simple, and in Reilly’s own backyard: Biotechnology research and development were discouraged by a decade-old preliminary regulation from EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act. That policy has proved a potent disincentive to the testing and use of the most sophisticated new genetic engineering techniques. In April 1997, EPA issued the regulation in final form, ensuring that for the foreseeable future biotech researchers in several industrial sectors, including bio-cleanup, would be intimidated and inhibited by regulatory barriers. 4. DISADVANTAGE 1: ENVIRONMENTAL HURT 4.1. Concern that products of biodegradation toxic M. Vidali (Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Padova Via Loredan in Padova, Italy), “Bioremediation. An overview”, 2001, www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7307x1163.pdf There are some concerns that the products of biodegradation may be more persistent or toxic than the parent compound.

4.2. Introduction of foreign microorganisms = hurt ecosystems Princeton.edu, “Bioremediation Conclusion”, http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Bioremediation/Conclusion.htm Introducing “foreign” microorganisms to field sites could have unforeseen consequences on the ecosystem. Concerns about genetically modified organisms used for bioremediation are basically the same as concerns about using GMO’s in general. There is worry about Horizontal gene

Christos Dimoulis Eveready BioremediationNegCD 4/13/2010 page 6 of 6 transfer, Creation of new pathogens, Possibility of mutations that allow the organism to become invasive. 5. DISADVANTAGE 2: HUGE REGULATORY MESS 5.1. Huge Governmental regulatory roadblocks Henry I. Miller, The Heartland Institute, “EPA Regulation Impedes Oil-spill Cleanups”, 05/01/2003, http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment %20climate/article/12092/EPA_Regulation_Impedes_Oilspill_Cleanups.html Government policymakers seem oblivious to the power of regulatory roadblocks. The expense and uncertainty of R&D with gene-spliced organisms have virtually eliminated the new biotechnology from application to bioremediation. Companies know that experiments using the new biotechnology will meet a wall of red tape, politics, and vast expense. Unscientific and regressive regulatory policies have already left a legacy of environmental damage and reliance on inferior methods for the cleanup of wastes. Too bad for the Spanish fishing industry ... and for the victims of future spills.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful