an assessment of the current status of bioremediation

7/30/2019 An Assessment of the Current Status of Bioremediation

1/46

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF

BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES

FADRI, JESSAMAE L.BAYONA, Howell Henrian G.ESPINOSA, Kariza Monique

HEMEDES, Ma. ClarisseMENESES, Jamie Therese

NEBRIJA, Abegail Francis JoySAGAD, Monica Shiena E.


2/46

Subject: Natural Science 4Section: TFCGroup Name: CMON Group

Howell Henrian G. Bayona11 Jordan St., Jordan Heights Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City09276275988/ [email protected]

Kariza Monique Espinosa32 Blumentritt St. Iloilo City, [email protected]

Jessamae L. Fadri

19-B Almon St. Project 3, Quezon City09179247259/ [email protected]

Ma. Clarisse Hemedes076 Bigaa, Cabuyao, [email protected]

Jamie Therese MenesesLot 4 Narra St., Villa Isabel Phase V, Calulut, City of San Fernando, [email protected]

Abegail Francis Joy Nebrija92-J J.Basa St. San Juan [email protected]

Monica Shiena E. Sagad4421 Montojo St., Makati City09154955638/ [email protected]

Keywords:bioremediation, hazardous waste management


3/46

ABSTRACT

This study entitled An Assessment of the Current Status of BioremediationTechnology in the Philippines aims to (a) provide a qualitative evaluation of the statusof bioremediation, (b) explain the fundamental processes involved in bioremediation and

its advantages over other methods, and (c) describe the challenges faced bybioremediation in the hopes that it would stimulate awareness, development and eventualapplication of bioremediation in our country.

Experts on bioremediation were interviewed. The data gathered from theinterviews were analyzed qualitatively using coding of qualitative material so as toprovide a better evaluation of the respondents opinions about the subject. The interviewswere transcribed and data were sorted according to the category schemes that weredeveloped before and during data analysis.

Bioremediation currently has a long way to go, but it is undoubtedly developing.The scientists all agreed that bioremediation offers a lot of advantages over chemicalremediation and other methods. However, there are limitations and challenges that hinder

of this technology as well as from fulfilling its full capacity. The study found out that (i)bioremediation lacks the support from the government, (ii) scientists are willing todevelop this technology but as of now, there is a deficit of knowledge on this technology,(iii) bioremediation is currently applied, but only in laboratory, small-scale operations,and side studies, and (iv) industries and the local government are completely aware of thepossibility of bioremediation as an alternative to current chemical remediation methods.


4/46

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Life on earth is inseparably linked to the overall condition of the environment

(USA EPA,nd; Vidali, 2001). In the Philippines alone, tons of toxic and hazardous wastes

are produced from the industries, dumpsites and abandoned mines which is a great threat

to local flora and fauna. Moreover, human health is also at risk. Even if some of the

industries claim that they properly manage their wastes, environmental and health issues

still persist (Raymundo, 2006). Knowledge of these existing issues for the past few years

has led to international efforts to remedy many of these contaminated sites, either as a

response to the risk of adverse health or environmental effects caused by contamination

or to enable the site to be redeveloped for use (Wickramanayake, 2009).

One possible solution is a growing technology called bioremediation.

Bioremediation can be loosely defined as any process that uses biological entities such as

microbes, fungi, or plants to return the environment altered by contaminants to its

original condition (Vidali, 2001; Martello 1991). It is aimed at restoring a contaminated

environment into its normal and habitable condition, and also promotes vegetation to the

affected area by reducing contaminant levels and facilitating plant growth. In this role,

compost provides soil conditioning and also provides nutrients to a wide variety of

vegetation. Surprisingly, this method was already used instinctively by the Romans in

treating their wastes, but it today it has evolved to its own branch of science. At present, a

more sophisticated and complex type of bioremediation, is routinely applied to

contaminated sites in countries like Australia and United States of America and it is also

fully utilized in Japan.


5/46

In the Philippines, bioremediation is almost unheard of and only a few studies are

conducted about it. However, with the formation of the Bioremediation Research Team

(BRT) under the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and the

implementation of Executive Order No. 270 or the National Policy Agenda on

Revitalizing Mining in the Philippines last January 16, 2004, as well as the favorable

Supreme Court decision on the Philippine Mining Act 7942 of 1995, we are witnessing

the revitalization of the local minerals industry and the promising development of

bioremediation technology. Moreover, the placement of the Philippines among the ten

most polluted waters and the Dirty Thirty rivers has caused the authorities as well as

the scientific community to respond.

Significance of the Study

The researchers chose to pursue this study to provide further information to

people and to educate them concerning the new technology of treating our environment,

especially soil and water contaminations. Since bioremediation is the latest

bioengineering technology that is seen as a cost-effective solution to the current

environmental problems, the researchers believe that this paper would aid the people

belonging both in the academe and those who are not, to easily understand what

bioremediation is and how it works. Furthermore, this paper is beneficial to the scientific

community since it provides Filipino-made researches that are related to the topic and up-

to-date information on the over-all status of bioremediation in the Philippines. Also,

through the problems faced by the scientists working in bioremediation, this paper would

also help in the further research and development of this technology in our country.


6/46

Objectives

This research paper generally aims to provide a qualitative evaluation of the status

of bioremediation. It also aims to explain the fundamental processes involved in

bioremediation and its advantages over other methods. This report describes the

challenges faced by bioremediation and its future, in the hopes that it would stimulate

awareness, development and eventual application of bioremediation in our country.

Scope and Limitation

This study is solely based on the interviews done by the researchers and the

literature. The researchers interviewed scientists who have had studies and experiences

on bioremediation both in laboratory and field that would help evaluate the status of

technology. Since the study is only made from the viewpoint of scientists, it does not

include the status of bioremediation told from the perspective of the government and the

public.


7/46

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Chemical Remediation

Chemical remediation is a process in which treatment technologies depend on

series of chemical reactions to eliminate, transform or immobilize soil contaminants

(Shuman et.al, nd; Chen et.al, 2000; Schefter, 2005). The recommended surface chemical

treatments include solutions, gels, and foams of oxidizing agents such as peroxides or

chlorine bleaching agents. Such oxidizing agents are effective against a wide range of

hazardous chemical and biological agents (Springer, 1995). These can reduce the

concentration of heavy metals by precipitation, adsorption, or complexation (Impens et

al. 1991; Mench et al. 1994; Chen and Lee, 1997). The application of calcium carbonate

(e.g. limestone) materials significantly reduces the solubility of heavy metals in

contaminated soils (Kuo et al. 1984; Chen et al. 1997; Liu et al. 1998). Many reports also

indicate that the application of iron hydroxides or manganese oxides significantly reduces

the concentration of soluble cadmium or lead in contaminated soil (McKenzie 1980;

Tiller et al.1984; Mench et al. 1994; Chen et al. 1997).

These treatments are considered to be effective, but potentially damaging when

exposed to objects and materials. Conventional strategies using chemicals have failed on

several fronts: these possess high cost, they may be inefficient in many cases and the

clean up using the given process may not be technically feasible.(Davani, 2004; Arnro,

2004)

As presented by Abou Seeda, heavy metal migration is another way to

contaminate ground water especially after sludge application where soluble metals are

easy to leach down. Zaghloul and Abou Seedas (2003) research lead to the discovery of


8/46

chemical remediations properties and compatibility to soil. Their investigation created a

conclusion that process of adding metals as salts is controversial because of its toxicity

effects.

Due to the detrimental effects of chemical remediation, scientists make use of

another degradation process known as bioremediation. This procedure brings precise and

beneficial results in the degradation of wastes compared to the kind of remediation

presented by chemical radiation.

Bioremediation

Bioremediation is the use of biological entities especially plants, fungi, or

microbes which are capable of degrading, detoxifying, immobilizing or transforming

pollutants into less hazardous forms (Raymundo, 2006; Eweis et al., 1998). From the

Latin word remediare, to heal, bioremediation is a method that can rehabilitate and

restore the contaminated environment. The basis for bioremediation is the enormous

natural metabolic capabilities of biological entities to degrade or transform hazardous

compounds into simpler non-harmful forms (Markandey and Rajvaidya, 2004).

Bioremediation ultimately depends on the activities of the microorganisms (fungi and

bacteria) or in the case of phytoremediation, plants (Baker and Herson, 1994).

Although bioremediation is viewed as a new technology, microorganisms have

been used routinely for the treatment and transformation of waste products for at least

100 years. One example is the municipal wastewater treatment industry which is based on

the exploitation of microorganisms in controlled and engineered systems. What is new is

the application of microbiological processes to the remediation of soils, groundwater, and

similar environmental media (Baker and Herson, 1994). These systems only differ to


9/46

those of wastewater treatment systems in terms of the types of chemicals which are being

degraded. Moreover, even if bioremediation is a relatively young technology, it is

becoming a rapidly growing trend in environmental management (Cookson, 1995). A

significant factor in the development of bioremediation has been the enactment of

environmental laws and regulations that favor waste treatment rather than waste disposal

(Eweis et al., 1998).

Bioremediation, together with all forms of remediation, can be classified into two

main types: ex situ (off site) bioremediation and in situ (in site) bioremediation. These

classifications are generally made on the basis of no more than where the treatment takes

place (Evans and Furlong, 2003; Markandey and Rajvaidya, 2004). Figure 1.0 illustrates

the classification of bioremediation and some examples for each (MABIC, 2005).

Figure 1.0. Types of bioremediation for soil and groundwater remediation.

In situ bioremediation is the approach that involves the remediation of

contaminated material within the confines of the area in which it was

originally contaminated. In this technology oxygen and occasionally nutrients are


10/46

pumped under pressure into the soil through wells orBioventing. The nutrients are

spread on the surface to infiltrate into the contaminated area of material or the saturated

zone orPercolation.

In-situ techniques do not require excavation of the contaminated soils so may be

less expensive, create less dust, and cause less release of contaminants than ex-situ

techniques (MABIC, 2005). The major benefit of the in situ approach is the low site

disturbance that it produces, which enables existing buildings and features to remain

undisturbed, at least for many cases. But the disadvantages are (i) time consuming

method as compared to other remediation methods, (ii) seasonal variation of microbial

activity resulting from direct exposure to prevailing environmental factors, (iii)

problematic application of treatment additives (nutrients, surfactants, and oxygen), (iv)

may be slower than ex situ techniques, and (v) ineffective in impermeable soils like clay.

On the other hand, ex situ bioremediation involves treatment modalities which

involve the physical removal of the contaminated material to another area (possibly

within a site) for treatment. Examples of ex situ treatment include landfarming,

composting and bioreactors. Table 1.0 lists the common bioremediation treatment

technologies being practiced.

COMMON BIOREMEDIATION TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Bioaugmentation Addition of bacterial cultures to a contaminated medium; frequentlyused in bioreactors and ex situ system

Biofilters Use of microbial stripping columns to treat air emissions

BiostimulationStimulation of indigenous microbial populations in soils and/orgroundwater; may be ex situ or in situ

BioreactorsBiodegradation in a container or reactor; may be used to treat liquidsor slurries

BioventingMethod of treating contaminated soils by drawing oxygen through thesoil to stimulate microbial growth and activity

CompostingAerobic, thermophilic treatment process in which contaminatedmaterial is mixed with a bulking agent; can be done using static piles,aerated piles, or continuously fed reactors


11/46

LandfarmingSolid-phase treatment system for contaminated soils; may be done insitu or in a constructed soil treatment cell

Table 1.0. Common bioremediation treatment technologies.

To be able to implement bioremediation, one should first have an understanding

of the interrelationships between biological functions to their environment and the

requirements needed before it could be done. The bacteria involved in the process of

bioremediation are simply gluttonous microbes. These naturally occurring microbes are

placed within the contaminated site in which they immediately begin to start breaking

down the organic contaminant through oxidation-reduction reactions. This "breaking

down" process consists of these microbes breaking the carbon chains of which make up

all organic molecules. The microbes thus work on breaking down the carbon chains until

the contaminant is eliminated and no longer an environmental threat. As a result of this

process, carbon dioxide and water are left behind as by-products with trace elements of

fatty acids. (Bioremediation, n.d.).

The requirements for bioremediation (microbial bioremediation) are presented in

Figure 2.0 in descending order of importance. Of prime importance are microorganisms

capable of producing enzymes that will degrade the hazardous chemical (target

compound). Another important requirement is the identification of an energy source and

electron acceptor, since microorganisms gain their energy through oxidation-reduction

(redox) reactions. Also important are optimum environmental conditions such as

adequate moisture, pH, temperature, and sufficient nutrients for cellular growth

(Cookson, 1995).


12/46

For successful implementation of bioremediation in a contaminated site, the

engineer or scientist should set up the limiting environmental conditions and then

manipulate these conditions depending on the need. One must first know the basic

chemical reactions (biochemistry) and then include the interrelationships between the

microbes, their energy and environmental needs, and process control. Successful process

control requires scientific intensive understanding of mass transfer, hydrogeology, and

materials handling (Cookson, 1995).

Figure 2.0. Requirements for bioremediation.

Applications of Bioremediation

Recently, bioremediation has become increasingly important in the field of

hazardous-waste management. Bioremediation has remediated a number of chemical

contaminants and wastes listed in Table 2.0, including some of the chemicals that were

once thought to recalcitrant (resistant to biodegradation), including chlorinated species

such as trichloroethylene and certain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), BTEX (benzene,

toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitro- and

chlorophenols, and pesticides (Eweis et al., 1998). The US EPA maintains that

bioremediation activities by chemical category are 33 percent petroleum, 28 percent


13/46

creosote, 22 percent solvents, 9 percent pesticides, and 8 percent other (Fig 3.0). The

other waste group includes industrial facilities with mixed chemical contributions

(Cookson, 1995).

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND WASTES THAT HAVE BEENBIOREMEDIATED

AcetoneAcrylonitrileAnimal fats andgreaseAnthraceneBenzeneBenzopyrenet-ButanolButylcellosolveChrysene

Coal tarCrude oil2, 4 D1, 2-DichloroethaneDiesel fuelDodecane

EthylacrylateEthylbenzeneEthylene glycolFatty aminesFluorantheneGasolineHexadecaneHexaneIndustrial wastesIsopropyl acetate

MethanolMethylene chlorideMethylethyl ketoneMethylmethacrylate2-Methylnaphthalene

MonochlorobenzeneNaphthalenePentadecanePetroleum hydrocarbons(miscellaneous)PhenanthrenePhenolsPolynuclear aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs)Pyrenes

Stoddard solventStyrene

TetrahydrofuranTolueneTrichloroethylene (TCE)1-TrideceneXylene

Table 2.0. Chemical compounds and wastes that have been bioremediated.

Figure 3.0. Major waste types remediated by bioremediation. (U.S. EPA)

Other applications of bioremediation include that of industrial wastes such as dyes

and heavy metals, xenobiotics, high explosive TNT wastes, dyestuff wastes, and oil-spills

from oil tankers (Markandey and Rajvaidya, 2004)


14/46

Advantages and Disadvantages of Bioremediation

Bioremediation offers several advantages over the physical and chemical

treatment processes used to treat contaminated water and soil. Often, bioremediation can

be done on site, thereby eliminating transportation costs and liabilities. Site disruption

and volatile compound emission can also be minimized since bioremediation can be

applied in situ (Baker & Herson, 1994). Cleanup costs using bioremediation are typically

$100 (around 5,000 pesos) to $250 (12,500 pesos) per cubic meter while more

conventional technologies such as incineration or secure landfilling may cost in the range

of $250 to $1,000 (around 50,000 pesos) per cubic meter (Gabriel, 1992, in Eweis, et al.,

1998). Another advantage achieved by bioremediation is that it is aimed at biodegrading

and detoxifying hazardous contaminants, whereas other technologies such as venting,

activated carbon adsorption, stabilization, soil washing, and disposal into landfills simply

transfer contaminants to a different location or medium. (Eweis et al., 1998).

One important reason why bioremediation is favored over other methods is its

cost-effectiveness. Cleanup of hazardous waste sites are similar to wastewater treatment

to some extent. However, the dependency on biological processes in wastewater

treatment was replaced with physical-chemical processes since it has been said that

biological processes are unreliable and unpredictable. The construction and operation of

plants using non-biological processes were very costly and generated a large volume of

sludge which had significant disposal costs. On the other hand, the use of biological

entities to convert organic compounds into carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen, methane,

and water is more economical (Cookson, 1995)). It is now clear that restricting cleanup to


15/46

these processes is too costly compared to bioremediation. Table 3.0 summarizes the

advantages of bioremediation over other methods.

ADVANTAGES OF BIOREMEDIATION

Can be done on site

Keeps site disruption and emission of VOCs to a minimum

Eliminates transportation costs and liabilities

Terminal waste elimination

Eliminates long-term liabilities

Cheaper than other methodsm

Cost effective method

Simpler than other remediation technologies

Biological systems work continuously and naturally

Table 3.0. Advantages of bioremediation.

Bioremediation also has a number disadvantages associated with its application

(summarized in Table 4.0). Some contaminants are non-biodegradable because of the

levels of contaminant (MABIC, 2005; Eweis et al., 1998). The extent of remediation is

highly dependent on the toxicity and the initial levels of contaminants, their ability to be

biodegraded and the properties of the soil in which the contaminants lie. Sites that are

unable to be cleaned with microbes include those with high metal concentrations (i.e.

mercury), highly chlorinated organics (compounds with many chlorine elements

attached), and inorganic salts. These types of compounds are toxic to the microbes

(MABIC, 2005). Remediating organisms are sensitive to changes in temperature, pH,

contaminant toxicity, moisture content, contaminant concentration, nutrient supply, and a

change in these environmental conditions will decrease activity and later on extend the

duration of the treatment (Eweis et al., 1998). Diminishing levels of contaminants may

cause the microorganisms to switch to different energy sources and stop growing, adding

a need for a different remediation technology other than biological ones.


16/46

A significant concern of some engineer, scientists, and regulators is the perception

that bioremediation is still unproved based on lack of extensive field experience

(Cookson, 1995). Bioremediation is such a site-specific and complex method and it

requires great scientific understanding of its principles and concepts (MABIC, 2005;

Cookson, 1995; Baker and Herson, 1994).

DISADVANTAGES OF BIOREMEDIATION

Some chemicals cannot be bioremediated

Extensive monitoring needs

Site-specific requirements

Toxicity of contaminants

Time-consuming

Scientific intensive Potential production of unknown by-products

Perception of unproved technology

Figure 4.0. Disadvantages of bioremediation.

Current Practice of Bioremediation

While bioremediation is still in its developmental stage in the country, Australia

has been employing bioremediation to help clean up some of its 60,000 sites that have

been contaminated by heavy metals, acids, petroleum derivatives, chlorinated solvents

and explosives. It is also good to take note that out of the 370 Biotechnology companies

in Australia, 33 of them have already been operating in the environmental remediation

field (Ball, n.d.).

In Germany, more companies are involved in bioremediation. A number of these

companies conduct polyaromatic hydrocarbon decontamination with the use of microbes.

According to the Federal Ministry of Institute and Technology (BMFT) in Germany,

there are 28 bioremediation techniques being developed. The German Research

Association has also conducted projects in enzymatic dehalogenation of contaminants


17/46

using Pseudomonas Streptomyces and thermophilic microorganisms, and in the

biodegradation for "dioxin-like" substances. Germany is also on its way to developing the

method of introducing nutrients into the soil with the used of explosive cartridges.

(Godhantaraman,2008)

The Netherland and Denmark are also leading in the establishment of programs

for the decontamination of thousands of sites through the processes of bioremediation. A

number of companies have been well established in the Netherlands and a significant

number of sites have been cleaned up since 1982. They employ In-situ bioreclamation in

treating oily wastes. Another method that they have been employing is the use of

controlled biological oxidation in sulfide reactors whereon sulfide is oxidized to the

elemental sulfur with the use of aerobic sulfide-oxidizing bacteria, and the sulfur is then

separated from the water(Godhantaraman, 2008).

Also in Japan, bioremediation is already being fully utilized. Companies have

been offering bioremediation services on a commercial basis. These companies target

specific chemical substances such as trichloroethylene and organic chlorine chemical

compounds. Their methods include the application of bioremediation using micro-

organisms on sites where pollutants can not be removed through physical methods, the

use of bio-reactors and the use of activated anaerobic bacteria (Mitsumori, 2004).

Figure 4.0 shows the percentage of bioremediation use in UK during 1998.

Bioremediation accounts to 12% of the remediation technologies they employ in

contaminated areas. In the US meanwhile, bioremediation accounts to 9% of the


18/46


19/46

acacia and the Malatungaw or silver fern could be used in phytoremediation, however the

silver fern was the one considered as a true excluder of copper, cadmium, lead and zinc.

Aggangan, Pampolina, Cadiz and Raymundo (2006) had a study on mychorrizal

diversity in the abandoned sited in Toledo, Cebu wherein they planned to apply

bioremediation. In the survey conducted, out of the 50 plants, only five plants collected

from two sites showed colonization by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi,

with infection ranging from 10 - 100%, while ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi were found

in four different plants. The study showed that mycorrhizal fungi can aid in plant growth,

promote survival in infertile and acidic soils and the tolerance to heavy metals of the

plants.

Adiova, Pampolina and Aggangan tested the potential of Desmodium cinerium

(Kunth) D.C. and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in applying bioremediation in

copper-rich soils. The findings of their research showed that AMF D. cinerium in copper-

rich ecosystems could help in the rehabilitation and sustainable management of mine sites

in the Philippines.

A study conducted by Albano, Kasahara, Aggangan, et. al, focused on

bioremediation in marginal sites and mine soils using Jathropa curcas L., affected by

mycorrhizal inoculation. From their study, it was showed that mycorrhizal Jathropa

seedlings were more effective than those without mycorrhiza. They concluded that

mychorrizal inoculation plays a significant role in the usage of Jathropa in rehabilitating

marginal and mine sites in the Philippines.

In other countries, Pivetz (2001) made a study that used phytoremediation as a

means of treating the contaminated soil and ground water in waste sites. From the results


20/46

in the studies presented in the paper, the willow was able to remove Cadmium from a soil

at a rate of 216.7 g/ha per year. By the use of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea), there was

a reduction of Chromium (VI) to Chromium III. Also through the use ofB. juncea, lead

content in soil had a significant difference with 740 mg/L without the application of the

plant and a low concentration of 22 mg/L with the use of the plant. Enviromental

monitoring and bioassays are also options in improving this technology. As a conclusion

to this study, phytoremediation is currently being improved and investigated for its

different applications in removing heavy metals, cleaning of oil spills and other

environmental problems polluting our soils and groundwaters.

A full-scale phytoremediation project was performed in Palmerton Pennsylvania

to treat the Zinc-contaminated site caused by a Zinc smelting plant. Ten years after the

application of this project, it is found that 850 acres of the contaminated site have

maintained 70% of its vegetative cover.

A Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier was installed in East Helena,

Montana to remediate the arsenic contamination of groundwater. After the initial

implementation of the permeable reactive barrier, it has been found that the concentration

level of arsenic has been successfully reduced to 0.10 mg/L, and the whole project is

currently being studied to determine if they would be implementing a full scale

remediation in the said site. The results of the studies however, would undergo a two year

evaluation process.


21/46

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The study conducted is descriptive in nature because it tried to characterize the

technology of bioremediation and evaluate its current status based on non-experimental

work. One method was used to determine these elements. The student researchers

conducted interviews with the leading scientists in the Philippines who have dealt with

the subject matter. This method was enough to give a conclusive qualitative description

of the current state of bioremediation in the Philippines.

Variables and Measures/Concepts and Indicators

The status of bioremediation was assessed using the following criteria:

government recognition and support, public awareness, support from the scientific

community, level of development, and extent of application.

Respondents, Sampling/ Criteria for Selection, Units of Analysis

The experts on bioremediation personally interviewed were Dr. Marilyn B. Brown

and Dr. Lorele C. Trinidad. Both are working as researchers and scientists at the National

Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology in the University of The Philippines

Los Baos. Dr. Marilyn Brown was an affiliate graduate faculty member for Plant

Pathology and Mycology at the Department of Plant Pathology while Dr. Lorele C.


22/46

Trinidad is currently the head of the Electron Microscopy Service Laboratory and a

member of the Bioremediation Research Team (BRT). Dr. Trinidad is the current leader

of the BRT project about using indigenous microbes for the bioremediation of

contaminated wastes and effluents.

Also interviewed through e-mail was Dr. Maria Auxilia Siringan, a scientist at the

National Sciences Research Institute (NSRI) at the University of the Philippines Diliman.

Dr. Siringan is the current president of the Philippine Society for Microbiology, Inc.

(PSM) and has taken part in the study of bioremediation during the Guimaras oil spill

incident.

Research Instruments

Interview guides helped the student researchers conduct the focus interviews with

experts on bioremediation. The interviews with the scientists included the

abovementioned variables and the most important issues in bioremediation such as

frequency of practice, attitudes and opinions of the government and the public towards

the technology, and the current challenges faced by bioremediation.

Data Analysis

The data gathered from the interviews were analyzed qualitatively using coding of

qualitative material so as to provide a better evaluation of the respondents opinions

about the subject. The interviews were transcribed and data were sorted according to the

category schemes that were developed before and during data analysis. The data are


23/46

presented in paragraph form, following the themes in the interview guides and stressing

strong points of the respondents.


24/46

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The three scientists interviewed, namely Dr. Marilyn Brown, Dr. Lorele Trinidad,

and Dr. Ma. Auxilia Siringan, basically echoed the same thing when it comes to the idea

of the advantages of bioremediation; that this technology is more economical, easier to

apply in sites, avoids secondary waste generation, and is more effective in long-term

rehabilitation of the affected environment when compared to physical and chemical

remediation. Chemical remediation is the current preferred technology for treating

contaminated sites but these method generates sludge and thus even worsens the problem

not to mention its being expensive.

For bioremediation to occur, various environmental conditions must be optimized

such as the temperature, nutrient levels (particularly N and P), and the substrate where the

contamination occurred (soil, sea, freshwater, mangrove area). When you give them the

nutrients that have limiting levels in the site, their numbers increase as well as their

degradative capabilities (Siringan, 2009).

Bioremediation is a fairly new technology and holds the promise of becoming the

solution to our polluted environment. This new technology gives us alternative routes to

cleaning up contaminated sites was thought to be not possible previously. As of now,

bioremediation using plants and fungi the country is still in its experimental stage

wherein extensive researches are still being done to find the best strain and plant (Brown,

2009). Mycorrhiza (association of plant and fungi) is the most researched at present. This

process involves the association of the fungi with higher organisms which, in this case,

are plants. The fungi would help the plant extract more nutrients from the contaminated


25/46

soil, thereby decreasing the toxic matter from the soil. Trinidad meanwhile says that

scientists are coming up with a technology which makes use of local or indigenous

microorganisms because the Philippines cannot just import the technology from other

countries. In a way, bioremediation is improving (Trinidad, 2009). But it is important to

note that there is no guidance or framework in testing the remediating abilities of

bioremediation based on laboratory and fieldwork (Siringan, 2009).

For any technology to be successful, it must be recognized and supported by the

government and its implementing bodies. However, in the case of bioremediation

technology, Brown and Trinidad pointed that the government does not give the

researchers enough to finance all their needs for the rehabilitation of the hazardous sites

and for further studies. Brown points that though there are NGOs and LGUs who offer

help, the government does not have funds to support bioremediation/phytoremediation

projects, and that funds allotted by the government to rehabilitate affected areas are for

compensation to the people affected. Scientists working on phytoremediation get their

support indirectly from mainstream projects such as jatropha development (Brown,

2009). Funds are given usually to the local officials to put up rehabilitation facilities, but

supposedly there should be an allocated budget for these projects (Trinidad, 2009).

Currently, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) does not have

an action plan for bioremediation assessment and application (Siringan, 2009). The

development of bioremediation is being hindered by the insufficient funds allocated by

the government and the lack of chartered policies and guidance for the rehabilitation of

places with hazardous waste.


26/46

On another perspective, one possible reason why the government is not

supporting this kind of technology is their fear that it might become a health hazard in the

future. Scientists, however, point out that if one knows the system, one will be able to

control it, and thus bioremediation does not pose any risk..

As to the idea of public awareness, Trinidad and Brown have slightly different

views. Brown argues that people are not so much aware of this new technology. They are

more concerned on the projects wherein people would get much benefit, and it is more

like a political issue (Brown, 2009). Trinidad meanwhile argues that if the people are

really aware of this technology and knew the advantages it offers, they will be the ones

initiating the actions. However she states that the ones responsible for contamination (the

industries) are aware of the damage they are causing and that they are given options on

what technology to apply. Awareness is also due to the diseases the contaminated

environment caused to the people.

Awareness in the scientific community is high, since members of the academe are

the ones really looking deeper into the causes and effects of the contamination in a

particular environment. There are few scientists in UPLB and UPD who work on projects

about bioremediation, and they have been looking for the best solution they can offer.

Also, a Bioremediation Research Team (BRT) was formed under the auspices of the

Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and is currently led by UPLB College of

Arts and Sciences Dean Asuncion K. Raymundo. The BRT currently emphasizes on

recovering abandoned mines The BRT, composed of microbiologists, chemists, botanists,

foresters, and plant biologists, believes that bioremediation projects are worth pursuing

should funds become available. So we have scientists who can really oversee this.


27/46

With regards to the extent of its application, bioremediation in the Philippines

falls behind other countries like the United States, Australia and other countries (Brown,

2009). However, research on its possible applications is ongoing. For example, the BRT

is currently conducting which would tell whether or not bioremediation can be applied to

treat the Marilao-Meycauayan-Obando rivers, and is set to complete by the end of 2009.

Other sites being eyed Zambales, Parakales, and Marinduque because of its high level of

metal contamination (Trinidad, 2009). Some private companies use already use imported

microbial inocula for the bioremediation of oil sludge according to Dr. Siringan. There

were also attempts to have a study on bioremediation of oil-contaminated sites but this

was not pushed through. Initial studies focused on the potential of indigenous

microorganisms in Guimaras where the Solar oil spill took place. In wastewater

treatment, bioremediation is currently being considered. There are research studies in UP

Diliman College of Engineering, in the Chemical Engineering Department of the De la

Salle University (DLSU) and in a private university in Cebu (Siringan, 2009). Siringan

also suggests that the government, particularly DENR and DOST should prepare a

Bioremediation Oil Spill Response similar to that of EPAs Regional Response Teams

Oil Spill Response.

Bioremediation has a long way to go (Brown, Trinidad, 2009) but there is no

doubt that development of bioremediation in the Philippines would be successful. The

Philippines has the microorganisms, the plants, and the scientists. Its application would

be eventually a choice of the people concerned.


28/46

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It has been already established that bioremediation offers several advantages over

current remediation technologies most importantly its cost-effectivity. Bioremediation is

relatively a new technology and holds the promise of becoming the solution to our

polluted environment, that is, if its concepts are well-understood and if it is supported by

the government and the public. However, there are limitations and challenges that hinder

of this technology as well as from fulfilling its full capacity.

Bioremediation lacks the support from the government. For this technology to

be fully realized and developed by scientists, appropriate and sufficient funding from the

government must be provided for and policies or laws must be enacted to strengthen its

development. Currently, DENR does not have an action plan or a program for

bioremediation assessment and application. The government, particularly DENR and

DOST should prepare a Bioremediation Oil Spill Response similar to that of EPAs

Regional Response Teams Oil Spill Response. If this is in place, then methods or

approaches can be properly evaluated and then recognized by the government.

The Philippines has scientists willing to develop this technology but as of

now, there is a deficit of knowledge on this technology. Compared to other countries

which have fully utilized this technology, the Philippines still is in the stage of searching

the best biological entities for bioremediation. The BRT leads in developing

bioremediation as far as the question of the most notable scientific group is concerned.

Bioremediation is currently applied, but only in laboratory, small-scale

operations, and side studies. There are private companies that currently employ


29/46

bioremediation in the treatment of wastewater, and for other cases bioremediation

projects serve as an offshoot of the government-endorsed projects.

Awareness among industries, local authorities, and scientific community are

high. Industries are open to suggestions made by the scientists and authorities concerned

regarding what treatment technology proves to be best for their wastes. There is hand-in-

hand coordination between the scientist, the local authorities, and the industries.

In general, bioremediation has a long way to go, but it is undoubtedly

developing. It is still in its infancy and more research is needed to perfect the technology.

Its development depends on the Philippines recognition and realization of its value. As

this under-standing increases, the efficiency and applicability of bioremediation will

grow rapidly.


30/46

REFERENCES

Baker, Katherine H. & Herson, Diane S.Bioremediation. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.,1994.

Ball, A.Bioremediation the biological solution to pollution. (n.d.). Retrieved March 7,2009, from http://www.nt.gov.au/business/documents/general/Bio_Industry_Forum_Prof_Andy_Ball.pdf

Bargar, John and Gordon E. Brown Jr. Impact of Recent Research on EnvironmentalRemediation and Technologies. 5 Feb 2004. Retrieved 07 March 2009, fromhttp://www.ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/mes/hlights.html

Bioremediation: The Bacteria Involved. (n.d.) Retrieved March 1, 2009, fromhttp://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/01840/New%20Page_2.htm

Brown, Marilyn.Personal interview. 25 Feb. 2009.

Cadiz N.M., Aggangan, N.S., Pampolina, N.M., & Raymundo, A.K. (2006). Analysis ofHeavy Metal Uptake of Some Potential Plants for Phytoremediation in anAbandoned Mine Area [Abstract]. InAbstracts of Papers Presented Duringthe 28th NAST Annual Scientific Meeting: The Century of Biology, Vol. 28, No.1;2006 July 12-13; Manila Hotel. Taguig City: NAST-DOST. 2006. p. 56-57.Abstract no.13.

Chen, Zueng-Shan.Relationship between Heavy Metal Concentrations in Soils of Taiwan

and Uptake by Crops.2008. Retrieved 07 March 2009, fromhttp://www.agnet.org/library /tb/149/

Cookson, John T., Jr. Bioremediation Engineering: Design and Application. New York:McGraw-Hill Inc., 1995.

Davani, Ali.A Novel In-situ Chemical Remediation Technique for Arsenic-ContaminatedSoils. 16 March 2004. Retrieved 07 March 2009, from http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004SC/finalprogram/abstract_70202.htm

Evans, Gareth M. & Furlong, Judith C. Contaminated Land and Bioremediation. InEnvironmental Biotechnology: Theory and Application. West Sussex: Wiley,2003. pp. 89-109.

Eweis, Juana B., Ergas, Sarina J., Chang, Daniel P.Y., & Schroeder, Edward D.Bioremediation Principles. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1998.

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable.Abstract of Remediation Case StudiesVolume 11. August 2007. Retrieved 07 March 2009, from http://clu-in.org/


31/46

download/frtr/volume11.pdf

Godhantaraman, N. Status of Bioremediation Approaches and Its Future Prospects. 1March 2008. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from http://www.envismadrasuniv.org/nl20008%20articles%20status.html

Malaysian Biotechnology Information Centre (MABIC). Bioremediation:Nature's Wayto a Cleaner Environment [PDF Document].BiCnews, Issue 9. 1 April 2005.Retrieved February 28, 2009, from www.bic.org.my.

Markandey, Dilip & Rajvaidya, Neelima. Bioremediation. InEnvironmentalBiotechnology.New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation, 2004. pp. 67-99.

Mitsumori, Y.A summary of bioremediation activities in Japan [PDF Document]. 2004.Retrieved March 7, 2009, from http://ukinjapanstage.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/5606907/5610028/35695X.pdf

Pivetz, Bruce.Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Ground Water at HazardousWaste Sites. February 2001. Retrieved 07 March 2009, fromhttp://clu-in.org/download/remed/epa_540_s01_500.pdf

Pampolina, N.M., Aggangan, N.S., Cadiz N. M., & Raymundo, A.K. (2006). Assessmentof Mycorrhizal Diversity in Abandoned Mine Sites in Toledo, Cebu forBioremediation [Abstract]. InAbstracts of Papers Presented During the 28th

NAST Annual Scientific Meeting: The Century of Biology, Vol. 28, No.1; 2006July 12-13;Manila Hotel. Taguig City: NAST-DOST. 2006. p.38-39. Abstract # 8.

Raymundo, Asuncion K. Bioremediation: Hope of the Environment.Manila Bulletin.16 July2006. Retrieved March 4, 2009, fromhttp://www.articlearchives.com/government/government-bodies-offices-heads/2395611.html

Reddy, Krishna.Physical and Chemical Groundwater Remediation Technologies [PDFDocument].(n.d.). Retrieved 07 March 2009, from http://www.uic.edu/classes/cemm/cemmlab/NATO-Chapter12.pdf

Schefter, John. Water Resources Grant Proposal. 4 November 2005. Retrieved 07 March2009, from http://water.usgs.gov/wrri/04grants/2004OH10B.html

Shuman, John, Schultz, Bradley R., & Oakes, Timothy.Review of Physical andChemical

Remediation Techniques for Hydrogen Sulfide Abatement in a Bottom

Withdrawal Hydropower Reservoir[PDF Document].(n.d.). Retrieved 07 March2009, from http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/04jun-wots/shuman.pdf

Siringan, Maria Auxilia T.Bioremediation-UP Manila NatSci4. 11 Mar. 2009.


32/46

Trinidad, Lorele.Personal interview. 25 Feb. 2009.


33/46

APPENDIX

Dr. Marilyn BrownFebruary 25, 2009

G: ...

G: Ano po saang stage na po ba tayo sa pagdevelop ng bioremediation?

B: Uhm gumagamit kami ng study namin dito pero medyo a ano pa lang sa experimentalstage pa rin, nagreresearch pa rin at naghahanap pa rin sila niyong yiyongpinakamagandang strain.

G: So as of now po, walang ano po, walang a, parang walang strain sila na kinoconsiderna pinakamaganda.

B: Wala pa naghahanap pa lang andun pa lang. Kasi ganito iyon yiyong Mycorrhiza,

alam niyo na ba iyong Mycorrhiza? Iyon yiyong association ng fiyongi at saka higher atorganism. Ang mga dangerous sites natin ay di pwedeng tubuan ng plants, kiyong walangMycorrhiza parang ganun. Sa ibang ah bansa halimbawa sa Australia or sa US,narerehabilitate lang nila iyong mga basta iyong mga wala nang tanim using iyongMycorrhiza pa rin iyong plant na may Mycorrhiza. Dalawa iyong hinahanap ngayon eiyong plant saka, iyong ang Mycorrhiza kasi fyungi e, saka yung fyungi. Iyong rightcombinations iyong hinahanap nila para effective dun sa ano.

G: Pero maam pano ba iyong process iyong parang pano narerestore nyung fyungi iyonggood condition ng soil?

B: Una kasi dapat tutubo iyong halaman tapos iyong fyungi ang mag-iincrease ng mganutrients, nutrient uptake ng phosphorus, nitrogen, ah saka iyong carbon at iba pa.

G: So maam ano ba ang problem ngayon sa bioremediation using this Mycorrhiza?

B: Kasi kulang iyong binibigay ng gobyerno para marehabilitate iyong mga lugar na mayhazardous waste. Dapat sana iyong mga taxes na iyon para i-maintain iyong lugar na iyondiba. E hindi naman nakalagay dun sa taxes. Tapos walang NGO at kyung mayroon maniyon lang iyong mga nagrarally e wala naman silang pera diba. Pero iyon lang ang alamko ha, pero kasi marami pang NGO na nagkalat diyan.

G: Pero sa Philippines, ilan po kayong nagreresearch..?

B: Sa bioremediation?

G: Opo.


34/46

B: Napakaliit na grupo lang e. Mga maliliit kasi na mga projects e iyan. Kasi ano nag-umpisa lang naman iyang sa UP e. Sa UP Manila wala pa rin e pero sa UP Diliman atUPLB medyo may onting research kaya parang wala.

G: So so far maam iyong bioremediation more of research siya pero di pa inaapply?

B: Hindi pa e, hindi.

G: So basically po compared to other countries po, parang behind po tayo?

B: Oo, syempre nyung 18th century pa lang ginagamitan na ng Mycorrhiza e. Mycorrhizalang ang sinasabi ko ha? Para marehabilitate yung mga coal mine, abandoned minesganyan. E dito wala pa, pinipilit pa rin naming makapasok.

G: Tingin niyo po if ever iaapply ang Mycorrhiza sa abandoned mines natin mga anongyear po kaya?

B: Kasi importante iyong research e. Saka since ginagawa na naman ng ibang bansa,pwede nang i-adopt natin. Kaya mabilis na iyan. Yyung pagstart lang ang mahirap sakabudget o pondo saka iyong awareness pa ng government na kailangan matamnan iyan,marehabilitate iyan. Para tayong ano e, iyong academe lang ang nag-iisip pero paghalimbawa kayo kyung medyo may alam kayo pero siyempre pagkagraduate niyosyempre di niyo na matutuloy. So ilelecture na naman sa panibagong mga bata taposganoon din. Wala naman agency na nagsusupport e. DENR humihingi kami ng pera walarin, para pangrehab sana. May mga mining act at pera pangrehabilitate pero angginagawa ibinibigay lang sa mga taong naapektuhan halimbawa itong barangay mayperang nakaallocate.

G: Parang compensation po..

B: Oo compensation lang hindi inaallocate din para sa education at development nyungtechnology.

G: On another aspect naman po, gaano mo kaeeffective iyong paggamit ng Mycorrhizapang rehabilitate?

B: Iyon lang ang paraan eh, Mycorrhiza is indispensable for rehabilitation of areas iyongaffected by iyon, hazardous wastes.

G: May idea po ba kayo kyung parang ilang percent iyong kaya niyang iremove nawaste?

B: Hindi naman nireremove kaagad e, ang bioremediation kasi ginagawa para magkaroonng halaman. Pero o pag once andun iyong halaman diba iyon ang napakaefficient forrestoration e.


35/46

G: So parang catalyst lang po siya?

B: Oo kaya ang tawag doon, phytoremediation, ibig sabihin gumagamit ka ng halaman.For example sa Chernobyl, nabawasan iyong effect nyung nuclear ano, contamination.Nyung ginamitan na ng Mycorrhiza, mas marami nang nakakapunta sa halaman na

nutrients saka nabawasan iyong toxic material. Kasi pag namatay naman ang halamanbabalik naman sa lupa e. E halimbawa magtatanim ka sa sinasabi kong mine sites, iba naiyong ecophysiological activities doon. Marami ng microorganisms ganon, sonagkatransformation na. Kasi pag maraming mikrobyo, mas madaling matanggal iyongmga toxic waste, so parang sila lang [mycorrhiza]iyong nagiinitiate magmaintain ngmaraming microbes at diversity.

G: ...Comparing phyto and bacteria po, uhm, bakit po mas widely used iyong bacteria sabioremediation kaysa po sa fyungi?

B: Kasi ang bacteria parang direct iyong effect, e ang fyungi kasi na ginagamit naming

dadaan sa halaman so matagal-tagal. At sa amin kasi iyong method na iyon aymagandang pangrehabilitate, for revegetation. Iyong mga bacteria kasi, iyong mgatransformations niyan yung direct na makikita mo. So syempre mas malaki ang impact ngfyungi in a sense pero mas matagal makita iyong effect saka magmamanifest naman salupa iyon.

G: Bukod po sa mycorrhiza, may iba pa po bang pwede gamitin dito?

B: Marami, may iba iba namang fyungi e, pero mycorrhiza syempre ang most common.

G: May may ano na po ba kayo maam, may experience na po ba kayo na gumawa kayong project na magrehabilitate ng isang certain site?

B: Hindi pa sa ano pa lang, sa mga experiments pa lang, laboratory.

G: So maam parang sa phase po ng kunwari ng biorem project, nandun pa lang kayo saplanning and paggawa pa lang po ng design ng project na iimplement? Dun pa po pa langtayo sa testing and lab?

B: Oo. Yyung nanghahanap pa lang tayo ng para sa Philippines na parang strain kasi saibang bansa o kaya pag once na makakuha ka na ng data na ano, baseline data, di namasyado matagal iyon.

G: Matagal niyo na po ba ginagamit iyong Mycorrhiza, umm parang kailan po nagstart?

B: Ang research sa Mycorrhiza nagstart nyung mga 1979 pa, pero iyong bioremediationiyon lang naman mga 2 years ago lang naman nagbigay ng support ganun. Sa experimentsaka laboratory ganun.


36/46

G: Pero maam sa tingin niyo kunwari yung mga taga-DENR, alam ba nila na maybioremediation pala?

B: Sa kakakulit siguro ng mga researchers, medyo binabasa na nila yung importance nun,pero hindi pa rin DENR ang nagbigay e. Parang side study lang iyong mga ginagawa

namin halimbawa kasi ditto ang jatropha, sinasali lang iyong rehabilitation ng mine sitespara sa jatropha. Wala wala talagang direct na ano, saka mas nakikita nila iyong mgaprojects na may makukuha ang mga tao ganun, politika ganun.

G: Personally po maam, meron po ba kayong ongoing na project aboutphytoremediation?

B: Incorporated lang e, kunwari maghahanap kami ng areas na pangit para matamnan ngjatropha, kasi pera ng jatropha iyon eh, pero parang bioremediation na rin iyon kasi usingMycorrhiza pwede mong matamnan iyong mga ganun. Kasi pag ang proposal modiretsong ano halimbawa rehabilitation and revegetation of areas affected by mining

ganun, hindi ka bibigyan. So ganun, indirectly lang.

G: Also nga pala maam, diba may conditions kang dapat na i-maintain?

B: Ah oo iyon iyong inooptimize syempre, temperature, pH, ganun. Halimbawa mayMycorrhiza ka nga pero malamig naman tapos mataas na iyong lead at cadmium, hindirin magiging efficient ang rehabilitation. Kaya dapat makahanap ka ng tolerant atresistant na ano, parang strain. May tanong pa kayo?

G: Wala na maam, thank you po.


37/46

Dr. Lorele TrinidadFebruary 25, 2009

G: May biorem project po ba tayo currently?

T: This deals with ano applying biorem dito sa yyung tannery natin, yyung chromiumkasi affects tannery and wastewater tapos ahm...we are trying to address itong sources ngpollution sa MMO, Marilao-Meycauayan-Obando river. So aim natin with this rivers is tostop itong point sources. So kapag ginamit ay chemical approach, it can generate a lot ofsludge, so secondary waste na naman. So we are trying to see kyung pwede ang biorem,kyung less problems in the long term.Tinitingnan namin economically syempre yung masmura, yyung mas applicable, saka syempre kyung ano talaga yyung nakakalinis. So I amnot saying na bioremediation talaga iyong solution kasi inaaral pa rin namin, pero angnakikita namin is wala siyang masyadong nagegenerate na sludge kapag biorem. Whichis yyung secondary problem sa chemical remediation mahal kasi they are using chemicalprecipitation tapos may sludge na napproduce so may problema pa rin. So kapag biorem

naman it is through using microorganisms so this is making use SRB or sulfate-reducingbacteria para magegenerate ng Hydrogen sulfide which is yyung nagpeprecipitate ngcopper. So this would converted would be converted to simpler forms. So since solubleyung chromium, pag pumasok siya sa water system, makakasama sa atin. So we areaddressing the chromium six and the copper. Sa iba, dati naman kasi naming ginawa aysa mining, kasi sa mining, it makes available the metals na dati ahmm nakatrap so oncena nagmina, iexpose mo, tapos marami kang mikrobyo then you generate ng acid, soiyong rivers bumubula mga ganun. Another approach din doon is _______, pero kyungnakakalat na, phytorem na yung tinitingnan. Phytoremediation is using the plants para iano yung mga metals. Ang question kasi is what do you with the plant? Kaya hindimasyadong hindi applicable iyong water lilies sa Pasig River. That just reduces thevolume of the waste, ngayon pag kinuha mo na yung water lily, may biomass ka na, sowhat do you do with the biomass? Definitely ang solution doon is iincinerate mo, somagpproduce ka ng polusyon, e bawal iyon sa Clean Air Act. So hindi applicable iyongphytorem in that sense. Phytoremediation kasi talagang tinatrap niya yung mga metals e.Kyung yun ay nasa trunk or roots, medyo thick siya doon, hindi siya kasing readilyaccessible ang problema kasi kakalat siya so meron din sa dahon. So kyung nasa dahonsiya tapos madali mabulok so parang nagspread siya. Pero kyung mas nasa trunk siya,mas ok iyon kasi hindi agad nabubulok yyung mga laki ng mga kahoy natin e. So thatsone way which is more welcomed by the DENR. With the microbial remediation naman,ang sinasabi nila baka daw pumasok yung microbes sa water system. Ang sinasabinamin, kyung alam mo iyong system, alam mo icontrol, kasi hindi mo naman isspreadiyong mikrobyo e. So ayun, there are other options na ginagamit, marami sa abroad anopero ang problema kyung biological system or mikrobyo, pag inimport natin iyongganyung technology, hindi ganun sinusuportahan ng tao. For example iyong GMO, hindipa ganun kawelcome dito sa Philippines iyong pagspread ng GMO. Sa States kasi kitanaman na ok lang siya. So ayun we have to deal with the conditions here in thePhilippines and we cannot just import technology from the outside and apply it readily.So what we are trying to do is to come up with a technology making use of our local orindigenous microorganisms kasi we cannot introducing foreign. So what we are trying to


38/46

analyze is kyung paano, how we can harness them kasi nandun na naman siya e, gamitinmo na siya over dun sa iba. So what we are saying is applicable siya sa Pilipinas kasimore cost-effective andyan na kasi siya e mura lang tapos mapapatubo mo siya using rawmaterials saka waste materials which is available sa Pilipinas. So we are trying to developbiorem using local materials, pero some of the technologies naman are available abroad,

kumbaga inaadopt lang natin. Ang bottomline lang nito is still anong options ang pipiliinng tao. Ang kabutihan nito is you give them options. Kasi dati ang gagawin lang ngregulatory bodies, ang sasabihin nila sa industries ay polluter kayo, mataas ang rates,sara diba? If you are not giving them options, papaano ang gagawin nila para makatuloyng operation? So ang nangyayari, for the industries to survive, nag-ooperate sila ng gabi.Example is sa Marilao-Obando-Meycauayan area. Napakadami doong polluters na notregistered kasi alam nila polluters sila pero wala naman silang magawa. So pano nilaittreat, e ang mahal mahal ng waste treatment facilities. Ang tannery kasi more or lessmeron sila association, so malalaki yyung operations nila. So iyong president doon,yyung ang kapartner natin dito sa project, kaya niya magpagawa ng waste treatment na1.5 M tipong ganun. So can you just imagine kyung small scale ka lang, mas malaki pa

iyong treatment plant dun sa puhunan mo kaya di siya praktikal. So ang ginagawa na langnila, magbabayad na lang sila ng fine kasi mas mura sa treatment plant. Kolekta lang silang kolekta ng funds pero syempre talo pa rin tayo. So now we are trying to come up withsolutions, eto iyong mga options niyo, chemical remediation tapos ganito iyong cost andtreatment, pag biorem naman ganito iyong cost and treatment. So its your choice. So weare working with DENR, and bale DOST project ito. So if we finish this project, kasi firstphase palang e, we will be submitting this to DOST to be copy furnished by DENR.Alam din ng mga tannery to na binibigyan sila ng choice, so we give the ball back tothem. So kyung hindi sila bibigyan ng options, sa araw hindi sila magooperate, pero sagabi, dun sila nagtatapon ng waste parang ganun. Saka kyung mapapakita mo na you'recompliant, pumapasa naman yyung wastewater mo sa standards, then happy lahat taposyyung mga tauhan hindi pa palagi ninenerbyos na may darating raid raid ganyan. So weare trying to come up with that pero kelangan din ng pera to put up that facility.

G: Maam with regards sa funding naman, anong sistema?

T: Sa funding syempre kailangan ng fund to put-up iyong mga facilities tapos nangakodaw si GMA na tutulyungan daw sila saka syempre nakalista na tayo sa top 30, dirtythirty. Sa world yun ah. Itim kasi talaga ang rivers eh, kaya ganun.

G: Would you know kyung magkano yung cost pag nagkaron ng bioremediation project?

T: Depende sa screening eh, ayun.

G: Pero yyung DENR ba or other authorities mam nagbibigay naman sila ng funds orsupport?

T: Ahm yyung umalma kasi dun yyung mga mayors and mga governors ganun, so pagnagbibigay ang government, parang direkta sa kanila yun para to put up facilities paramaayos yyung condition. So so far ganun. So sila na na yyung magpapatakbo nun.


39/46

Ganun, yyung policies kasi ganun eh. So they're looking for options, while the LGUsnaman looking for solutions dun sa implementation ganun or pag may mga questionspara they look after one another. Pag naayos naman yung mga industrial waste nila, silanaman mismo nagdedemand, ano ba gagawin nila dun sa mga waste metals nila ngayonDOST is also coming to the picture para magprovide ng possible solutions kyung pano

nila ittreat. Saka ano, pag naayos naman yyung situation, marami naman silamakukuhang savings eh pag hiniwalay nila kunwari chrome kasi diba ang damingwastewater, so yyung water narerecycle, and then kyung may biogas generator sila, thebiogas generated can be used to subsidize electrical needs nila for the heaters nila. Sobasically it's a win win situation. Hindi mo na sila iaaccuse, matutulyungan mo pa sila,kasi mahirap pag yyung hindi sila relax diba. Kasi pag walang ganun, dami dami nanaman magooperate saka maggegenerate ng waste, so dudumi na naman, babaha,magiging itim na yyung rivers ultimo yyung water lilies namamatay sa taas ngconcentration ng lead, sa taas ng cadmium, sa taas ng chromium. Along with highconcentrations nun syempre is respiratory problems pag nalanghap mo.

G: Anong methods ba ang ineendorse nila ma'am to treat such?

T: It's not only biorem actually marami eh like electrolysis, precipitation, all other sakakinocompare talaga sa all possible methods. Saka tinitingnan din nila yyung percent ngmarerecover nila, kunwari may gold or silver, ganun kasi sayang yyung mga ganun, sotinitingnan nila yyung system na magaallow para marecover siya na hindi ka gumagamitng cyanide, mercury. So if we give them alternatives, sila naman din yyung willing tochange. So yyung biorem natin is not yet widely considered kasi ang practice pa rin kasing mga industries natin ay chemical remediation or babayad lang ng fine, walangtreatment. So kyung maencourage natin sila, na it's a win win situation pag gumamit silang biorem tapos makakagenerate pa sila ng high value products, much better talaga. Sakadapat ang relationship namin saka yyung industries parang partners, hindi parang agencyna nagcocondemn. Kasi parang ang dating pag DENR mga brusko ganun, ay wala di nasila makikipagcoordinate. Minsan pa nga mga estudyante pa pinapunta namin paramagsurvey ganun, haha para mapinpoint namin sino yyung mga nagrerelease ngmaraming waste. Ayaw kasi nila aminin minsan eh. Tapos ayun humihingi kami ngsample ng wastewater to characterize, kasi hindi nila alam saka mahal kayamagpaanalyze. Pag DENR naman kumuha nun, may bayad pa may fine pa, taposkadalasan di pa dumarating yyung results kyung ano daw yyung nangyari sa wastewater.Kaya ngayon mas open sila sa amin na nagbibigay pa sila mismo, nagpapadala pa sila ngsamples samin for analysis, sasabihin namin yyung percentage ng ganun, saka kyungpano marerecover yyung ibang metals ganun. Ang nangyayari na lang ngayon is parangnamomonitor namin yyung level ng contamination sa kanila ayun sasabihin naminkunwari ganito na lang po pero hindi pa pasa. Ganun.

G: How about the LGUs ma'am?

T: Open naman sila eh, minsan nga pinapaescort-an pa kami eh. So it's hand-in-handcoordination between the LGUs, regional offices nila, kasi narerealize din nila na ay oonga ang daming nagkasakit dati dahil dito saka medyo aware naman sila sa situation eh.


40/46

G: So ayun ma'am, if the project pulls through, kailan niyo po ineexpect na makakacomeup kayo with a solid um solution?

T: Kasi ang project nito by this year supposed to be makakacome up na kami with a

biorem technology. Nyung 2008 pa nakabigay ng pera e, kaso matagal to talaga mahabayyung stretch ng Meycauayan river e. Pero we expect to come up with the data needed bythe end of this year.

G: _______ ?

T: So ngayon nasa ordinance nakasalang sa city nila, na imomonitor iyong wastes ngmga industries na dapat may compliance, na dapat mayroong facilities, ngayonmineemeeting na sila.it was agreed upon na ganito na ang gagawin natin, now with agiven time, they have to come up with a facility or to come up with a____________.kyung sasabihin nila na hindi namin kaya, wala kaming pera, then ,

pipilitin si GMA, maglabas yung governor, iyong congressman nila, isasama na ngayonsa budget ng pork barrel nila na ito iyong concern ng Bulacan na talagang kasama sa___________you should address that iadress, otherwise hindi tayo makakapagexport ngbalat sa E.U. Ang gaganda ng leather nila doon pero di sila makapagexport dahiltinatanong sila, what do you do with the chrome.eh wala, Kaya di sila makapagexport.Kyung makacomply sila sa requirements ng E.U, then they could export eh di pwede nanatin ipagmalaki ang bulacan bilang Leather Capital of the Philippines, di katulad ngayonna tinatago nila. Sa ngayon kasi andoon lahat ng pagawaan ng paputok iyong mgapyrotechnicians yung mga kulay doon lahat heavy metals iyo.Iyong sa mga paggawa ngmga jewlery. Lahat ng piggery ng poultry sa river lahat napupunta yung mga wastesnoon. Kaya ang itim itim ng ilog nila doon. Pero ngayon hindi na. Aware na sila.

G: Pero maam yung action na ginagawa ng mga tao, sa bulacan lang ba active iyong mgaauthorities..?

T: Ang mga next na lugar ay diba sa Zambales, biglang pumala ang ilog,Parakales kasinormally mining area,ayon nagrereklamo sila, so kapag ganun mayroon nang nagkakasanamamatay plus sa Marinduque din. Iyong will power ng tao, para gumalaw yungkanilang LGU iyon talaga.Kyung di gagalaw, walang magrereklamo kapag ganoon,sinong magcleclean up.Kaya kailangan in place iyong mga ordinansa, iyong will powerng DENR.may batas naman eh,clean water act, clean air act.May batas kaya lamangwalang ngipin kasi kapag sila nalagyan, o sige na nga tuloy ang operasyon non.Mayroonkasi every year na compliance certificate na piipirmahan para ievaluate, pero dahilwalang alternative, eh lagayan na lang sila.Sino ang yayaman eh di iyong mga nasaDENR.Pero kyung may alternative at in place ang mga ordinansa, Kyung ano lang talaga,iyong awareness ng mga tao, dedicated na LGUs, tulong din from the industries at laws,diba ngayon may responsible mining.

T: Meron na talaga dapat na i-allot na pera eh, dapat to clean-up, pero ewan ko kyungkaninong bulsa iyon at san nagagamit iyon.Para lang siguro di mapress release ang mga


41/46

congressman.Pero kyung iyong mga tao eh aware sila kasi iyon ang nangyayari eh, kasohindi eh, kyung ang community eh aware, eh sana di nila magagawa iyon diba. So iyongcommunity dapat siya ang nagpopolice doon sa mga industries.Unang-una nga dapat mayzoning diba, hiwalay ang residential sa Industrial pero iyon na nga, andun na. Ang isangmagandang maaring mangyari doon is, mababantayan nila, sila iyong magrereport hindi

wala silang pakialam.sila iyong magrereform sa community. Doon sa ating mgabarangay para makita kyung sino iyong nagtatapon.

T: So its going to be not an easy task pero possible. Hindikailangang______________.So Siguro kyung marami sabay-sabay mag-iisip ng bioremmeasures baka magiging popular, feeling kasi nila kapag biorem.Oops mikrobyoiyan.Pero kaya natin siyang idevelop pero dapat local knowledge knowledge..And dapatmay puso ka talaga.

T: Yung mga greenpeace iyong mga masyadong environmentally ano sila, pero minsanmasyadong harsh din.Tinitira nila. Diba one time iyong mga trials ng GMO kaya nga

tayo nagseset-up ng trials dito para matignan natin kyung ano ang epekto paramadocument, kyung sisirain lang eh di di na madocument.Kyung sisirain niyo, eh panotayo makakaangat we have to develop our own not necessarily GMO pero kyung anoiyong makakapantay sa performance nila.Kyung sisirain nila ng sisirain eh ano pangmagagawa natin.

T: Kasi ganoon iyong dating na masyadong emotional yung mga greenpeace and NGOsmasyadong emotional, without understanding what the technicals are basta ayaw nilatotally. Ayaw niyo pero kumakain kayo ng mga mcdo, mga ano. Iyong mga GMOs.Kaya we have to validate that kasi that study is important eh kyung sisirain nila, eh anopa magagawa natin.Kaya dapat sinusuri niyo hindi iyong nakikinig lang kayo.Minsan angmga claims nila is too parang masyadong hindi realistic.Kasi ang conditions sa temperate,iba din sa tropical.Any technology doon is not necessarily applicable dito. Kapagsinabing room temperature doon thats 20 below, ang room temp dito is 35 and half,

diba, kaya maski methodology doon kapag ginamit mo dito, kailangan alam mo iyongibig sabihin ng room temp nila kasi di pareho ang condition. Mayroong technology napwedeng nagwowork sa kanila pero di magwowork sa atin.Kaya kailangan na idocumentiyong mga iyon dito sa atin.

G: Marami naman po bang scientists na nadevoted magaral ng biorem?

T: Si Dr. Raymundo na dean ngayon ng College of Arts and Sciences siya ang head ngBioremediation Research team ng Philippines. Academician siya supposedly,.So werelooking at toxic hazardous waste problems to do biorem. Kaya nakita niyo BioremResearch Team kasama din namin iyong head ng Chem Eng iyon tapos forestry din. Soiyong sinasabi kong sa phytorem sila iyon. And then we have three members fromDiliman so medyo malawak iyon. Ten members kami lahat. Meron din sa Limalwal, saIligan, maraming mga nakafield mga 10,000 na nasa dagat parang i-watch.

G: So far Maam medyo progressive naman iyon diba..?


42/46

T: In a way improving. Slowly nakakasabay naman ,pero iyong malakaing factorieshindi pa rin.

G: Paano po?

T: Konti pa lang kasi ang nadedevelop so we have to send a proposal to DOST. Ok nakapag nakalusot na ko. Kapag may napayagan na , sunod na kayo. Tuloy tuloy na un.Kasi kapag pinapayagan na, eh, kasi ang mga magoopposed nun ay iyong mga industries.Hopefully sususnod naman sila pero sila basically yyung magsasabi ng ganyan , anuyan?, ok ba yan? Natatakot sila nab aka di magwork dahil sa laws ng government.Kaya ang hirap kumbinsehin na were looking for better alternatives, huwag tayomakontento sa chemical remediation na lang baka may ibang pwedeng i ano diyan. Dikailangan tinitingnan yyung short term, iyong chemical remediation short term , ang bilis,pero long term nun may secondary waste na pinoproduce. We look at the long term,instantaneous yung sa chemical remediation di katulad ng sa biorem ,matagal siya peromas healing siya. We look at the long term picture or perspective para mas maganda.

Hindi lang iyong ultimately kaya natin. Its going to be a choice. Bigyan mo pa rin silang freedom to choose. Hindi iyong impose ka na lang ng impose. Basically, Maramingmadodownload na lang sa internet. Maraming technology na binebenta nga eh. Pero itsgoing to be yong politics natin, is not going to allow it. Wala silang ibang alternatives.You wont stop naman na kapag scientist ka hahanap ng solusyon, may problema maysolusyon. Its not going to be just one solution, Parang ganito lang iyan hanap ka ngalternative. Marami iyan eh. Doon lumalabas yung creative thinking sa need .Iyon angtalent ng Pinoy. Ano iyong pinakamaganda, ganoon iyon dahil kailangan natin. Tutulongkami, as always.

G: So ayun mam, yun lang po. Thank you po.


43/46

Dr. Maria Auxilia T. SiringanMarch 11, 2009 (via email)

Q: How do scientists/NGOs/authorities respond to contaminated sites (e.g oil spills,landfill leachates)

S: The scientist will investigate the causes and effects of the contamination in a particularenvironment. As in the case of the Solar oil spill in Guimaras, the scientific communitywould make an initiative to prevent further destruction and will evaluate the extent ofcontamination. Scientists will try to look for possible environment-friendly remediationapproach. They are more cautious with regards to application of bioremediation materialor methods particularly if you will introduce chemicals and microbial inoculantsperceived to remove or reduce the contaminants.

S: In the Philippines, the Coast Guard is the major government group designated toaddress the pollution in marine waters. Most of the recent oil spills have occurred in

marine waters/environment. The Coast Guard has its own approach may not really beaddressing the pollution problem. In the Solar oil spill, they used a chemical to removethe oil in the mangrove plants without assessing if such chemical is harmful or not to theplants and animals in the area . Without proper assessment, any mitigating approach mayproduce more damage. In the US, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)takes a lead role in coordinating the implementation of policies, plans and programs thatwere designed, evaluated and monitored by experts and scientists. Since US EPAemploys competent scientists who do research and monitoring work pertinent toenvironmental pollution, the government leads in finding remedy and solution to theenvironmental problem. The military does not take a lead role nor it is given theauthority to mitigate pollution. It is tapped in cases where manpower is very muchneeded.

Q: What methods other than bioremediation do they apply?

S: It depends on the nature of the environmental problem. In most oil pollution, there arephysical and chemical methods. In physical methods, you need to remove as much of thepollutant in the affected site. You are actually taking the pollutant out of the site. Youcannot apply a microbial bioremediation agent when you have tons and tons of pollutantsas high levels are toxic also to the microbial agent. There is a certain capability themicrobial agent(s) can do. I think there are also chemical processes involved inremediating environmental pollution.

Q: How does bioremediation compare to other remediation methods (relative cost,duration, efficiency, etc.)?

S: I do not have an exact estimate since it depends on the nature and the quantity of thepollutant, extent of pollution, the nature of the contaminated site, the bioremediationagent(s) and process.


44/46

Q: What factors affect bioremediation?S: Temperature, nutrient levels particularly N and P levels, substrate where thecontamination occurred (soil, sea, freshwater, mangrove area),

Q: What are the processes involved?

S: There are aerobic and anaerobic processes. Both are mediated mostly bymicroorganisms. These processes occur because of the degradative enzymes expressedby the microbial agent. The contaminant becomes the source of food and energy of themicrobes. When the contaminant is broken down by the enzymes of the microbes,respiration takes place, yielding energy and ultimately CO2. You have key enzymes todegrade the polymers of the contaminant. In HC-degradation, the major enzymes aremono- and di-oxygenases. Oxidation is a major process in the degradation. Withanaerobic process, the contaminant is utilized by microbes through their anaerobicrespiration. This yields energy and some by-products can be utilized by aerobes. Insome approaches, aerobic and anaerobic processes sequentially take place until the

contaminant is oxidized to a less toxic form or completely mineralized to CO 2.

Q: Does the Philippines have the microorganisms needed?

S: Definitely. The microorganisms are likely to be found in areas which have beenpreviously exposed to oil. For e. g. in Guimaras, the environment has been subjected tooil contamination since you have motor boats there. Since the oil is food for themicroorganisms, its presence stimulate the microbes to multiply and perform metabolicactivities that contribute to the degradation of the oil contaminant. I am an advocate ofbiostimulation approach where you provide the nutrients needed by the indigenousmicrobes in an affected site. When you give them the nutrients that are limiting in levelsin the site, their numbers increase as well as their degradative capabilities. You do notalways have to add foreign microbes to bioremediate a pollution problem.

Q: To what projects is bioremediation currently applied?

S: Some private companies use imported microbial inocula for the bioremediation of oilsludge. This is just an application of a technology. There were attempts to have a studyon bioremediation of oil-contaminated sites but this was not pushed through. Initialstudies focused on the potential of indigenous microorganisms in Guimaras where youhad the Solar oil spill. These were conducted by Dr. Gilda Lio-Po (SEAFDEC,Tigbauan, Iloilo) and Dr. Ressurreccion B. Sadaba (UPVisayas). DOST also announcedthat they have a Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain that can degrade oil. The microbe wasisolated from Manila Bay. I am not sure what happened to this or if there were efforts toutilize the organism in the Solar Oil spill. There were theses done in the past. One wasby the late Dr. Wilfredo L. Barraquio, UP Diliman. His MS work is on terrestrialmicrobes. In the late 80s Ms. Eleanor dela Cruz-Banzuela did her MS thesis on HC-degrading microorganisms in Poro Point in La Union. The most recent one was the onedone by Dr. Terrence Talorete (who is now based in Tsukuba, Japan). In all these studenttheses, microbes were isolated and screened for their ability to degrade a particular or a


45/46

number of hydrocarbons. Their data could be useful in establishing strategies forbioremediation.

S: In waste water treatment, bioremediation is currently being used. There are researchstudies in UP Diliman College of Engineering, in the Chemical Engineering Department

of the De la Salle University (DLSU) and in a private university in Cebu. Theirstrategies have been utilized to some extent in reducing the levels of contaminants(inorganic or organic) in waste water from establishments such as malls, factories, etc.Usually, microbial consortium (mixed culture of different microbes) is utilized byengineers whether they use aerobic or anaerobic processes or a combination of theseprocesses.

Q: Is it being developed or endorsed by the DENR/DOE?

S: In the studies or work I have mentioned above, DENR and DOE have not beeninvolved. Those works were initiative by the researcher or their host institution. I am not

aware of any DENR and DOE-led bioremediation project. DOST was involved with theSolar Oil spill assessment. Funding was given to UPV to assess the Solar Oil Spillwhich include the studies of Drs. Po and Sadaba. For two years now, they held symposiafor this project. I believe they have reports on the assessment.

Q: Is it recognized by the Philippines over other methods?

S: Currently, DENR does not have an action plan or a program for bioremediationassessment and application. The government, particularly DENR and DOST shouldprepare a Bioremediation Oil Spill Response similar to that of EPAs Regional ResponseTeams Oil Spill Response. If this is in place, then methods or approaches can beproperly evaluated and then recognized by the government. Bioremediation agents orprocess should be tested for its ability to reduce or eradicate the target pollutant based onlaboratory and field experiments. Toxicity testing using biological systems should alsobe conducted. Presently, we do not have such guidance or framework.

Q: Is the Philippines ready for bioremediation?

S: Yes and No. Yes, because we have some researchers and institutions which canoversee this. If there is a collaborative effort that should be initiated by the DENR andDOST. I think the scientists should be tapped for this endeavor. No, because ourgovernment agencies have not chartered the policy and guidance which I mentionedearlier. If we have something like the US EPA which has a pool of competent scientiststhat can plan for a bioremediation program we can make great strides in addressingpollution of the environment.

Q: How do you see the technology of bioremediation in the future locally andinternationally?


46/46

S: In developed countries, this approach has been fully utilized. It was first showcased inthe Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Alaska. It is widely accepted and there was much progressand innovations. I see it will be one of the most successful approaches to addresspollution in the environment. Hopefully, the Philippines will fully recognize and realizeits value.

an assessment of the current status of bioremediation

Documents