Being a nanoparticles, it may show some toxic effect, then how it would be a better remediation practices than microbial remediation...
The use of each type of technology would have advantages depending on the application. Bioremediation tends to be slow and in some cases cannot be used. Plus, one has to consider if a micro-organism added to an environment might be harmful. Yes, some nanomaterials such as CNTs may have toxic effects, so when they are used there should be care taken to retrieve them after use or keep them from straying into areas where they might cause ill effects. Other nanomaterials such as nano-zero-valent iron are reactive and would thus dissipate into non-toxic products. In any case one has to consider the proper material to use for the application at hand.
Thank you Catherine.....
I would like to know one more view of yours, Don't you think that if we apply both of these remediation practices togetherly (microbial + nanoremediation) then it would be better. If yes then how? How can we implicate this system in contaminated sites.
The use of nanomaterials for in-situ remediation of contaminated sites is not so easy. Injection of nanomaterials is difficult since the delivery method should ensure that they reach the contaminated zone without aggregation, sedimentation, precipitation or losing catalytic activity with background matter. For example, zero-valent iron in bulk form is easy to install directly in contaminated zones (as permeable reactive barriers) but iron nanoparticles have problems with stability and delivery. They need to be suspended well for pump-and-probe techniques. What you suggest (integrated methods with bio-nano hybrid techniques) is only feasible for ex-situ treatment. Hybrid techniques can work in sequential flow reactors with effluent treated by first technique injected into different reactor for second treatment. One-pot treatment is also difficult since nanomaterial toxicity for microorganisms will be a drawback.
Use of engineered nanoparticles for soil remediation is by far not applicable because of associated costs.
One may think of the use of clays, to follow the trend often named nanoclays nowadays, for binding contaminants. This is already in use for protective layers to avoid further spreading of contaminants.
The attached documents offer a risk-benefit assessment of nZVI from the NanoRem project. The second document is an expert meeting report, which also contained a session on the comparative assessment of nanoremediation versus in situ bioremediation, which might be of particular interest for you.
You might find of interest further results the project "NanoRem - Taking Nanotechnological Remediation Processes from Lab Scale to End User Applications for the Restoration of a Clean Environment". It is a research project, funded through the European Commission FP7. More than 25 participating organisations from research to industry focus on facilitating practical, safe, economic and exploitable nanotechnology for in situ remediation. This is being undertaken in parallel with developing a comprehensive understanding of the environmental risk-benefit for the use of nanoparticles (NPs), market demand, overall sustainability, and stakeholder perceptions. See http://www.nanorem.eu for a project outline, partners and contact details as well as results coming up from the project.
http://www.nanorem.eu
Book A Risk/Benefit Appraisal for the Application of Nano-Scale Z...
Technical Report The NanoRem Sustainability and Marketability Workshop, Oslo,...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Nanotechnology
- Nanostructured Materials
- Nanoparticles