Sunteți pe pagina 1din 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. Clarisse MENESES, Jamie Therese NEBRIJA, Abegail Francis Joy SAGAD, Monica Shiena E.

Subject: Natural Science 4 Section: TFC Group Name: CMON Group Howell Henrian G. Bayona 11 Jordan St., Jordan Heights Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City 09276275988/ 9365251 how_asi88@yahoo.com Kariza Monique Espinosa 32 Blumentritt St. Iloilo City, Iloilo 09228527492 nikki_cools104@yahoo.com Jessamae L. Fadri 19-B Almon St. Project 3, Quezon City 09179247259/ 4361095 jessa_fadri31@yahoo.com Ma. Clarisse Hemedes 076 Bigaa, Cabuyao, Laguna 09064937321 clarisse_1992@yahoo.com Jamie Therese Meneses Lot 4 Narra St., Villa Isabel Phase V, Calulut, City of San Fernando, Pampanga 09167970167 ja_binks@yahoo.com Abegail Francis Joy Nebrija 92-J J.Basa St. San Juan City 09228283834 passiontoperfection@yahoo.com Monica Shiena E. Sagad 4421 Montojo St., Makati City 09154955638/ 8906010 monicasagad@yahoo.com

Keywords: bioremediation, hazardous waste management

ABSTRACT This study entitled An Assessment of the Current Status of Bioremediation Technology in the Philippines aims to (a) provide a qualitative evaluation of the status of bioremediation, (b) explain the fundamental processes involved in bioremediation and its advantages over other methods, and (c) describe the challenges faced by bioremediation in the hopes that it would stimulate awareness, development and eventual application of bioremediation in our country. Experts on bioremediation were interviewed. 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. 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 chemical remediation 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 to develop 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 the possibility of bioremediation as an alternative to current chemical remediation methods.

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.

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 upto-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.

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.

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

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

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

pumped under pressure into the soil through wells or Bioventing. The nutrients are spread on the surface to infiltrate into the contaminated area of material or the saturated zone or Percolation. 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. technologies being practiced.
COMMON BIOREMEDIATION TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES Bioaugmentation Biofilters Biostimulation Bioreactors Bioventing Composting Addition of bacterial cultures to a contaminated medium; frequently used in bioreactors and ex situ system Use of microbial stripping columns to treat air emissions Stimulation of indigenous microbial populations in soils and/or groundwater; may be ex situ or in situ Biodegradation in a container or reactor; may be used to treat liquids or slurries Method of treating contaminated soils by drawing oxygen through the soil to stimulate microbial growth and activity Aerobic, thermophilic treatment process in which contaminated material is mixed with a bulking agent; can be done using static piles, aerated piles, or continuously fed reactors

Table 1.0 lists the common bioremediation treatment

Landfarming

Solid-phase treatment system for contaminated soils; may be done in situ 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).

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

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 BEEN BIOREMEDIATED Acetone Ethylacrylate Monochlorobenzene Acrylonitrile Ethylbenzene Naphthalene Animal fats and Ethylene glycol Pentadecane grease Fatty amines Petroleum hydrocarbons Anthracene Fluoranthene (miscellaneous) Benzene Gasoline Phenanthrene Benzopyrene Hexadecane Phenols t-Butanol Hexane Polynuclear aromatic Butylcellosolve Industrial wastes hydrocarbons (PAHs) Chrysene Isopropyl acetate Pyrenes Coal tar Methanol Stoddard solvent Crude oil Methylene chloride Styrene 2, 4 D Methylethyl ketone Tetrahydrofuran 1, 2-Dichloroethane Methylmethacrylate Toluene Diesel fuel 2Trichloroethylene (TCE) Dodecane Methylnaphthalene 1-Tridecene Xylene 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)

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

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.

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

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 microorganisms 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

treatment technologies applied in Superfund Sites (sites which are seriously polluted) as shown in Table 5.0
E a tion & D pos l xc va is a 28% B ioremedia tion 12%

4% 2% 7% 1% 12%

46%
Inc inera tion 1% Va uum E c c xtra tion 7% S olvent Wa hing2% s

28%

Chemic l 4% a Conta inment/ E a ula nc ps tion 46%

Fig 4.0. Pie chart of remediation technologies used in the UK (1997) Percent of actions
26 17 13 17 9 5 4 6 3 3 2 1 <3

Technology
Solidification and stabilization Off-site incineration On-site incineration Soil vapor extraction Bioremediation Surface In situ Thermal desorption Soil washing In situ flushing Dechlorination Solvent extraction Other

Table 5.0. Alternative treatment technologies applied to Superfund Remedial Actions in the US. (as of February 1992)

Local and International Studies Cadiz, Aggangan, Pampolina, & Raymundo, (2006) made a research regarding the potential of some plants as mediums in phytoremediation. The primary objective of their study is to investigate the tolerance mechanism of selected dominant plants thriving in the abandoned mine area in Toledo, Cebu. Their results showed that both the Japanese

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 copperrich 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

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 of B. 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.

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.

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

presented in paragraph form, following the themes in the interview guides and stressing strong points of the respondents.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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-inhand 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.

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 Environmental Remediation and Technologies. 5 Feb 2004. Retrieved 07 March 2009, from http://www.ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/mes/hlights.html Bioremediation: The Bacteria Involved. (n.d.) Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://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 of Heavy Metal Uptake of Some Potential Plants for Phytoremediation in an Abandoned Mine Area [Abstract]. In Abstracts of Papers Presented During the 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, from http://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-Contaminated Soils. 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. In Environmental 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 Studies Volume 11. August 2007. Retrieved 07 March 2009, from http://clu-in.org/

download/frtr/volume11.pdf Godhantaraman, N. Status of Bioremediation Approaches and Its Future Prospects. 1 March 2008. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from http://www.envismadrasuniv.org/ nl20008%20articles%20status.html Malaysian Biotechnology Information Centre (MABIC). Bioremediation: Nature's Way to 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. In Environmental Biotechnology. 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 Hazardous Waste Sites. February 2001. Retrieved 07 March 2009, from http://clu-in.org/download/remed/epa_540_s01_500.pdf Pampolina, N.M., Aggangan, N.S., Cadiz N. M., & Raymundo, A.K. (2006). Assessment of Mycorrhizal Diversity in Abandoned Mine Sites in Toledo, Cebu for Bioremediation [Abstract]. In Abstracts of Papers Presented During the 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.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 [PDF Document].(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 March 2009, from http://water.usgs.gov/wrri/04grants/2004OH10B.html Shuman, John, Schultz, Bradley R., & Oakes, Timothy. Review of Physical and Chemical Remediation Techniques for Hydrogen Sulfide Abatement in a Bottom Withdrawal Hydropower Reservoir [PDF Document].(n.d.). Retrieved 07 March 2009, from http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/04jun-wots/shuman.pdf Siringan, Maria Auxilia T. Bioremediation-UP Manila NatSci4. 11 Mar. 2009.

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

APPENDIX Dr. Marilyn Brown February 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 experimental stage pa rin, nagreresearch pa rin at naghahanap pa rin sila niyong yiyong pinakamagandang strain. G: So as of now po, walang ano po, walang a, parang walang strain sila na kinoconsider na 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 at organism. Ang mga dangerous sites natin ay di pwedeng tubuan ng plants, kiyong walang Mycorrhiza parang ganun. Sa ibang ah bansa halimbawa sa Australia or sa US, narerehabilitate lang nila iyong mga basta iyong mga wala nang tanim using iyong Mycorrhiza pa rin iyong plant na may Mycorrhiza. Dalawa iyong hinahanap ngayon e iyong plant saka, iyong ang Mycorrhiza kasi fyungi e, saka yung fyungi. Iyong right combinations iyong hinahanap nila para effective dun sa ano. G: Pero maam pano ba iyong process iyong parang pano narerestore nyung fyungi iyong good condition ng soil? B: Una kasi dapat tutubo iyong halaman tapos iyong fyungi ang mag-iincrease ng mga nutrients, 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 may hazardous waste. Dapat sana iyong mga taxes na iyon para i-maintain iyong lugar na iyon diba. E hindi naman nakalagay dun sa taxes. Tapos walang NGO at kyung mayroon man iyon lang iyong mga nagrarally e wala naman silang pera diba. Pero iyon lang ang alam ko ha, pero kasi marami pang NGO na nagkalat diyan. G: Pero sa Philippines, ilan po kayong nagreresearch..? B: Sa bioremediation? G: Opo.

B: Napakaliit na grupo lang e. Mga maliliit kasi na mga projects e iyan. Kasi ano nagumpisa lang naman iyang sa UP e. Sa UP Manila wala pa rin e pero sa UP Diliman at UPLB 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. Mycorrhiza lang ang sinasabi ko ha? Para marehabilitate yung mga coal mine, abandoned mines ganyan. E dito wala pa, pinipilit pa rin naming makapasok. G: Tingin niyo po if ever iaapply ang Mycorrhiza sa abandoned mines natin mga anong year 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 saka budget 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 pag halimbawa kayo kyung medyo may alam kayo pero siyempre pagkagraduate niyo syempre di niyo na matutuloy. So ilelecture na naman sa panibagong mga bata tapos ganoon din. Wala naman agency na nagsusupport e. DENR humihingi kami ng pera wala rin, para pangrehab sana. May mga mining act at pera pangrehabilitate pero ang ginagawa ibinibigay lang sa mga taong naapektuhan halimbawa itong barangay may perang nakaallocate. G: Parang compensation po.. B: Oo compensation lang hindi inaallocate din para sa education at development nyung technology. G: On another aspect naman po, gaano mo kaeeffective iyong paggamit ng Mycorrhiza pang rehabilitate? B: Iyon lang ang paraan eh, Mycorrhiza is indispensable for rehabilitation of areas iyong affected by iyon, hazardous wastes. G: May idea po ba kayo kyung parang ilang percent iyong kaya niyang iremove na waste? B: Hindi naman nireremove kaagad e, ang bioremediation kasi ginagawa para magkaroon ng halaman. Pero o pag once andun iyong halaman diba iyon ang napakaefficient for restoration e.

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 halaman babalik naman sa lupa e. E halimbawa magtatanim ka sa sinasabi kong mine sites, iba na iyong ecophysiological activities doon. Marami ng microorganisms ganon, so nagkatransformation na. Kasi pag maraming mikrobyo, mas madaling matanggal iyong mga toxic waste, so parang sila lang [mycorrhiza]iyong nagiinitiate magmaintain ng maraming microbes at diversity. G: ...Comparing phyto and bacteria po, uhm, bakit po mas widely used iyong bacteria sa bioremediation 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 ay magandang pangrehabilitate, for revegetation. Iyong mga bacteria kasi, iyong mga transformations niyan yung direct na makikita mo. So syempre mas malaki ang impact ng fyungi in a sense pero mas matagal makita iyong effect saka magmamanifest naman sa lupa 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 kayo ng 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 sa planning and paggawa pa lang po ng design ng project na iimplement? Dun pa po pa lang tayo sa testing and lab? B: Oo. Yyung nanghahanap pa lang tayo ng para sa Philippines na parang strain kasi sa ibang bansa o kaya pag once na makakuha ka na ng data na ano, baseline data, di na masyado 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 bioremediation iyon lang naman mga 2 years ago lang naman nagbigay ng support ganun. Sa experiment saka laboratory ganun.

G: Pero maam sa tingin niyo kunwari yung mga taga-DENR, alam ba nila na may bioremediation 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 sites para sa jatropha. Wala wala talagang direct na ano, saka mas nakikita nila iyong mga projects na may makukuha ang mga tao ganun, politika ganun. G: Personally po maam, meron po ba kayong ongoing na project about phytoremediation? B: Incorporated lang e, kunwari maghahanap kami ng areas na pangit para matamnan ng jatropha, kasi pera ng jatropha iyon eh, pero parang bioremediation na rin iyon kasi using Mycorrhiza pwede mong matamnan iyong mga ganun. Kasi pag ang proposal mo diretsong 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 may Mycorrhiza ka nga pero malamig naman tapos mataas na iyong lead at cadmium, hindi rin magiging efficient ang rehabilitation. Kaya dapat makahanap ka ng tolerant at resistant na ano, parang strain. May tanong pa kayo? G: Wala na maam, thank you po.

Dr. Lorele Trinidad February 25, 2009 G: May biorem project po ba tayo currently? T: This deals with ano applying biorem dito sa yyung tannery natin, yyung chromium kasi affects tannery and wastewater tapos ahm...we are trying to address itong sources ng pollution sa MMO, Marilao-Meycauayan-Obando river. So aim natin with this rivers is to stop itong point sources. So kapag ginamit ay chemical approach, it can generate a lot of sludge, 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 mas mura, yyung mas applicable, saka syempre kyung ano talaga yyung nakakalinis. So I am not saying na bioremediation talaga iyong solution kasi inaaral pa rin namin, pero ang nakikita namin is wala siyang masyadong nagegenerate na sludge kapag biorem. Which is yyung secondary problem sa chemical remediation mahal kasi they are using chemical precipitation 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-reducing bacteria para magegenerate ng Hydrogen sulfide which is yyung nagpeprecipitate ng copper. So this would converted would be converted to simpler forms. So since soluble yung chromium, pag pumasok siya sa water system, makakasama sa atin. So we are addressing the chromium six and the copper. Sa iba, dati naman kasi naming ginawa ay sa mining, kasi sa mining, it makes available the metals na dati ahmm nakatrap so once na nagmina, iexpose mo, tapos marami kang mikrobyo then you generate ng acid, so iyong rivers bumubula mga ganun. Another approach din doon is _______, pero kyung nakakalat na, phytorem na yung tinitingnan. Phytoremediation is using the plants para i ano yung mga metals. Ang question kasi is what do you with the plant? Kaya hindi masyadong hindi applicable iyong water lilies sa Pasig River. That just reduces the volume of the waste, ngayon pag kinuha mo na yung water lily, may biomass ka na, so what do you do with the biomass? Definitely ang solution doon is iincinerate mo, so magpproduce ka ng polusyon, e bawal iyon sa Clean Air Act. So hindi applicable iyong phytorem 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 readily accessible ang problema kasi kakalat siya so meron din sa dahon. So kyung nasa dahon siya 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 thats one 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 sinasabi namin, kyung alam mo iyong system, alam mo icontrol, kasi hindi mo naman isspread iyong mikrobyo e. So ayun, there are other options na ginagamit, marami sa abroad ano pero ang problema kyung biological system or mikrobyo, pag inimport natin iyong ganyung technology, hindi ganun sinusuportahan ng tao. For example iyong GMO, hindi pa ganun kawelcome dito sa Philippines iyong pagspread ng GMO. Sa States kasi kita naman na ok lang siya. So ayun we have to deal with the conditions here in the Philippines 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 or indigenous microorganisms kasi we cannot introducing foreign. So what we are trying to

analyze is kyung paano, how we can harness them kasi nandun na naman siya e, gamitin mo na siya over dun sa iba. So what we are saying is applicable siya sa Pilipinas kasi more cost-effective andyan na kasi siya e mura lang tapos mapapatubo mo siya using raw materials saka waste materials which is available sa Pilipinas. So we are trying to develop biorem 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 pipiliin ng tao. Ang kabutihan nito is you give them options. Kasi dati ang gagawin lang ng regulatory 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 makatuloy ng 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 not registered kasi alam nila polluters sila pero wala naman silang magawa. So pano nila ittreat, e ang mahal mahal ng waste treatment facilities. Ang tannery kasi more or less meron sila association, so malalaki yyung operations nila. So iyong president doon, yyung ang kapartner natin dito sa project, kaya niya magpagawa ng waste treatment na 1.5 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 lang nila, magbabayad na lang sila ng fine kasi mas mura sa treatment plant. Kolekta lang sila ng kolekta ng funds pero syempre talo pa rin tayo. So now we are trying to come up with solutions, eto iyong mga options niyo, chemical remediation tapos ganito iyong cost and treatment, pag biorem naman ganito iyong cost and treatment. So its your choice. So we are working with DENR, and bale DOST project ito. So if we finish this project, kasi first phase 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 to them. So kyung hindi sila bibigyan ng options, sa araw hindi sila magooperate, pero sa gabi, dun sila nagtatapon ng waste parang ganun. Saka kyung mapapakita mo na you're compliant, pumapasa naman yyung wastewater mo sa standards, then happy lahat tapos yyung mga tauhan hindi pa palagi ninenerbyos na may darating raid raid ganyan. So we are 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 nangako daw si GMA na tutulyungan daw sila saka syempre nakalista na tayo sa top 30, dirty thirty. 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 or support? T: Ahm yyung umalma kasi dun yyung mga mayors and mga governors ganun, so pag nagbibigay ang government, parang direkta sa kanila yun para to put up facilities para maayos yyung condition. So so far ganun. So sila na na yyung magpapatakbo nun.

Ganun, yyung policies kasi ganun eh. So they're looking for options, while the LGUs naman looking for solutions dun sa implementation ganun or pag may mga questions para they look after one another. Pag naayos naman yung mga industrial waste nila, sila naman mismo nagdedemand, ano ba gagawin nila dun sa mga waste metals nila ngayon DOST is also coming to the picture para magprovide ng possible solutions kyung pano nila ittreat. Saka ano, pag naayos naman yyung situation, marami naman sila makukuhang savings eh pag hiniwalay nila kunwari chrome kasi diba ang daming wastewater, so yyung water narerecycle, and then kyung may biogas generator sila, the biogas generated can be used to subsidize electrical needs nila for the heaters nila. So basically 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 na naman magooperate saka maggegenerate ng waste, so dudumi na naman, babaha, magiging itim na yyung rivers ultimo yyung water lilies namamatay sa taas ng concentration ng lead, sa taas ng cadmium, sa taas ng chromium. Along with high concentrations 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 saka kinocompare talaga sa all possible methods. Saka tinitingnan din nila yyung percent ng marerecover nila, kunwari may gold or silver, ganun kasi sayang yyung mga ganun, so tinitingnan nila yyung system na magaallow para marecover siya na hindi ka gumagamit ng cyanide, mercury. So if we give them alternatives, sila naman din yyung willing to change. So yyung biorem natin is not yet widely considered kasi ang practice pa rin kasi ng mga industries natin ay chemical remediation or babayad lang ng fine, walang treatment. So kyung maencourage natin sila, na it's a win win situation pag gumamit sila ng biorem tapos makakagenerate pa sila ng high value products, much better talaga. Saka dapat ang relationship namin saka yyung industries parang partners, hindi parang agency na nagcocondemn. Kasi parang ang dating pag DENR mga brusko ganun, ay wala di na sila makikipagcoordinate. Minsan pa nga mga estudyante pa pinapunta namin para magsurvey ganun, haha para mapinpoint namin sino yyung mga nagrerelease ng maraming waste. Ayaw kasi nila aminin minsan eh. Tapos ayun humihingi kami ng sample ng wastewater to characterize, kasi hindi nila alam saka mahal kaya magpaanalyze. Pag DENR naman kumuha nun, may bayad pa may fine pa, tapos kadalasan 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 ng samples samin for analysis, sasabihin namin yyung percentage ng ganun, saka kyung pano marerecover yyung ibang metals ganun. Ang nangyayari na lang ngayon is parang namomonitor namin yyung level ng contamination sa kanila ayun sasabihin namin kunwari 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-hand coordination between the LGUs, regional offices nila, kasi narerealize din nila na ay oo nga ang daming nagkasakit dati dahil dito saka medyo aware naman sila sa situation eh.

G: So ayun ma'am, if the project pulls through, kailan niyo po ineexpect na makakacome up 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 mahaba yyung stretch ng Meycauayan river e. Pero we expect to come up with the data needed by the end of this year. G: _______ ? T: So ngayon nasa ordinance nakasalang sa city nila, na imomonitor iyong wastes ng mga industries na dapat may compliance, na dapat mayroong facilities, ngayon mineemeeting na sila.it was agreed upon na ganito na ang gagawin natin, now with a given 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 ngayon sa budget ng pork barrel nila na ito iyong concern ng Bulacan na talagang kasama sa ___________you should address that iadress, otherwise hindi tayo makakapagexport ng balat sa E.U. Ang gaganda ng leather nila doon pero di sila makapagexport dahil tinatanong 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 na natin ipagmalaki ang bulacan bilang Leather Capital of the Philippines, di katulad ngayon na tinatago nila. Sa ngayon kasi andoon lahat ng pagawaan ng paputok iyong mga pyrotechnicians yung mga kulay doon lahat heavy metals iyo.Iyong sa mga paggawa ng mga jewlery. Lahat ng piggery ng poultry sa river lahat napupunta yung mga wastes noon. 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 mga authorities..? T: Ang mga next na lugar ay diba sa Zambales, biglang pumala ang ilog,Parakales kasi normally mining area,ayon nagrereklamo sila, so kapag ganun mayroon nang nagkakasa namamatay plus sa Marinduque din. Iyong will power ng tao, para gumalaw yung kanilang LGU iyon talaga.Kyung di gagalaw, walang magrereklamo kapag ganoon, sinong magcleclean up.Kaya kailangan in place iyong mga ordinansa, iyong will power ng DENR.may batas naman eh,clean water act, clean air act.May batas kaya lamang walang ngipin kasi kapag sila nalagyan, o sige na nga tuloy ang operasyon non.Mayroon kasi every year na compliance certificate na piipirmahan para ievaluate, pero dahil walang alternative, eh lagayan na lang sila.Sino ang yayaman eh di iyong mga nasa DENR.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 kyung kaninong bulsa iyon at san nagagamit iyon.Para lang siguro di mapress release ang mga

congressman.Pero kyung iyong mga tao eh aware sila kasi iyon ang nangyayari eh, kaso hindi eh, kyung ang community eh aware, eh sana di nila magagawa iyon diba. So iyong community dapat siya ang nagpopolice doon sa mga industries.Unang-una nga dapat may zoning diba, hiwalay ang residential sa Industrial pero iyon na nga, andun na. Ang isang magandang maaring mangyari doon is, mababantayan nila, sila iyong magrereport hindi wala silang pakialam.sila iyong magrereform sa community. Doon sa ating mga barangay para makita kyung sino iyong nagtatapon. T: So its going to be not an easy task pero possible. Hindi kailangang______________.So Siguro kyung marami sabay-sabay mag-iisip ng biorem measures baka magiging popular, feeling kasi nila kapag biorem.Oops mikrobyo iyan.Pero kaya natin siyang idevelop pero dapat local knowledge knowledge..And dapat may puso ka talaga. T: Yung mga greenpeace iyong mga masyadong environmentally ano sila, pero minsan masyadong 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 para madocument, kyung sisirain lang eh di di na madocument.Kyung sisirain niyo, eh pano tayo makakaangat we have to develop our own not necessarily GMO pero kyung ano iyong makakapantay sa performance nila.Kyung sisirain nila ng sisirain eh ano pang magagawa natin. T: Kasi ganoon iyong dating na masyadong emotional yung mga greenpeace and NGOs masyadong emotional, without understanding what the technicals are basta ayaw nila totally. 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 ano pa magagawa natin.Kaya dapat sinusuri niyo hindi iyong nakikinig lang kayo.Minsan ang mga 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. Kapag sinabing 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 iyong ibig sabihin ng room temp nila kasi di pareho ang condition. Mayroong technology na pwedeng nagwowork sa kanila pero di magwowork sa atin.Kaya kailangan na idocument iyong 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 ng Bioremediation Research team ng Philippines. Academician siya supposedly,.So were looking at toxic hazardous waste problems to do biorem. Kaya nakita niyo Biorem Research Team kasama din namin iyong head ng Chem Eng iyon tapos forestry din. So iyong sinasabi kong sa phytorem sila iyon. And then we have three members from Diliman so medyo malawak iyon. Ten members kami lahat. Meron din sa Limalwal, sa Iligan, maraming mga nakafield mga 10,000 na nasa dagat parang i-watch. G: So far Maam medyo progressive naman iyon diba..?

T: In a way improving. Slowly nakakasabay naman ,pero iyong malakaing factories hindi pa rin. G: Paano po? T: Konti pa lang kasi ang nadedevelop so we have to send a proposal to DOST. Ok na kapag 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 , anu yan?, 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 tayo makontento sa chemical remediation na lang baka may ibang pwedeng i ano diyan. Di kailangan 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 pero mas 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 sila ng freedom to choose. Hindi iyong impose ka na lang ng impose. Basically, Maraming madodownload na lang sa internet. Maraming technology na binebenta nga eh. Pero its going 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 may solusyon. Its not going to be just one solution, Parang ganito lang iyan hanap ka ng alternative. Marami iyan eh. Doon lumalabas yung creative thinking sa need .Iyon ang talent ng Pinoy. Ano iyong pinakamaganda, ganoon iyon dahil kailangan natin. Tutulong kami, as always. G: So ayun mam, yun lang po. Thank you po.

Dr. Maria Auxilia T. Siringan March 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 particular environment. As in the case of the Solar oil spill in Guimaras, the scientific community would make an initiative to prevent further destruction and will evaluate the extent of contamination. Scientists will try to look for possible environment-friendly remediation approach. They are more cautious with regards to application of bioremediation material or methods particularly if you will introduce chemicals and microbial inoculants perceived to remove or reduce the contaminants. S: In the Philippines, the Coast Guard is the major government group designated to address 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 be addressing the pollution problem. In the Solar oil spill, they used a chemical to remove the oil in the mangrove plants without assessing if such chemical is harmful or not to the plants and animals in the area . Without proper assessment, any mitigating approach may produce more damage. In the US, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) takes a lead role in coordinating the implementation of policies, plans and programs that were designed, evaluated and monitored by experts and scientists. Since US EPA employs competent scientists who do research and monitoring work pertinent to environmental pollution, the government leads in finding remedy and solution to the environmental problem. The military does not take a lead role nor it is given the authority to mitigate pollution. It is tapped in cases where manpower is very much needed. Q: What methods other than bioremediation do they apply? S: It depends on the nature of the environmental problem. In most oil pollution, there are physical and chemical methods. In physical methods, you need to remove as much of the pollutant in the affected site. You are actually taking the pollutant out of the site. You cannot apply a microbial bioremediation agent when you have tons and tons of pollutants as high levels are toxic also to the microbial agent. There is a certain capability the microbial agent(s) can do. I think there are also chemical processes involved in remediating 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 the pollutant, extent of pollution, the nature of the contaminated site, the bioremediation agent(s) and process.

Q: What factors affect bioremediation? S: Temperature, nutrient levels particularly N and P levels, substrate where the contamination occurred (soil, sea, freshwater, mangrove area), Q: What are the processes involved? S: There are aerobic and anaerobic processes. Both are mediated mostly by microorganisms. These processes occur because of the degradative enzymes expressed by the microbial agent. The contaminant becomes the source of food and energy of the microbes. When the contaminant is broken down by the enzymes of the microbes, respiration takes place, yielding energy and ultimately CO2. You have key enzymes to degrade the polymers of the contaminant. In HC-degradation, the major enzymes are mono- and di-oxygenases. Oxidation is a major process in the degradation. With anaerobic process, the contaminant is utilized by microbes through their anaerobic respiration. This yields energy and some by-products can be utilized by aerobes. In some approaches, aerobic and anaerobic processes sequentially take place until the contaminant is oxidized to a less toxic form or completely mineralized to CO2. Q: Does the Philippines have the microorganisms needed? S: Definitely. The microorganisms are likely to be found in areas which have been previously exposed to oil. For e. g. in Guimaras, the environment has been subjected to oil contamination since you have motor boats there. Since the oil is food for the microorganisms, its presence stimulate the microbes to multiply and perform metabolic activities that contribute to the degradation of the oil contaminant. I am an advocate of biostimulation approach where you provide the nutrients needed by the indigenous microbes in an affected site. When you give them the nutrients that are limiting in levels in the site, their numbers increase as well as their degradative capabilities. You do not always 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 oil sludge. This is just an application of a technology. There were 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 you had the Solar oil spill. These were conducted by Dr. Gilda Lio-Po (SEAFDEC, Tigbauan, Iloilo) and Dr. Ressurreccion B. Sadaba (UPVisayas). DOST also announced that they have a Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain that can degrade oil. The microbe was isolated from Manila Bay. I am not sure what happened to this or if there were efforts to utilize the organism in the Solar Oil spill. There were theses done in the past. One was by the late Dr. Wilfredo L. Barraquio, UP Diliman. His MS work is on terrestrial microbes. In the late 80s Ms. Eleanor dela Cruz-Banzuela did her MS thesis on HCdegrading microorganisms in Poro Point in La Union. The most recent one was the one done by Dr. Terrence Talorete (who is now based in Tsukuba, Japan). In all these student theses, microbes were isolated and screened for their ability to degrade a particular or a

number of hydrocarbons. bioremediation.

Their data could be useful in establishing strategies for

S: In waste water treatment, bioremediation is currently being used. 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. Their strategies 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 by engineers whether they use aerobic or anaerobic processes or a combination of these processes. 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 been involved. 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 the Solar Oil spill assessment. Funding was given to UPV to assess the Solar Oil Spill which include the studies of Drs. Po and Sadaba. For two years now, they held symposia for 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 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. Bioremediation agents or process should be tested for its ability to reduce or eradicate the target pollutant based on laboratory and field experiments. Toxicity testing using biological systems should also be 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 can oversee this. If there is a collaborative effort that should be initiated by the DENR and DOST. I think the scientists should be tapped for this endeavor. No, because our government agencies have not chartered the policy and guidance which I mentioned earlier. If we have something like the US EPA which has a pool of competent scientists that can plan for a bioremediation program we can make great strides in addressing pollution of the environment. Q: How do you see the technology of bioremediation in the future locally and internationally?

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

S-ar putea să vă placă și