Biomedical science used in the commercial, industrial and academic worlds during the twentieth

and twenty-first centuries.

Khevan Dueck
University of Texas at El Paso

Abstract
The purpose of this literature review is to analyze bioremediation, specifically the use of
renewable biomasses such as fungi, bacteria and algae to achieve bioremediation. Scholars have
conducted studies and corporations have employed the technologies. Bioremediation has been a
subject and field of study for several decades but has not been well understood until recently.
The research in the field has proven invaluable as the need for a way to save our planet becomes
more and more paramount. The focus of the paper will be on, whether or not the use of
bioremediation by means of renewable biomass has had any negative effects, how UTEP has
contributed to bioremediation and whether or not 3D printing is a technology available to
everyone. Through analyzing publications and real world news the data will provide unbiased
and true answers.

Introduction
Because of increasing global population, industrialization and new technologies, there
have been various new types of contaminants introduced into our water and an incredible need
for prosthetic limbs, organs and other biological structures. Therefore, bioremediation by means
of microorganism and other biological vectors offers a less invasive, less expensive and more
environmentally friendly alternative to traditional methods of treating wastewater and
contaminated soils, and 3-D printing offers higher quality, higher availability and lower cost for
producing prosthetics. Since the Earth can only heal itself so much and the need for organs,
tissues and limbs increases with rapid global population increase biomedical science holds a
treasure chest of solutions to the new problems faced by our generation.
It is important to take the research of others into consideration when dealing with a topic
like this. When the health of our planet, our home, Earth is what is impacted the study is not to
be taken lightly. There are a lot of people that have studied these subjects and presented
generous amounts of knowledge and information regarding it. The review of available
knowledge and building of new knowledge is a process that can be achieved academically, and
clearly through a literature review. Considering the information given by authors in the past and
interacting with it allows for an intuitive and simple format to answering questions in the field of
biomedical science.
Has the use of renewable biomass for bioremediation had any negative effects?
Biomedical science has always been a fascinating discipline of science and has been
gaining momentum in the past decades. Researchers and individuals alike have sought out
answers to several questions regarding biomedical science. One of the most notable questions is

whether or not bioremediation by means of either fungi or bacteria has had any negative effects.
According to Crushberg and Mark (2000) bioremediation can be achieved more than one way.
Though not researched to its full potential the use of microorganisms is a promising alternative to
traditional and more invasive processes. There is renewable biomass i.e. microorganisms and
physico-chemical processes i.e. hydroxide precipitation. The need to treat contaminated
wastewaters and heal the environment is becoming greater and. While at times renewable
biomass can be more expense it is more environmentally friendly and less invasive than other
means.. However, James et. al. (2000) claims, bioremediation has had many advancements but
the most exciting one by far is the use of microbes and biological barriers; it is a safe and
environmentally friendly alternative to conventional ex-situ processes in which contaminated
areas are excavated and treated through replacement of soils or addition of chemicals. It offers a
cost efficient and less invasive remedy to containing and cleaning contaminated groundwater and
wastewater as a result of industrial runoff. The environmental benefits and simplicity are nearly
limitless with research and implications to everything from contaminated groundwater to oil
spills in oceans and bodies of water.
Although there is more than one way to achieve bioremediation, it must be pointed out that
not all methods of bioremediation are not equal. The methods in Chrushberg and Marks claim
are more environmentally friendly and can be more economically efficient. However, some use
of renewable biomass can be pricey and often times requires the synthesis and replication of the
microbes in use before the target amount of microbes is achieved. Before the target amount there
will simply not be enough to be effective in bioremediation. Since the acquisition of renewable
biomass requires culturing and incubation of a specific microorganism and not just separation by
mechanical and chemical means as in physico-chemical methods there is more than one viable

method of bioremediation. While it was true that the use of microbial barriers and renewable
biomass has made astonishing advancements in the past years, it does not necessarily follow that
renewable biomass will be effective in every single instance of bioremediation since there are a
handful of known contaminants that are not digestible by fungi or other known microbes in use
of bioremediation. Today we know of so many microbes and use a number of them for
bioremediation, but not every single one is viable. Every day new strains of bacteria and fungi
evolve and the processes used in biomedical science are modified accordingly.
Even with a handful of options and methods available to use for bioremediation it is
important to consider how the availability of physico-chemical methods compares to the use of
renewable biomass. According to Maier (2000), bioremediation by means of renewable biomass
is becoming a bigger interest because of the high cost of remediation by other means. Though
there are many new biotechnologies appearing the success of them all rely on many factors like
environmental factors and the site in which they are employed. Bioavailability plays a
tremendous role in the effectiveness of bioremediation because, just like the availability of
alcohol at a party, the availability of contamination sets the supply for which the biomass to
consume and function. The degradation of the contaminant is a byproduct of the microorganism
or biomass eating to live without which there is no resulting bioremediation. However, Singh
(2006) claims, there are several types of wastewater treatment being instilled in the industry
today and the use of fungus as a means of bioremediation is just the tip of the ice berg as many
types of contaminated waste water cannot be treated with fungi for various reasons. New
technologies are being produced like enzymes, many of which make it a lot more economic to
treat wastewaters compared to traditional methods. Though replication of enzymes is required,
for wastewaters that cannot be treated with fungi alternative options must be found. Physico-

chemical alternatives exist, although physcio-chemical methods are less of an alternative more of
the mainstream treatment that the use of renewable biomass is working to replace.
Those unfamiliar with this school of thought might be interested to know that it basically
boiled down to an idea as simple as supply and demand. The idea that the level of effectiveness
is based on the amount of contamination seems somewhat confusing because one might think
that less is better. However, it is not that less contamination is better and more renewable
biomass is better but there must be a balance since the activation of the microorganisms that are
performing the tasks that result in bioremediation are triggered by the contamination and
therefore dependent on the amount available. At first glance, the idea that the use of fungi is not
flawless and alternatives such as enzymes are being used appeared to be the one truth and a
potential that could completely replace traditional physico-chemical methods. But on closer
inspection, the fact that not all types of wastewater can be treated similarly thus the rise of
enzyme treatment to pick up where fungi treatment fails are a similar pattern to the use of fungi
treatment to pick up on the downfalls of physico-chemical and ex-situ methods.
How has UTEP helped the El Paso area or any broader state in bioremediation?
UTEP was part of Washington Monthly magazines top 10 universities in 2015 and has
many great minds both going to school and researching for the university. Many of the
professors are Doctors and the quality of the education is fairly high. This sort of publicity has
attracted the want for the opinions of some of UTEPs great minds as Arleene Barrios
interviewed Dr. Russ Chianelli with regards to the BP oil spill. Dr. Chianelli states that the BP
oil spill isnt even the largest spill paling in comparison to the Amoco Cadiz spill that was around
220,000 tons whereas the BP oil spill we all know to be one of the most infamous ones was only
40,000 tons. Dr. Chianelli also brought up that naturally about 2-12 million tons of petrol seeps

from the floor of the ocean every year. This is consumed by the same organisms that were
employed in the BP oil spill. The natural hydrocarbon eating bacteria keeps the floor of the
ocean clean and serves as food for larger organisms such as plankton. Barrios claims Chianelli
and his team performed the worlds largest successful bioremediation project. That is a great
feat performed by one of UTEPs great researchers Dr. Russ Chianelli. Between the great minds
at UTEP and the UTEP Green Fund UTEP contributes a great deal to bioremediation and helping
the environment. The UTEP Green Fund raises $40,000 per year the members that decide are
appointed annually. Though Barrios is correct that Dr. Chianelli and his team performed a great
achievement with their project to clean up the BP oil spill she fails to credit explicitly the
university and perhaps his university from which he obtained his PhD. Granted this does not
discredit his achievement it is important to consider.
The Texas Land Office recognizes the ability promise of these microorganisms and mentions
that is was an extremely effective way of cleaning up the spill. Though this was not the only
method used, there were some collection of the spilled oil and burning of the oil from the top of
the water. Both the Texas Land Office and Barrios acknowledge that the technology is
spectacular Barrios did not mention that it is cheaper than any other technology available for this
task and the Texas Land Office did not credit Dr. Chianelli.
Is 3D printing a technology available to everyone?
Simply put the technology of 3D printing is not available to everyone, yet. The truth is that
3D printing is an amazing technology but it is still somewhat in its infancy. 3D printing is used
to create, expand and improve technologies and has been used for amazing things. There are
some 3D printers that can be owned by individuals but mainly it is not a technology
commercially available yet. Years back computers were not portable or very affordable and now

every university student has access to a computer either because they own one or on campus.
Goho (2004) recognizes that the use of 3-D printers to create structures layer by layer is not new
but mentions something very much worth mentioning. The invention of a new method by Jenifer
Lewis and her colleagues at the University of Illinois allows us to create structures so tiny that
they are able to compare to microscopic levels. The technique was developed by analyzing the
way spiders spin silk and has implications that range from medical to computational. The uses
are nearly limitless and the need to research it more is definitely a factor that makes it less
available. Sethi (2015) claims that 3-D printing is a new and booming technology to the field of
biomedical science. The need to print things smaller than even our own cells is emerging and
this offers a way to do such a thing. The problem with the technology is the simplicity with
printing plastic and complexity with printing living cells and or organisms. The technology is
not available to everyone and for now it should not be. For now, it is important that it is
perfected first and used for all its real and good uses before it is commercial and people can print
things at home.
Though the findings are presented in a straightforward manner the background could be
elaborated a little more and the idea that mimicking the way a spider spins silk for all things
micro or mini in 3-D printing is a little underdeveloped because spiders use proteins that solidify
outside the body and you cannot build everything with proteins. By focusing on the implications
to biomedical science that 3-D printing has and focusing on the lack of simplicity with printing
living cells it almost inhibits the thought of growing the technology and field. Studying the
ability to do things is paramount to advancing.

Primary Research

Two of the most notable and recent oil spills that have devastated the oceans of the world are
a big place to look for the results of bioremediation. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill by British
Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico back in 2005 spilled around 211 million gallons of crude oil
into the water. Clean up efforts included almost every imaginable method of clean up and that is
very helpful in analyzing the effectiveness of each. Around 25 percent of the oil in that spill,
more than 50 million gallons, was cleaned up either by burning it, skimming it or capturing it.
That is an amazing amount but it is only 25 percent as opposed to a stunning 50 percent, more
than 100 million gallons alone by means of renewable biomass. That is an amazing figure to
think that renewable biomass can achieve twice what traditional or manual methods can.
The oil spill in Santa Barbara in 2015 released around 20,000 gallons of crude oil into the
ocean. The spill is much smaller than the Deepwater Horizon spill but cleanup efforts were still
vigorous. Most of the cleanup for this smaller spill was done by hand and with the help of
thousands of volunteers. 10,000 gallons of oiled water was removed from the ocean and another
3,000 cubic yards of oiled sand, vegetation and soil. A spill of less intensity can be handled more
easily by hand however it takes a lot more work and a lot more time.
By looking at the data, results and hard facts it is clear that the use of hydrocarbon eating
bacteria is much more effective than traditional methods. Rosen (2013) claims, the uses of 3-D
printing go far beyond easy access to spare parts or prosthetic limbs. Replicating bacterial
colonies can give insight as to how they work and resist certain environmental factors such as
temperature, pH and even pharmaceuticals. Scientist have been able to trap bacteria inside
structures similar to those found in the body so they could study the actions of biofilms in
specific environments. The unlikely combination of gelatin and lasers has resulted in the
replication of faux biological structures, the purpose of which are to house bacterial colonies and

study their interaction with one another in controlled environments. The resulting research could
have incredible impact on biomedical science though a better understanding of our most
numerous enemy and ally on the planet. If 3D printing can do what Rosen claims who is to say
that it can not be used to mass produce homes for these microbes or a more efficient way to store
said microbes. Because bioremediation offers an almost utopian solution to problems faced by
our modern societies it is a technology that has began to explode in importance and related
research. The fact that it can fix the very world we live on makes it important to everyone who
breathes air or drinks water. Therefore, the need to research the technology and better
understand how it effects our lives is paramount in advancing as a society, a population, and a
species living on a single planet. Since there is an incredible amount of research going into the
field and an even greater number of aspiring minds bioremediation offers a limitless fountain of
answers and ideas to assist us in healing the Earth and providing a longer and better future for
generations to come.
Visual aid
Comparing the two spills it is easy to see that there is so much that manual cleanup can do.
It takes a lot longer and requires a lot more work. Thousands of people can clean up tens of
thousands of gallons of oil, but trillions of microscopic organisms can clean up millions of
gallons of oil quickly and effectively.

The image, graph Isolate Identity, shows the percent of degradation of oil in a percentage
over the course of a 5-day experiment using a control group and eight different oil eating
renewable biomass. Though the selection of isolates was to show detail thorough a larger
degradation it shows that renewable biomass for the purposes of oil degradation and
bioremediation is a viable and effective option. The use of renewable biomass has proven itself
to be useful and in the past decades has grown and become much more understood.

Upon a lengthier inspection, graph Days of Incubation, of the experiment it is evident that
the renewable biomass is three to four times more effective than the control group degrading up
to 95 percent of the oil in a 21-day period aside from the control which degraded about 25
percent of the sample. The results prove that the use of renewable biomass has great potential

and the use of it during the cleanup of the Deepwater Horizons oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
gives many scientists hope and drives the search to perfect this technology.

Conclusion
In conclusion there is no evidence to prove that the use of renewable biomass to achieve
bioremediation has ever had any negative effects on the environment or as a direct cause of the
method. The use of renewable biomass has proven to be a very effective, efficient, safe, and
friendly method to otherwise invasive or harsh methods of bioremediation. The search to perfect
bioremediation will continue and the answer to the question whether or not the use of renewable
biomass as a means of bioremediation has had any negative effects may change, however
unlikely. Because of the infallible data and the real world applications where the effectiveness
and promise of bioremediation can be seen it is fair to say that the effects of the technology are
all positive. Therefore, one could argue that the effects are not negative and should be
researched more since the need for revolutionary technologies that can save the planet are high.
UTEP has contributed research and even the first open sea application of the use of renewable
biomass in the form of hydrocarbon eating microbes to clean up and oil spill and it was
successful so it is now one of the primary methods to cleaning Texas oil spills. Because of the
UTEP Green Fund and the contribution to cleaning up the environment and research on methods
to achieve that UTEP has been a very impactful party to bioremediation. Therefore, UTEP is a
place of opportunity and progress to biomedical research since the open sea application of
hydrocarbon eating microbes. All things considered biomedical science has made great

improvements and 3D printing is a technology that 30 years ago seemed like a futuristic device
and though it is not available to everyone could be in the near future.

Bibliography
Monograph
Singh, H. (2006). Mycoremediation :Fungal bioremediation. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience.
Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ ecip069/2006006466.html
Valdes, J. J. (2000). Bioremediation. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Crushberg, T. C., & Mark, S. S. (2000). Heavy metal remediation of wastewaters by microbial
biotraps. In J. J. Valdes (Ed.), Bioremediation (1st ed., pp. 123) Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
James, G. A., Warwood, B. K., Hiebert, R., & Cunningham, A. B. (2000). Microbial barriers to
the spread of pollution. In J. J. Valdes (Ed.), Bioremediation (1st ed., pp. 1) Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Maier, R. M. (2000). Bioavailibility and its importance to bioremediation. In J. J. Valdes
(Ed.), Bioremediation (1st ed., pp. 59) Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scholarly Journal

Goho, A. (2004). Miniaturized 3-D printing. Science News, 165(13), 196-196. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4014762
Luthy, R. G. (1991). Bioremediation: Promises and problems. Research Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 63(2), 99-99. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25043961
Barrios, A. (2010, UTEP expert called upon to analyze oil spill. News @ UTEP,
Scholarly Database
Hales, R. L. (2015). Cleaning up the santa barbara oil spill. Retrieved 03/10, 2016,
from http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/cleaning-santa-barbara-oil-spill
Websites
Sethi, C. (2015). 3D printing blooms in biomedical. Retrieved January/26, 2016, from
https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/bioengineering/3d-printing-blooms-inbiomedical
Bioremediation oil-eating bacteria. The Texas General Land Office (Director). (2011).
[Video/DVD] Texas, USA: Texas General Land Office.
Biello, D. (2010). Meet the microbes eating the gulf oil spill. Retrieved 03/12, 2016,
from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gulf-oil-eating-microbes-slide-show/
Visual aid

Wedulo, A., Atuhaire, D. K., Ochwo, S., Muwanika, V., Rwendeire, A. J. J., & Nakavuma, J. L.
(2014). Characterization and evaluation of the efficiency of petroleum degrading
bacteria isolated from soils around the oil exploration areas in western
Uganda. Academic Journals.Org, 13(48)