Evaluation of Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation To Stimulate Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5,-triazine Degradation in an Aerobic Groundwater Aquifer.

Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5,-triazine (RDX) is a toxic and mobile groundwater contaminant common to military sites. This study compared in situ RDX degradation rates following bioaugmentation with Gordonia sp. strain KTR9 (henceforth KTR9) to rates under biostimulation conditions in an RDX-contaminated aquifer in Umatilla, OR. Bioaugmentation was achieved by injecting site groundwater (6000 L) amended with KTR9 cells (10(8) cells mL(-1)) and low carbon substrate concentrations (<1 mM fructose) into site wells. Biostimulation (no added cells) was performed by injecting groundwater amended with low (<1 mM fructose) or high (>15 mM fructose) carbon substrate concentrations in an effort to stimulate aerobic or anaerobic microbial activity, respectively. Single-well push-pull tests were conducted to measure RDX degradation rates for each treatment. Average rate coefficients were 1.2 day(-1) for bioaugmentation and 0.7 day(-1) for high carbon biostimulation; rate coefficients for low carbon biostimulation were not significantly different from zero (p values ≥0.060). Our results suggest that bioaugmentation with KTR9 is a feasible strategy for in situ biodegradation of RDX and, at this site, is capable of achieving RDX concentration reductions comparable to those obtained by high carbon biostimulation while requiring ~97% less fructose. Bioaugmentation has potential to minimize substrate quantities and associated costs, as well as secondary groundwater quality impacts associated with anaerobic biostimulation processes (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, methane production) during full-scale RDX remediation.

The effect of experts on attitude change in public-facing political science: Scientific communication on term limits in the United States.

How can scientists best inform the public and change attitudes? Does the message or the messenger matter more? We test the effect of scientific expert messengers and messages in a preregistered, nationally representative survey experiment in the United States. Consistent with our hypotheses, scientists can move public attitudes in areas where knowledge is based on a non-ideological misperception to a greater extent than the same science-based message from another source. Although we focus on political science as a field and Congressional term limits in the United States as a topic area, our findings have broader implications for science communication with policymaking relevance given the persistence of misperceptions among the public across all natural and social science research fields.