## 3 Results
### Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil, Root and Shoot
It can therefore be assumed that during phytoremediation, bioaugmentation-assisted PAHs are degraded in the following order: PAH-2-ring \(\rightarrow\) PAH-3-ring \(\rightarrow\) PAH-4-ring \(\rightarrow\) PAH-5-ring \(\rightarrow\) PAH-6-ring [17; 62; 76]. Analyzing the qualitative and quantitative composition of the treated soils, it was observed that despite the higher degrees of biodegradation of the sum content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in SD-1-6 soils compared to the similarly inoculated OS-1-6 soils, the degrees of biodegradation of individual PAH groups were higher in OS-1 soils. This is influenced by the qualitative and quantitative composition of PAHs and the age of the pollutants. Considering the method of bioaugmentation-assisted phytoremediation, it can be seen that the use of fungi in the microbial consortia and the addition of \(\gamma\)-PGA positively affect the biodegradation efficiency of PAHs in soils. A summary of the concentrations of selected groups of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in DW and OS soils before and after phytoremediation studies in different inoculation systems is provided in Table 4.  
Chromatographic analyses of _Echinacea purpurea_ roots and shoots in the tested systems showed insignificant concentrations of the analyzed xenobiotics in plant tissues. As with TPH, the highest PAH concentrations were determined in plants growing in systems inoculated with microbial consortium B1 and B2 with \(\gamma\)-PGA. Slightly lower PAH values were determined in the roots and stems of _Echinacea purpurea_ taken from systems inoculated with microbial consortium only. In plants taken from non-inoculated systems and those inoculated with \(\gamma\)-PGA alone, the PAH concentrations were trace. Regardless of the system tested, higher amounts of PAHs were determined in root tissues than in shoot tissues. A summary of PAH concentrations in the roots and shoots of _Echinacea purpurea_ as a function of time and the system tested is provided in Figures 6 and 7. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Content \(\pm\) SD (mg/kg Dry Mass Soil)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Initial Soil DW**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**After 180 Days**} \\ \cline{3-7}  & & **Soil DW-1** & **Soil DW-2** & **Soil DW-3** & **Soil DW-4** & **Soil DW-5** & **Soil DW-6** \\ \hline \(\Sigma\)PAH & 17.71 & 14.85 & 12.25 & 11.204 & 10.76 & 8.95 & 14.19 \\ \(\Sigma\)two-ring PAHs & 5.985 & 4.667 & 3.309 & 2.795 & 2.646 & 2 & 4.361 \\ \(\Sigma\)three-ring PAHs & 4.815 & 3.961 & 3.216 & 2.813 & 2.825 & 1.639 & 3.763 \\ \(\Sigma\)four-ring PAHs & 5.196 & 4.655 & 4.263 & 4.16 & 3.918 & 3.502 & 4.529 \\ \(\Sigma\)five-ring PAHs & 1.278 & 1.168 & 1.087 & 1.065 & 1.017 & 0.952 & 1.143 \\ \(\Sigma\)six-ring PAHs & 0.434 & 0.4 & 0.377 & 0.37 & 0.358 & 0.34 & 0.392 \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**After 180 Days**} \\ \cline{3-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Initial Soil OS**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Soil OS-1**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Soil OS-2**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Soil OS-3**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Soil OS-4**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Soil OS-5**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Soil OS-6**} \\ \hline \(\Sigma\)PAHs & 10.3 & 8.626 & 7.51 & 7.1 & 6.92 & 6.34 & 8.43 \\ \(\Sigma\)two-ring PAHs & 0.495 & 0.335 & 0.195 & 0.153 & 0.15 & 0.129 & 0.316 \\ \(\Sigma\)three-ring PAHs & 1.325 & 0.979 & 0.728 & 0.612 & 0.639 & 0.381 & 0.938 \\ \(\Sigma\)four-ring PAHs & 5.026 & 4.275 & 3.808 & 3.704 & 3.508 & 2.468 & 4.187 \\ \(\Sigma\)five-ring PAHs & 2.322 & 2.03 & 1.85 & 1.736 & 1.727 & 1.651 & 1.995 \\ \(\Sigma\)six-ring PAHs & 1.136 & 1.008 & 0.93 & 0.898 & 0.891 & 0.859 & 0.993 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Contents of selected groups of PAHs in the studied soils (Soil DW and Soil OS) before and after treatment with phytoremediation assisted by inoculation.