Citation: Eman Koshlaf, Andrew S Ball. Soil bioremediation approaches for petroleum hydrocarbon polluted environments[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(1): 25-49. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.25
| [1] | Pontsho Patricia Twala, Alfred Mitema, Cindy Baburam, Naser Aliye Feto . Breakthroughs in the discovery and use of different peroxidase isoforms of microbial origin. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 330-349. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020020 |
| [2] | Fulya Kolsal, Zeynep Akbal, Fakhra Liaqat, Oğuzhan Gök, Delia Teresa Sponza, Rengin Eltem . Hydrocarbon degradation abilities of psychrotolerant Bacillus strains. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 467-482. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.467 |
| [3] | Temitayo O. Olowomofe, J. O. Oluyege, B.I. Aderiye, O. A. Oluwole . Degradation of poly aromatic fractions of crude oil and detection of catabolic genes in hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria isolated from Agbabu bitumen sediments in Ondo State. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(4): 308-323. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.4.308 |
| [4] | Giuseppe Maglione, Paola Zinno, Alessia Tropea, Cassamo U. Mussagy, Laurent Dufossé, Daniele Giuffrida, Alice Mondello . Microbes' role in environmental pollution and remediation: a bioeconomy focus approach. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 723-755. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024033 |
| [5] | Almaris N. Alonso . Hydrophobic nature and effects of culture conditions on biofilm formation by the cellulolytic actinomycete Thermobifida fusca. AIMS Microbiology, 2015, 1(1): 1-10. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2015.1.1 |
| [6] | Suzanne L. Ishaq . Plant-microbial interactions in agriculture and the use of farming systems to improve diversity and productivity. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 335-353. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.335 |
| [7] | Arnab Bhowmik, Mara Cloutier, Emily Ball, Mary Ann Bruns . Underexplored microbial metabolisms for enhanced nutrient recycling in agricultural soils. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 826-845. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.826 |
| [8] | Mohammad Zahangeer Alam, Malancha Dey (Roy) . The reduction of abiotic stress in food crops through climate-smart mycorrhiza-enriched biofertilizer. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 674-693. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024031 |
| [9] | Patrick Di Martino . Ways to improve biocides for metalworking fluid. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(1): 13-27. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021002 |
| [10] | Esther Menendez, Paula Garcia-Fraile . Plant probiotic bacteria: solutions to feed the world. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 502-524. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.502 |
Increasing industrialisation, continued population growth and heavy demand and reliance on petrochemical products have led to unprecedented economic growth and development. However, inevitably this dependence on fossil fuels has resulted in serious environmental issues over recent decades. Currently, petroleum production represents a major cause of ecosystem problems. World annual petroleum production is predicted to reach twelve million metric tonnes. British Petroleum [1] report that globally, oil production and consumption grew by 2.1 million barrels per day (b/d) (~2.3%) in 2014. However it has been estimated that between1.7 to 8.8 million metric tonnes of oil from natural and anthropogenic sources are released into the environment annually [2].
Due to this, the effect of petroleum hydrocarbons on the ecosystem, including their eco-toxicity and the potential implications they pose for both environmental and human health is a current area of research focus. In particular soil pollution has been and remains a severe and widespread environmental hazard attracting considerable public and scientific attention. Much of this pollution has resulted from the increased activities associated with petroleum exploration, transport and processing. In addition, the lack of waste oil recycling and the disposal of hazardous oil wastes into landfills without sufficient management has further increased the number of contaminated sites. For instance, during 2005 almost nine oil pollution incidents are reported around the world every day, in addition to an estimation of a yearly oil spill of one million tonnes into the UK terrestrial environment alone [3]. In the USA around 90% of the contaminated sites are petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils [3,4]. Crude oil is a complex mixture of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon, compounds that are frequently reported as soil pollutants [5]. Due to the mobility of petrogenic hydrocarbons together with their toxicity, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, soil contamination is considered as a major challenge for healthy environments [6]. The carcinogenic effects of particular petroleum hydrocarbons is well established with an observed increase in cancer incidences in petroleum-associated workers including skin, lung, bladder, liver and stomach cancers in addition to reproductive, neurologic and developmental effects [7,8].
There is a clear and urgent need to remediate petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated areas around the world and several traditional physio-chemical methods such as soil washing, soil vapour extraction, incineration, the use of oil booms and solidification are available for oil spills remediation. Table 1 summarises the benefits and limitations of these approaches. However, many of these approaches are disruptive, labour intensive and relatively expensive processes requiring plenty of time and resources [9]. In the USA for example, the costs of soil contaminant removal was estimated to be more than 1 trillion US dollars [3]. Furthermore, the basic costs for removal of pollutants from large-scale commercial sites costs as a minimum of $US200,000 with an additional $US 40-70 for each cubic metre of contaminated soil [10].
Since 2000, remediation strategies based on microbial degradation capabilities (bioremediation) have received extensive attention and have become a current research focus especially in terrestrial environments. Bioremediation is the use of microorganisms, mainly bacteria and fungi, or plants to utilise and break down environmental contaminants such as petroleum into less harmful substances. These techniques have a number of key advantages over traditional technologies including the fact that they are simple to implement, environmentally friendly, applicable over large areas, cost-effective and can lead to the complete destruction of different contaminants [11]. However like all technologies there are some limitations associated with this technology. These include the extended treatment time, low predictabilityand dependence on environmental factors.
| Remediation strategy | Example of method | Treating site | Cost (US $/m3) a | Benefits | Limitations |
| Physical | Vapour extraction | Ex situ | 405-1,485 | -Fast -Permanentremoval of pollutants -Ideal for high levels of pollution |
-Costly -Destructive -Prone to secondary pollution |
| Chemical | Thermal desorption | Ex situ | 80-440 | -Fast -Dose not generatelarge volumes of waste material -Ideal for high level of contamination |
-Costly -Destructive -Prone to secondary pollution |
| Biological | Biostimulation | In situ | 30-100 | -Environmentally friendly -Cost effective -Minimum site disruption -Useful for low level of pollutants |
-Require longer time -Low predictability -Reliant on environmental factors |
DownLoad: CSVFrom a chemical point of view, the term crude oil is strictly ascribed to a complex mixture of organic compounds comprising predominantly hydrogen and carbon atoms, but also containing smaller quantities of nitrogen, oxygen, sulphur along with traces of metallic constituents [12,13]. High-resolution Gas Chromatography (GC) equipped with flame-ionization detection (FID) and capillary GC-Mass Spectrometry (MS) are the most important and most commonly employed techniques for oil compounds separation, characterization and identification [14]. More than seventeen thousand distinct chemical compounds in crude oil have been identified, making it perhaps the most complicated natural mixture of organic components [15]. Petrogenic hydrocarbons can be divided into four fractions: the aliphatic fraction (saturates), the aromatic fraction, the asphaltene fraction (phenols, fatty acids, ketones, esters and porphyrins), and the resins (pyridines, quinolines, carbazoles, sulfoxides, and amides) (Figure 1) [15]. A description of each of these groups follows.
Figure 1. The various fractions of hydrocarbons that comprise crude oil.Aliphatic hydrocarbons represent the major component of crude oil and petroleum products Petroleum contamination in the US is dominated by diesel in which aliphatic hydrocarbons represent up to 90% by volume of the petroleum products [3]. According to their chemical structure, saturates are classified into groups including alkanes (paraffins) and cycloalkanes (naphthenes). Unlike aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons are methane derivatives, which are both non-aromatic and non-cyclic organic compounds, containing both saturated and unsaturated linear or branched open-chain structures [3]. In an oil spill short chain aliphatic alkanes generally volatilise rapidly from the parent oil. However these compounds may also spread over solid and water surfaces, entering muddy or sandy sediments where they may remain exerting a toxic impact on the ecosystem [16,17]. Aliphatic hydrocarbons with larger chain lengths (C20-C40) are more persistent in the soil, not readily volatilised and difficult to degrade because of their low water solubility, biological availability and structure [3].
Aromatic fractions of organic compounds are classified by the presence of two to six aromatic rings (e.g. fused benzene ring) with or without alkyl substituents arranged in linear, cluster or angular configurations within their structure [18]. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are of major concern to both public and environmental health due to their acute toxicity, as well as their mutagenic and carcinogenic properties [19]. These compounds are end products of crude oil processing; they comprise on average approximately 26-30% of oil constituents [19]. PAHs are the major components of creosote, (a complex mixture of about 200 compounds, including phenolic and heterocyclic contaminants) [19]. Physical-chemical characteristics of such compounds differ with their molecular weight and number of benzene rings. The distribution of PAHs through air, soil, and water and their fate, transport and impacts on the ecosystem are dependent on their physicochemical properties. Those compounds with a high molecular weight have low, chemical reactivity, solubility in water and volatility; however, they are highly carcinogenic [20]. PAHs display a number of common features including sensitivity to light, and heat and corrosion resistance [21]. PAHs, especially those with increased complexity and molecular weight are toxic and persistent compounds. They are generally considered to be of long term environmental significance. PAHs are relatively recalcitrant in soil, having high hydrophobicity making them increasingly difficult to be degraded [14,22]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) has listed sixteen PAH compounds as priority pollutants (Figure 2). Some of these compounds are considered to be carcinogenic; hence significant attention has been paid to limit their distribution in the environment and the degradation of these pollutants.
Figure 2. Structures and nomenclatures of the 16 PAHs on the US EPA priority pollutant list.The properties of asphaltenes (phenols, fatty acids, ketones, esters and porphyrins) and resins (pyridines, quinolines, carbazoles, sulfoxides, and amides) have an impact on the behaviour of crude oil during production and refining. They constitute almost 10% of crude oil composition [23,24]. Asphaltenes and resins have complex structures consisting of more polar compounds. They contain nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur along with carbon (Figure 3) [25,26]. Asphaltenes are not crystallized and are unstable compounds which form a separate non aqueous layer [24]. Due to their structural similarity and composition (generally polar, polynuclear molecules composed of aromatic rings, aliphatic side chains and a few heteroatoms), resins has been considered to display a strong affinity to asphaltenes [26]. Resins and asphaltenes are generally considered as being resistant to microbial attack.
Figure 3. Typical molecular structures of (a) resins and (b) asphaltenes.Once petroleum hydrocarbons reach an environment, primary biological damage occurs by blocking the supply of water, nutrients, oxygen and light, affecting soil fertility, plant growth and germination [12,27]. PAHs in the environment are mainly found in soil and sediment at various concentrations causing significant environmental damage [28]. After they mix with water, PAHs tend to seep into the ground, where they persist, reducing the quality and productivity of the soil making it unsuitable for cultivation and investment [29]. PAHs are poisonous at low concentrations and they can be carcinogenic or mutagenic to wildlife and humans. Uptake of such recalcitrant chemicals from contaminated soil may occur through ingestion, inhalation or dermal exposure to contaminated soil or dust. Since petrogenic hydrocarbons persist in the ecosystem for long periods of time, they can accumulate in animals and plant tissue, passing from one to the next through the food chain causing death or genetic mutations in animals and humans [30]. Frequent exposure to sub-lethal doses of these compounds can cause several physiological impairments, leading to a number of health impacts including liver damage, haemolytic anaemia, weight loss, gastrointestinal deterioration, impaired immune system and reduced productivity [31]. The presence of aliphatic hydrocarbons can also adversely affect soil microflora and structure producing oil films and slicks and limiting the interchange of oxygen and nutrient in the soil [32,33]. Aliphatic hydrocarbons may also affect the nervous system, causing dizziness, headaches, fatigue and limb numbness, tremors, temporary limb paralysis and unconsciousness at high concentrations [34].
Considering the nature and extent of hydrocarbon pollution in soils and in order to predict how successful oil remediation approaches will be, understanding the fate and behaviour of such contaminants in the environment is vital. During an oil spill, weathering occurs and the oil is subjected to a variety of physicochemical processes [35]. These processes can alter the composition and properties of the oil affecting the degree of hydrocarbon degradation, sequestration and interaction with soil microbes. The fate and spread of these compounds on the subsurface dependson the viscosity and quantity of the oil. In the terrestrial environment, the fate of petroleum hydrocarbons is influenced by (a) the composition and physical properties of the soil such as particle size, porosity, organic matter content, permeability and surface area and (b), the physical and chemical properties and composition of petroleum products including air diffusion coefficient, solubility in water and boiling point [36]. The biodegradability of petroleum hydrocarbons can also be affected by the concentration and bioavailability of the contaminants. Hydrocarbon bioavailability refers to the fraction of contaminants that can be utilized or transformed by the soil microbial community. Sorption is also an important factor influencing the complete degradation of organic pollutants in the soil. Reduced sorption of the hydrocarbon fraction increases resistance to desorption resulting in increased persistence within the soil organic matrix. In contaminated soil, two hydrocarbon fractions should be considered when choosing bioremediation treatment: firstly the irreversibly adsorbed hydrocarbons; this fraction is not bioavailable and considered to be non-biodegradable. The second portion is the bioavailable fraction which is able to desorb and diffuse in the solid particles as a water soluble fraction [37]. Petroleum hydrocarbons can be fractionated and sequestered within the soil via sorption to organic matter or diffuse into the three-dimensional structure of the organic matter. Figure 4 summarizes these interactions [3,38]. Following the initial oil spill thephysical interactions become more complicated; this known as aged contamination [38].
The biodegradable fraction of organic pollutants in soils is the fraction that is easily desorbed to or from the soil particles and exist in the aqueous phase. It is well established that as the interaction between soil particles and pollutants increase, there will be a proportional reduction in contaminant extraction and biodegradation [39]. Hydrocarbon fractions that are more tightly sorbed onto soil organic matter are more recalcitrant and resistant to degradation compared to volatile or soluble hydrocarbons. This is a very important consideration when designing or applying a strategy for the degradation of contaminated soils as petrogenic hydrocarbons tend to strongly adsorb to the soil [40].
Microorganisms have the ability to metabolize many organic contaminants, using them as an energy source or converting them to non-toxic products (carbon dioxide, water and biomass). Different microbial electron acceptors such as oxygen, nitrate, manganese, iron and sulphate can be involved in the biotransformation of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. Microorganisms can activate and oxidize hydrocarbon compounds. The addition of one or two hydroxyl groups to the hydrocarbon skeleton represents the first step in the aerobic catabolism of hydrocarbons. During hydrocarbon degradation, activation is achieved through different enzymes, for example by the introduction of molecular oxygen to the substrate (catalysed by oxygenases), the addition of two hydroxyl groups (catalysed by dioxygenases) or the addition of one atom of oxygen into the hydrocarbon (catalysed by monooxygenases) [41].Activation is accomplished through two different mechanisms; aerobically, oxygen is used as an electronic accepter and anaerobically catabolism occurs at slower rates compared with aerobic microbial degradation [42].
Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds is carried out by a range of microbial groups capable of degrading a wide range of target constituents present in oil contaminated environments. A biodegradation pathway is a gradual transformation of organic contaminants into intermediates of the central intermediary metabolism. For example, in the case of aliphatic hydrocarbons (n- alkanes), microorganisms utilise soluble or integral-membrane non-haem iron monooxygenases; these enzymes, alkane hydroxylases (e.g. AlkB) hydroxylate the substrate [41]. Essentially, the aerobic degradation of alkanes is usually initiated with an oxidization of the terminal methyl group producing a primary alcohol. This product is further oxidised by alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases to form the corresponding aldehyde. The resulting product is finally converted to fatty acid via oxidation. Fatty acid couples with CoA and is then channeled into the β-oxidation pathway in the form of acetyl-CoA (Figure 5). Long-chain alkanes are degraded via terminal as well as sub-terminal oxidation [43]. In the case of sub-terminal oxidation the generated secondary alcohols are transformed to the corresponding ketone and this is converted to an ester through an oxidation step via a Baeyer-Villiger monooxygenase, and then hydrolysed with an esterase to generate an alcohol and a fatty acid (Figure 6).
Figure 5. The main n-alkanes degradation pathways (terminal and subterminal oxidation). Redrawn from [48].Hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms such as Pseudomonas, Rhodococcus, Sphingobium and Sphingomonas spp. are ubiquitous in the ecosystem. These microbes are capable of degrading aromatic hydrocarbons; the catabolism process commences with an oxidation step of one of the aromatic rings and the structured fracture of the substrate to PAH metabolites and CO2. Fundamentally, the reaction is catalyzed by aromatic hydrocarbon ring hydroxylating enzymes (ARHDs) and form cis-dihydrodiols. The dihydrodiols are then oxidized via a dehydrogenase reaction to produce PAH dihydroxy derivatives which are further exposed to the action of ring cleaving dioxygenases. The action of aromatic ring cleavage is accompanied by integration of a pair of oxygen atoms into the dihydroxy derivative molecule. Dihydroxylated intermediates may then be cleaved through either an intradiol manner (ortho) cleavage pathway, or through the intradiol ring (meta) cleavage pathway, with the formation of catechols and subsequently metabolised to carbon dioxide and water through the TCA (tricarboxylic acid cycle) cycle [40] (Figure 6). A small number of bacteria oxidise PAHs via the cytochrome P450 monooxygenase, resulting in the production of trans-dihydrodiols [44]. There is only broad specificity between PAH degradation and the catalyzed enzymes (ARHDs). Some key factors play a fundamental role in the specificity of PAH transformation by bacteria. In particular the activity of an ARHD is dependent on the specific PAH. The bacterial metabolic pathways for PAH degradation are well documented in the literature [45,46]. Additionally, several fungi, capable of metabolizing PAH contaminants have been identified. During the fungal mineralization of PAH two different metabolic pathways are involved. Non-ligninolytic fungi deal with PAHs using the cytochrome P450 monooxygenase pathway, where PAHs are oxidised to arene oxides (the primary products of PAH metabolism) via the incorporation of a single oxygen atom into the ring of the substrate [47]. In contrast, white-rot fungi (a ligninolytic fungus), mineralize PAHs using a soluble extracellular ligninolytic enzyme such as manganese peroxidase, laccases and lignin peroxidase (Figure 6).
Since lignin contains a selection of aromatic compounds, these enzymes participate in the oxidation of lignin as well as different organic complexes [49]. Some fungi can produce more than one enzyme: for example, non-ligninolytic and ligninolytic enzymes can be produced by numerous ligninolytic fungi (e.g. Pleurotus ostreatus and Phanerochaete chrysosporium) [47]. Principally, the aerobic degradation of aromatic hydrocarbons by bacteria and fungi is accomplished through three different pathways (Figure 6).
Hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms are the main agents of the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons, owing to their associated metabolic capabilities (Table 2). Reviews on the degradation of petrogenic hydrocarbons have confirmed that numerous microbes (mainly bacteria and fungi) are capable of the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons, utilising them as the sole carbon source for metabolism and energy. Bacteria are the most active petroleum degrading agents; they work as primary degraders ofa wide range of target constituents present in soil, water and sludge [50]. Organisms belonging to various genera have been reported as hydrocarbonoclastic exhibiting the potential for the degradation of different fractions of petrogenic hydrocarbons; many of these organisms have been isolated from either soil or aquifers (Table 2). Typical bacterial groups include Mycobacterium spp., Arthrobacter spp ., Marinobacter spp
| Species/Strain | Substrate | Species/Strain | Substrate |
| Achromobacter sp. NCW | CBZ | Geobacillus thermodenitrificans NG80-2 | C15-C36 |
| Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1 | −C36 | Gordonia sp. TY-5 | C3, C13-C22 |
| A. calcoaceticus 69-V | C11-C18 | Janibacter sp. YY-1 | DBF, FLE, DBT, PHE, ANT, DD |
| A. calcoaceticus EB104 | C6-C18 | Marinobacter NCE312 | NAP |
| A. calcoaceticus NCIB 8250 | C8-C16 | Marinobacter sp. BC36, BC38, & BC42 | C18 |
| Acinetobacter sp. 2796A | C10-C16 | Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus 617 | C16-C30 |
| Acinetobacter sp. M-1 | C13-C44 | Mycobacterium avium | paraffins |
| Acinetobacter calcoaceticus RR8 | C10-C34 | M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis | paraffins |
| Acinetobacter lwoffi | C12-C28 | M. bovis BCG | C12-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. ODDK71 | C12-C30 | M. smegmatis | C9-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. S30 | −C33 | M. tuberculosis H37Rv | C11-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. DSM17874 | C10-C40 | Mycobacterium sp. CH1 | C12-C28 |
| Alcanivorax borkumensis AP1 | C10-C20 | Mycobacterium sp. HXN 600 | C6-C24 |
| Alcanivorax borkumensis SK2 | C8-C32 | Mycobacterium sp. OFS | C11-C28 |
| Alcaligenes odorans P20 | −C33 | Mycobacterium sp. | PYR, BaP |
| Alcaligenes denitrificans | FLA | Mycobacterium sp.JS14 | FLA |
| Arthrobacter nicotianae KCC B35 | C10-C40 | Mycobacterium sp. 6PY1, KR2, AP1 | PYR |
| Arthrobacter sp.F101 | FLE | Mycobacterium sp. RJGⅡ-135 | PYR, BaA, BaP |
| Arthrobacter sp. P1-1 | DBT, CBZ, PHE | Mycobacterium sp. PYR-1, LB501T | FLA, PYR, PHE, ANT |
| Arthrobacter sulphureus RKJ4 | PHE | Mycobacterium sp. CH1, BG1, BB1, KR20 | PHE, FLE, FLA, PYR |
| Acidovorax delafieldii P4-1 | PHE | Mycobacterium flavescens | PYR, FLA |
| Bacillus cereus P21 | PYR | Mycobacterium vanbaalenii PYR-1 | PHE, PYR, dMBaA |
| Bacillus thermoleovorans B23 & H41 | C9-C30 | Mycobacterium sp. KMS | PYR |
| Bacillus thuringiensis/cereus A2 | C6-C28 | Nocardioides aromaticivorans IC177 | CBZ |
| Brevibacteriumsp. HL4 | PHE | Nocardioides sp. CF8 | C2-C16 |
| Burkholderia sp.S3702, RP007, 2A 12TNFYE-5, BS3770 | PHE | Paracoccus sereniphilus/marcusii A7 | C6-C28 |
| Burkholderia cepacia ATCC 25416 | C10-C16 | Paracoccus sp. strains Ophe1 & Sphe1 | C10-C28 |
| Burkholderia cepacia RR10 | C12-C34 | Pasteurella sp. IFA | FLA |
| Burkholderia sp.C3 | PHE | Planococcus alkanoclasticus MAE2 | C11-C33 |
| Burkholderia cepacia BU-3 | NAP, PHE, PYR | Polaromonas naphthalenivorans CJ2 | NAP |
| Burkholderia cocovenenans | PHE | Prauserella rugosa NRRL B-2295 | C8-C14 |
| Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 | BZ, BP | Pseudomonas aureofaciens RWTH 529 | C10 |
| B. mallei | C10-C16 | Pseudomonas sp. 7/156 | n. d |
| B. pseudomallei | C10-C16 | Pseudomonas putida GPo1 | C5-C12 |
| Chryseobacterium sp. NCY | CBZ | P. putida P1 | C8 |
| Cycloclasticus sp. P1 | PYR | Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 | C12-C32 |
| Brachybacterium sp. | C10-C20 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 | C12-C24 |
| Desulfatibacillum aliphaticivorans CV2803 | C13-C18 | P. aeruginosa PG201 | C10-C16 |
| Dietzia cinnamea P4 | C11-C24 | P. aeruginosa KSLA473 | C5-C16 |
| Dietzia psychralcaliphila | C13-C24 | P. aeruginosa NCIMB 8704 & 9571 | C8-C16 |
| P. aeruginosa ATCC 17423 | C8-C16 | R. erythropolis Q15 | C8-C32 |
| P. aeruginosa RR1 | C12-C34 | R. erythropolis 35-O | C6-C16 |
| P. aeruginosa strains A1, A3, A4, A5, A6 | C6-C28 | R. erythropolis 23-D | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp. PUP6 | C12-C28 | R. erythropolis NRRL B-16531 | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp.C18, PP2, DLC-P11 | NAP, PHE | R. erythropolis 42-O | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp.BT1d | HFBT | R. erythropolis 62-O | C6-C16 |
| Pseudomonas sp.B4 | BP, CBP | R. erythropolis 23-D | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp.HH69 | DBF | R. erythropolis 50-V | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp. CA10 | CBZ, CDD | R. erythropolis NRRL B-16531 | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp. NCIB 9816-4 | FLE, DBF, DBT | Rhodococcus fascians 115-H | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp. F274 | FLE | R. fascians 154-S | C6-C24 |
| Pseudomonas paucimobilis | PHE | Rhodococcus rhodochrous | C12-C20 |
| Pseudomonas vesicularis OUS82 | FLE | Staphylococcus sp. PN/Y | PHE |
| Pseudomonas putida P16, BS3701, BS3750, BS590-P, BS202-P1 | NAP, PHE | Stenotrophomonas maltophilia VUN 10,010 | PYR, FLA, BaP |
| Pseudomonas putida CSV86 | MNAP | S. maltophilia VUN 10,003 | PYR, FLA, BaA, BaP, DBA, COR |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens BS3760 | PHE, CHR, BaA | Sphingomonas yanoikuyae R1 | PYR |
| Pseudomonas stutzeri P15 | PYR | Sphingomonas yanoikuyae JAR02 | BaP |
| Pseudomonas saccharophilia | PYR | Sphingomonas sp.P2, LB126 | FLE, PHE, FLA, ANT |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | PHE | Sphingomonas sp. | DBF, DBT, CBZ |
| Ralstonia sp. SBUG 290 U2 | DBF NAP | Sphingomonas paucimobilis EPA505 | FLA, NAP, ANT, PHE |
| Rhodanobacter sp. BPC-1 | BaP | Sphingomonas wittichii RW1 | CDD |
| Rhodococcus sp. | PYR, FLA | strain AK01 | C13-C18 |
| Rhodococcus sp. 1BN | C6-C28 | strain HdN1 | C14-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp. RR12 & RR14 | C14-C34 | strain Hxd3 | C12-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp. strains T12 & TMP2 | C9-C22 | Terrabacter sp.DBF63 | DBF, CDBF, CDD, FLE |
| Rhodococcus sp. NCIM5126 | C13-C20 | Thalassolituus oleivorans | C 7-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp.WU-K2R | NAT, BT | Thermooleophilum album | C13-C 20 |
| Rhodococcus erythropolis I-19 | ADBT | Thermus sp. C2 | C9-C39 |
| R. erythropolis D-1 | DBT | Weeksella sp. RR7 | C12-C34 |
| P. aeruginosa ATCC 17423 | C8-C16 | Xanthamonas sp. | PYR, BaP, CBZ |
| P. aeruginosa RR1 | C12-C34 | Xylella fastidiosa RR15 | C14-C34 |
| Pyrene (PYR), anthracene (ANT), fluorene (FLE), dibenz[a, h]anthracene (DBA), naphthalene (NAP), phenanthrene (PHE), benz[a]anthracene (BaA), dimethylbenz[a]anthracene(dMBaA), chlorinated dibenzothophene (CDBF), benzothiophene(BT), alkylated dibenzothiophene (ADBT), 3-hydroxy-2-formylbenzothiophene (HFBT), chrysene (CHR), dibenzo-p-dioxin (DD), biphenyl; CBP, fluoranthene (FLA), chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), coronene(COR), methyl naphthalene (MNAP), carbazole (CBZ), chlorobiphenyl (BP), naphthothiophene (NAT), dibenzofuran (DBF), benzoate (BZ). | |||
DownLoad: CSVSince there are many soil dwelling microbes that are capable of breaking down the diverse fractions of hydrocarbons and which survive under different conditions, each site may necessitate a specified bioremediation treatment. The different generic methods and strategies of bioremediation technologies being applied currently are natural attenuation, bioaugmentation, biostimulation and phytoremediation. The techniques are summarized in Table 3 and discussed in further detail below.
| Bioremediation method | Main features | Advantages | limitations |
| 1. Natural attenuation | Utilising indigenous microbial populations under natural conditions | Cost effective | Requires extensive long-range observation Not always effective |
| 2. Bioaugmentation Isolated strain Microbial consortium |
Addition of efficient pollutant of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes Catalyse the degradation of single molecules or simple mixtures Catalyse the degradation of complex pollutant mixtures |
Using a high biomass of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes | Requires extensive long-term monitoring Not always effective Poor adaptation of hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms to the contaminated site Introduced strains can be inhibited by co-pollutants or native microorganisms |
| 3. Biostimulation Fertilizers (Bio) surfactants |
Management of environmental factors (addition of nutrient) Restoration of nutrient balance, C/N/P ratio optimization Stimulation of contaminant bioavailability |
More efficient than natural attenuation |
Not always effective Optimal C/N/P ratio and pollutant bioavailability have to be determined |
| 4. Phytoremediation | Application of plants and their associated microorganisms |
Supports hydrocarbon-degrading microbes within plant root |
Pollutants toxic to the plant |
DownLoad: CSVBy definition, natural attenuation is the simplest bioremediation process by which the indigenous microbial population (bacteria and fungi) eliminate or detoxify petroleum and other hydrocarbon pollutants hazardous to human health and/or the environment into less toxic forms in order to attenuate the polluted site. During this process the indigenous microbes utilise hydrocarbons as the sole carbon source based on their natural, metabolic pathways. This technology requires simply monitoring the process. When site pollution occurs, indigenous hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms will increase rapidly and adapt to the freshly added pollutants resulting in contaminant degradation; however microbial diversity may be reduced [59]. This natural remediation process occurs naturally in most contaminated sites, and can be applied in areas where other restoration mechanisms cannot be applied or in relatively low polluted sites [60]. Biodegradation research has shown natural attenuation to be effective in petroleum contaminated sites, estimating that almost 25% of soils polluted with petrogenic hydrocarbon have been treated through natural attenuation [61]. One comparative study showed that natural attenuation can be as or even more effective than biostimulation and bioaugmentation methods and that the naturally occurring hydrocarbon degraders associated with the oil itself are capable of utilising hydrocarbons without any enhancement [62,63]. Natural attenuation however is often limited by nutrient availability. In addition, microbial communities with high degrading activity may not be available on the site or may not possess the necessary catabolic genes for complete degradation, thus developed remediation practices are essential in this instances.
The capacity of the microbial community in the soil to metabolize petroleum pollutants is determined by their structure and diversity [64]. In soils with insufficient or non-detectable numbers of indigenous pollutant-degrading microorganisms, natural attenuation perhaps is unsuitable as a remediation method, thus another bioremediation technologies should be applied. One of the alternate in situ bioremediation methods is bioaugmentation. This application involves the addition of single strains or consortia of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes (bacteria or to a lesser extent fungi) with catalytic capabilities to remediate contaminated sites in order to accelerate the biodegradation of undesired organic compounds. The bioaugmented hydrocarbon utilizers are normally isolated from petroleum hydrocarbon polluted environments [65]. The rationale behind bioaugmentation is that the introduction of hydrocarbon degrading microorganisms into polluted soil improves the biodegradative capacity of the indigenous population. Researches have reported that the application of bioaugmentation to contaminated marine and terrestrial environments exhibited superior treatment efficiency [66,67,68,69]. However, it has also been reported that bioaugmentation did not result in a significant increase in bioremediation and in some cases the inoculated hydrocarbon degrading microbes failed to show any degradation activity [70,71]. In addition, the effect of introducing exogenous microorganisms on the diversity and activity of the natural ecosystem remains to be fully investigated. For example one recent study has shown that the addition of exogenous microbes led to significant changes in the composition of the soil microbial community [72].
A widely practiced bioremediation technology that exploits the capability of microbes to degrade and/or detoxify petroleum pollutants in the soil is termed biostimulation. This procedure results in the stimulation of the growth and activity of the indigenous microorganisms present in the contaminated site through the addition of nutrients in order to accelerate the rate of natural biodegradation [73]. There exists extensive literature that have reported that high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon, containing around 80% carbon can lead to a rapid reduction in the concentration of inorganic nutrients present in the soil (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus) [74]. Nitrogen is an example of a nutrient that is found in terrestrial environments in many forms. It is an essential nutrient which supports soil microbial growth and activity, increasing the rate of microbial cell growth, reducing the lag phase of microbes, supporting a large microbial population and, hence, increasing the rate of hydrocarbon degradation [75]. Biostimulation often includes the addition of nutrients and electron acceptors (such as P, C, N, and O2) and represents an effective technology for restoring oil polluted and nutrient deficient sites [76,77]. However care must be taken in the amount of nutrients added; for example the addition of excess quantities of nitrogen may result in inhibition of the soil microbial community [78]. The main advantage of biostimulation is that enhanced biodegradation takes place by the native microbial communities which have already acclimatized to their environment. The biostimulation of native microbial communities of petroleum-impacted soil can be achieved in several ways. A wide range of organic and inorganic agents including nutrients, surfactants, fresh and composted sewage sludge and manure have been found to be successful biostimulators for petroleum hydrocarbon degradation [79,80,81]. Various laboratory and field experiments based on the addition of inorganic and organic fertilizers to the contaminated environment have shown positive impacts on hydrocarbon degradation; however a range of outcomes have been reported. For instance, stimulating the soil with inorganic nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium fertilization (NPK) and commercial products EAP and Terramend have been shown to stimulate the biodegradative activity of the native soil microbes [82]. In another study, soil amendment with manure increased the degradation rate of petroleum hydrocarbon up to 56% compared to that in the unamended soil samples (natural attenuation) (15.6%) [83]. In contrast other research results indicated that biostimulation did not significantly contribute to the degradation of petrogenic hydrocarbons in soil. For example, amendments including NPK, a compost extract and a microbial enrichment culture showed no significant impact on the remediation of diesel oil; in addition, no change in TPH concentration was observed when the soil was treated with coffee grains or horticultural waste. In this instance the authors concluded that the hydrocarbonclastic microbes preferred to consume the readily available carbon source (amendments) instead of petroleum hydrocarbons [84,85]. Thus, it can be more valuable to characterise the polluted location, ecological conditions and the natural microbial community in order to accomplish an effective bioremediation technique in the field. Substantial laboratory- and mesocosm-based research is essential to assess the potential of bioremediation, although it must be recognised that environmental factors will play an important role in determining the actual degradation rate in the field. While in controlled laboratory trials, measurements can generally be interpreted easily; cause-and-effect relationships are often hard to establish at field sites. In most bioremediation cases microorganisms can readily degrade the contaminant when grown in well-controlled laboratory environments; however, evidence of field biodegradation is necessary. When degrading microbes are introduced into less hospitable environmental conditions in the field, they may not perform the same tasks and can be inhibited because of predation or competition by autochthonous microorganisms [86]. In addition, because of the heterogeneity of oil, evaluation of petroleum hydrocarbon degradation at the field scale is more difficult. The bioremediation process can be influenced by both biotic and abiotic factors as well as the ability of microorganisms to survive and migrate. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct laboratory experiments prior to the actual cleanup process to assess the improvement of hydrocarbon degradation under controlled conditions; this will establish the scientific credibility of a specific bioremediation procedure.
The key purpose of remediating polluted sites is to diminish the hazard of contaminants to human health as well as the environment through the application of optimal remediation techniques [22]. As already discussed the application of bioremediation technologies in the actual environment (field) is challenging as hydrocarbon biodegradation in soil is determined by a number of environmental and biological factors varying from site to site [87]. Parameters influencing bioremediation include the nature and concentration of the contaminants, type and structure of the soil and the presence and survival of contaminant-degrading microorganisms. Environmental conditionssuch as the pH of the soil, oxygen availability and nutrient content can also limit the bioremediation process by inhibiting the growth of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes and/ or reducing the bioavailability of pollutants to microbial attack.
Limited bioavailability of hydrocarbons to microorganisms can result in a less effective bioremediation process by limiting the rate of hydrocarbon degradation. The interaction between hydrocarbon degrading microbes, soil matrix and the contaminants plays an important role in the bioremediation process. Soil organic matter is one of the most significant factors having a dominating influence on the interactions between soil and the organic pollutant [88]. The percentage of soil organic matter controls the partitioning of petroleum hydrocarbons into the organic fraction of soil and the extent of sorption, affecting the degradation rate. The impact of soil organic matter on the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons has been clearly shown in many studies [89].
The degradation rate of petroleum pollutants is generally higher during the early stage when the pollutants are easily bioavailable; in contrast in the second remediation stage contaminant bioavailability is limited as a result of hydrocarbons being sequestered. Generally once this stage has been reached no further degradation occurs during the rest of remediation [90]. A high concnetration of organic matter in the soil results in the organic matter acting as a partitioning medium, resulting in the sequestration of contaminants which partition into the organic fraction resulting in reduced degradability of contaminants [91].
Like soil organic matter, ageing of the polluted soil can also adversely affect the degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. A number of studies have reported greater rates of hydrocarbon degradation in freshly polluted soils compared with aged hydrocarbon fractions. This may result from the contaminant being partitioned into the soil organic matter fraction or penetration into small pores leading to a decline in pollutant bioavailability to microbes [91]. This problem is more obvious in soils with high levels of organic matter than in that with low organic matter [92]. Hydrocarbon properties are also different in fresh petroleum products from that found in aged products. Hydrocarbon aging thus results in a reduced rate of degradation in the early stages.
The main factors and their impact on the feasibility and rate of petrogenic hydrocarbon biodegradation in soil are summarised in Table 4.
| Factor | Description and effect on bioremediation rate | Reference |
| Temperature | -Temperature affects rates of hydrocarbon degradation and the physico-chemical composition of oil, result in enhanced hydrocarbon bioavailability as well as the composition and metabolic activity of the microbial communities. -In soils 30-40 °C is the temperature range in which the highest degradation rates generally occurs. -Increased temperature also decreases oil viscosity, increases hydrocarbon solubility, hastening the diffusion of hydrophobic pollutants and enhancing degradation rates of hydrocarbons. |
[93,94,95,96]. |
| Nutrients | -The absence of or low levels of key nutrients in the soil directly affects microbial cell growth and activity. -Optimal level of nutrients is essential for higher hydrocarbon-utilising microbial activity. -Excessive amounts of nutrients such as NPK in the soil can also negatively affect the biodegradation of hydrocarbons resulting in inhibition of the microbial biodegradation activity. |
[78,93] |
| Characteristics and concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons |
-The rate at which hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms breakdown the hydrocarbons depends upon hydrocarbon characteristics including chemical structure and concentration of these pollutants. -Petroleum fractions, n-alkanes of intermediate length (C10-C25) are preferred and more degradable. Longer chain alkanes (C25-C40) are hard to degrade due to their hydrophobicity, poor water solubility and bioavailability. -Branched chain alkanes and cycloalkanes degrade more slowly than the corresponding unbranched alkanes. -Complex and less soluble compounds result in reduced hydrocarbon degradation rates. -High concentrations of hydrocarbons are toxic to microorganisms involved in hydrocarbon degradation, as they affect their growth and activity. |
[2] |
| Bioavailability | -The rate of degradation determined by the bioavailability of hydrocarbons. -As the molecular weight of hydrocarbons increases, the solubility of these pollutants decrease resulting in lower accessibility of hydrocarbons for metabolism by the microbial cell. -PAHs are hydrophobic compounds with low bioavailability and rapid sorption to organic matter and soil matrix making them recalcitrant. -The longer the contact between soil and hydrocarbon contaminants the more irreversible the sorption, and the lower is the extractability of the pollutants from the soil. |
[2] |
| Soil Characteristics | -The structure and conditions of the soil determine the movement of the pollutants, thereby affecting the rate of biodegradation. -High concentrations of soil organic matter in fine soil enhances bacterial growth and stimulates the biodegradation of hydrocarbons. |
[97,98,99] |
| -A higher rate of degradation of hydrocarbons occurs in silty soil compared to sandy soil due to the poor microbial content in the sand fraction which corresponds to a high C: N ratio and lower internal surface structure. | ||
| Oxygen availability and transport | -Dissolved molecular oxygen soil and the requirements for its delivery are crucial keys for the success of the bioremediation process. -The importance of oxygen derives from the respiration process and the participation of oxygenases in the subsequent degradation pathway of the hydrocarbons. -For example, in soil it usually takes 2 × 106 m3 of water saturated at 10 mg/litre O2 to effectively oxidize 10 m3 of hydrocarbon to carbon dioxide and water. -Oxygen availability in soil is reliant on soil type, moisture content and the rate of biodegradation. |
[2,100] |
| Microbial presence of active hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms | -Microbial strains which have the ability to survive in the presence of pollutants and use them as a source for growth and metabolism are the dominant microorganisms in the contaminated soil. -The number of hydrocarbon degrading organisms in the contaminated soil determines the rate of degradation; a lack of these microbes leads to a reduced hydrocarbon degradation rate. -The contaminated soil must contain a sufficient number of hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms, specifically those which are active. -As a result of bioremediation, the active microbes may increase the microbial community in the soil. -A lack of hydrocarbonoclastic microbes in the contaminated soil can be overcome by inoculating the soil with a selection of appropriate strains to biodegrade contaminants (bioaugmentation). |
[22,101] |
| Eco-toxicity | -Petroleum hydrocarbons have a toxic effect on bacterial activity, some plant species and earthworms resulting in reduced biodegradation rates. | [102,103] |
DownLoad: CSVThe widespread utilisation of petroleum hydrocarbons in different industrial applications presents a challenge for the remediation of polluted sites. In most cases, the ability of these contaminants to sorb onto mineral and organic matter of the soil determines the efficiency of the remediation process. A significant amount of bench-scale work has concentrated on the ability of a diversity of microbes including bacteria and fungi to transform these complex compounds. The pathways of aerobic and anaerobic degradation of petrogenic hydrocarbons have been established and this has led to an interest in the potential use of microbes to degrade petroleum-contaminated sites. To date, bioremediation approaches have shown significant promise. However, further research to overcome several implementation issues is required. In addition, more field and pilot scale trials are important to evaluate the efficiency of these processes, taking into consideration that each site is different and numerous factors must be considered. An effective remediation of a contaminated site depends on the appropriate selection and design of the remediation technique.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this study.
| [1] | Petroleum B, BP statistical review of world energy, 2015. Available from: www. bp. com/statisticalreview. |
| [2] | Sihag S, Pathak H, Jaroli D (2014) Factors affecting the rate of biodegradation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Int J Pure App Biosci 2: 185-202. |
| [3] |
Stroud JL, Paton GI, Semple KT (2007) Microbe-aliphatic hydrocarbon interactions in soil: implications for biodegradation and bioremediation. J Appl Microbiol 102: 1239-1253. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03401.x
|
| [4] | Das N, Chandran P (2011) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants: an overview. Biotechnol Res Int 2011: 941810. |
| [5] |
Gallego JL, Loredo J, Llamas JF, et al. (2001) Bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soils: evaluation of potential in situ techniques by study of bacterial degradation. Biodegradation 12: 325-335. doi: 10.1023/A:1014397732435
|
| [6] | Gong R, Hochmuth M, Weatherburn DC (2003) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and diesel particulates. |
| [7] |
Latif I, Karim A, Zuki A, et al. (2010) Pulmonary modulation of benzo [a] pyrene-induced hemato-and hepatotoxicity in broilers. Poultry Sci 89: 1379-1388. doi: 10.3382/ps.2009-00622
|
| [8] |
Samanta SK, Singh OV, Jain RK (2002) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: environmental pollution and bioremediation. Trends Biotechnol 20: 243-248. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01943-1
|
| [9] |
Huang XD, El-Alawi Y, Penrose DM, et al. (2004) A multi-process phytoremediation system for removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from contaminated soils. Environ Pollut 130: 465-476. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.031
|
| [10] |
Arthur EL, Rice PJ, Rice PJ, et al. (2005) Phytoremediation—An Overview. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 24: 109-122. doi: 10.1080/07352680590952496
|
| [11] |
Guo J, Feng R, Ding Y, et al. (2014) Applying carbon dioxide, plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium and EDTA can enhance the phytoremediation efficiency of ryegrass in a soil polluted with zinc, arsenic, cadmium and lead. J Environ Manage 141: 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.039
|
| [12] | Onwurah I, Ogugua V, Onyike N, et al. (2007) Crude oil spills in the environment, effects and some innovative clean-up biotechnologies. |
| [13] |
Yemashova NA, Murygina VP, Zhukov DV, et al. (2007) Biodeterioration of crude oil and oil derived products: a review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 6: 315-337. doi: 10.1007/s11157-006-9118-8
|
| [14] |
Head IM, Jones DM, Röling WF (2006) Marine microorganisms make a meal of oil. Nat Rev Microbiol 4: 173-182. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1348
|
| [15] | Yasin G, Bhanger MI, Ansari TM, et al. (2013) Quality and chemistry of crude oils. J Pet Technol Altern Fuels 4: 53-63. |
| [16] | Alvarez PJ, Illman WA (2005) Bioremediation and natural attenuation: process fundamentals and mathematical models. John Wiley & Sons. |
| [17] |
Martinez-Gomez C, Vethaak A, Hylland K, et al. (2010) A guide to toxicity assessment and monitoring effects at lower levels of biological organization following marine oil spills in European waters. ICES J Mar Sci 67: 1105-1118. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsq017
|
| [18] |
Haritash A, Kaushik C (2009) Biodegradation aspects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): a review. J Hazard Mater 169: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.137
|
| [19] |
Mishra S, Jyot J, Kuhad RC, et al. (2001) Evaluation of inoculum addition to stimulate in situ bioremediation of oily-sludge-contaminated soil. Appl Environ Microb 67: 1675-1681. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.4.1675-1681.2001
|
| [20] |
Kim KH, Jahan SA, Kabir E, et al. (2013) A review of airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their human health effects. Environ Int 60: 71-80. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.07.019
|
| [21] | Masih J, Singhvi R, Kumar K, et al. (2012) Seasonal variation and sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in indoor and outdoor air in a semi arid tract of northern India. AAQR 12: 515-525. |
| [22] | Perelo LW (2010) Review: in situ and bioremediation of organic pollutants in aquatic sediments. J Hazard Mater 177: 81-89. |
| [23] |
Gaspar A, Zellermann E, Lababidi S, et al. (2012) Characterization of saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes heavy crude oil fractions by atmospheric pressure laser ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry. Energ Fuel 26: 3481-3487. doi: 10.1021/ef3001407
|
| [24] |
Leyva C, Ancheyta J, Berrueco C, et al. (2013) Chemical characterization of asphaltenes from various crude oils. Fuel Process Technol 106: 734-738. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.10.009
|
| [25] |
Vinas M, Grifoll M, Sabate J, et al. (2002) Biodegradation of a crude oil by three microbial consortia of different origins and metabolic capabilities. J Ind Microbiol Biot 28: 252-260. doi: 10.1038/sj.jim.7000236
|
| [26] |
He L, Lin F, Li X, et al. (2015) Interfacial sciences in unconventional petroleum production: from fundamentals to applications. Chem Soc Rev 44: 5446-5494. doi: 10.1039/C5CS00102A
|
| [27] |
Fuentes S, Méndez V, Aguila P, et al. (2014) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons: catabolic genes, microbial communities, and applications. Appl Microbiol Biot 98: 4781-4794. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-5684-9
|
| [28] |
Dong TT, Lee BK (2009) Characteristics, toxicity, and source apportionment of polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in road dust of Ulsan, Korea. Chemosphere 74: 1245-1253. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.11.035
|
| [29] |
Ou S, Zheng J, Zheng J, et al. (2004) Petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the surficial sediments of Xiamen Harbour and Yuan Dan Lake, China. Chemosphere 56: 107-112. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.02.022
|
| [30] |
Chandra S, Sharma R, Singh K, et al. (2013) Application of bioremediation technology in the environment contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon. Ann Microbiol 63: 417-431. doi: 10.1007/s13213-012-0543-3
|
| [31] |
Paruk JD, Adams EM, Uher-Koch H, et al. (2016) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in blood related to lower body mass in common loons. Sci Total Environ 565: 360-368. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.150
|
| [32] |
Militon C, Boucher D, Vachelard C, et al. (2010) Bacterial community changes during bioremediation of aliphatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Fems Microbiol Ecol 74: 669-681. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00982.x
|
| [33] |
Wasmund K, Burns KA, Kurtböke DI, et al. (2009) Novel alkane hydroxylase gene (alkB) diversity in sediments associated with hydrocarbon seeps in the Timor Sea, Australia. Appl Environ Microb 75: 7391-7398. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01370-09
|
| [34] |
Adgate JL, Goldstein BD, McKenzie LM (2014) Potential public health hazards, exposures and health effects from unconventional natural gas development. Environ Sci Technol 48: 8307-8320. doi: 10.1021/es404621d
|
| [35] | Zhu X, Venosa AD, Suidan MT, et al. (2001) Guidelines for the bioremediation of marine shorelines and freshwater wetlands. US EPA |
| [36] | Sadler R, Connell D (2003) Analytical methods for the determination of total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil. In: Proceedings of the fifth national workshop on the assessment of site contamination, 133-150. |
| [37] | Van Beilen JB, Funhoff EG (2007) Alkane hydroxylases involved in microbial alkane degradation. Appl Microbiol Biot 74: 13-21. |
| [38] |
Hatzinger PB, Alexander M (1995) Effect of aging of chemicals in soil on their biodegradability and extractability. Environ Sci Technol 29: 537-545. doi: 10.1021/es00002a033
|
| [39] |
Semple KT, Morriss A, Paton G (2003) Bioavailability of hydrophobic organic contaminants in soils: fundamental concepts and techniques for analysis. Eur J Soil Sci 54: 809-818. doi: 10.1046/j.1351-0754.2003.0564.x
|
| [40] |
Baboshin M, Golovleva L (2012) Aerobic bacterial degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and its kinetic aspects. Microbiology 81: 639-650. doi: 10.1134/S0026261712060021
|
| [41] |
Rojo F (2009) Degradation of alkanes by bacteria. Environ Microbiol 11: 2477-2490. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01948.x
|
| [42] | Wentzel A, Ellingsen TE, Kotlar HK, et al. (2007) Bacterial metabolism of long-chain n-alkanes. Appl Microbiol Biot 76: 1209-1221. |
| [43] | Kotani T, Yurimoto H, Kato N, et al. (2007) Novel acetone metabolism in a propane-utilizing bacterium, Gordonia sp. strain TY-5. J Bacteriol 189: 886-893. |
| [44] |
Bamforth SM, Singleton I (2005) Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: current knowledge and future directions. J Chem Technol Biot 80: 723-736. doi: 10.1002/jctb.1276
|
| [45] |
Kanaly RA, Harayama S (2010) Advances in the field of high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon biodegradation by bacteria. Microb Biotechnol 3: 136-164. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00130.x
|
| [46] |
Seo JS, Keum YS, Li QX (2009) Bacterial degradation of aromatic compounds. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6: 278-309. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6010278
|
| [47] | Maigari AU, Maigari MU (2015) Microbial metabolism of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): a review. Int J Sci Eng 6: 1449-1459. |
| [48] | Rojo F, (2010) Enzymes for aerobic degradation of alkanes, In: Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology, Springer, 781-797. |
| [49] |
Tortella GR, Diez MC, Durán N (2005) Fungal diversity and use in decomposition of environmental pollutants. Crit Rev Microbiol 31: 197-212. doi: 10.1080/10408410500304066
|
| [50] |
Brooijmans RJ, Pastink MI, Siezen RJ (2009) Hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria: the oil-spill clean-up crew. Microb Biotechnol 2: 587-594. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00151.x
|
| [51] |
Germida J, Frick C, Farrell R, et al. (2002) Phytoremediation of oil-contaminated soils. Dev Soil Sci 28: 169-186. doi: 10.1016/S0166-2481(02)80015-0
|
| [52] | Wang YN, Cai H, Chi CQ, et al. (2007) Halomonas shengliensis sp. nov., a moderately halophilic, denitrifying, crude-oil-utilizing bacterium. Int J Syst Evol Micr 57: 1222-1226. |
| [53] | Mnif S, Chamkha M, Sayadi S (2009) Isolation and characterization of Halomonas sp. strain C2SS100, a hydrocarbon-degrading bacterium under hypersaline conditions. J Appl Microbiol 107: 785-794. |
| [54] |
Borzenkov I, Milekhina E, Gotoeva M, et al. (2006) The properties of hydrocarbon-oxidizing bacteria isolated from the oilfields of Tatarstan, Western Siberia, and Vietnam. Microbiology 75: 66-72. doi: 10.1134/S0026261706010127
|
| [55] | Dastgheib SMM, Amoozegar MA, Khajeh K, et al. (2011) A halotolerant Alcanivorax sp. strain with potential application in saline soil remediation. Appl Microbiol Biot 90: 305-312. |
| [56] |
Chaillan F, Le Flèche A, Bury E, et al. (2004) Identification and biodegradation potential of tropical aerobic hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms. Res Microbiol 155: 587-595. doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2004.04.006
|
| [57] |
Moody JD, Freeman JP, Fu PP, et al. (2004) Degradation of benzo [a] pyrene by Mycobacterium vanbaalenii PYR-1. Appl Environ Microb 70: 340-345. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.1.340-345.2004
|
| [58] |
Van Beilen JB, Li Z, Duetz WA, et al. (2003) Diversity of alkane hydroxylase systems in the environment. Oil Gas Sci Technol 58: 427-440. doi: 10.2516/ogst:2003026
|
| [59] |
McKew BA, Coulon F, Osborn AM, et al. (2007) Determining the identity and roles of oil-metabolizing marine bacteria from the Thames estuary, UK. Environ Microbiol 9: 165-176. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01125.x
|
| [60] |
Pilon-Smits E (2005) Phytoremediation. Annu Rev Plant Biol 56: 15-39. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144214
|
| [61] |
Holden P, LaMontagne M, Bruce A, et al. (2002) Assessing the role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa surface-active gene expression in hexadecane biodegradation in sand. Appl Environ Microb 68: 2509-2518. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.5.2509-2518.2002
|
| [62] |
Makadia TH, Adetutu EM, Simons KL, et al. (2011) Re-use of remediated soils for the bioremediation of waste oil sludge. J Environ Manage 92: 866-871. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.059
|
| [63] |
Sheppard PJ, Simons KL, Kadali KK, et al. (2012) The importance of weathered crude oil as a source of hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms in contaminated seawater. J Microbiol Biotechnol 22: 1185-1192. doi: 10.4014/jmb.1201.01049
|
| [64] | Rodríguez-Blanco A, Antoine V, Pelletier E, et al. (2010) Effects of temperature and fertilization on total vs. active bacterial communities exposed to crude and diesel oil pollution in NW Mediterranean Sea. Environ Pollut 158: 663-673. |
| [65] |
Sarkar D, Ferguson M, Datta R, et al. (2005) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in contaminated soils: comparison of biosolids addition, carbon supplementation, and monitored natural attenuation. Environ Pollut 136: 187-195. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2004.09.025
|
| [66] |
Tang J, Wang R, Niu X, et al. (2010) Enhancement of soil petroleum remediation by using a combination of ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and different microorganisms. Soil Till Res 110: 87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2010.06.010
|
| [67] |
Li X, Wu Y, Lin X, et al. (2012) Dissipation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil microcosms amended with mushroom cultivation substrate. Soil Biol Biochem 47: 191-197. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.01.001
|
| [68] | Agnello AC, Bagard M, Van Hullebusch ED, et al. (2016) Comparative bioremediation of heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons co-contaminated soil by natural attenuation, phytoremediation, bioaugmentation and bioaugmentation-assisted phytoremediation. Sci Total Environ 563: 693-703. |
| [69] |
Kadali KK, Simons KL, Sheppard PJ, et al. (2012) Mineralisation of weathered crude oil by a hydrocarbonoclastic consortia in marine mesocosms. Water Air Soil Poll 223: 4283-4295. doi: 10.1007/s11270-012-1191-8
|
| [70] |
Yu K, Wong A, Yau K, et al. (2005) Natural attenuation, biostimulation and bioaugmentation on biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in mangrove sediments. Mar Pollut Bull 51: 1071-1077. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.06.006
|
| [71] |
Margesin R, Hämmerle M, Tscherko D (2007) Microbial activity and community composition during bioremediation of diesel-oil-contaminated soil: effects of hydrocarbon concentration, fertilizers, and incubation time. Microbial Ecol 53: 259-269. doi: 10.1007/s00248-006-9136-7
|
| [72] |
Festa S, Coppotelli B, Morelli I (2016) Comparative bioaugmentation with a consortium and a single strain in a phenanthrene-contaminated soil: Impact on the bacterial community and biodegradation. Appl Soil Ecol 98: 8-19. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.08.025
|
| [73] | Nikolopoulou M, Kalogerakis N, (2010) Biostimulation strategies for enhanced bioremediation of marine oil spills including chronic pollution. In: Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology, Springer, 2521-2529. |
| [74] | Alexander M (1999) Biodegradation and bioremediation. Gulf Professional Publishing. |
| [75] |
Walworth J, Pond A, Snape I, et al. (2007) Nitrogen requirements for maximizing petroleum bioremediation in a sub-Antarctic soil. Cold Reg Sci Technol 48: 84-91. doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2006.07.001
|
| [76] |
Piehler MF, Swistak J, Pinckney J, et al. (1999) Stimulation of diesel fuel biodegradation by indigenous nitrogen fixing bacterial consortia. Microbial Ecol 38: 69-78. doi: 10.1007/s002489900157
|
| [77] |
Li H, Zhao Q, Boufadel MC, et al. (2007) A universal nutrient application strategy for the bioremediation of oil-polluted beaches. Mar Pollut Bull 54: 1146-1161. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.04.015
|
| [78] |
Chaillan F, Chaineau C, Point V, et al. (2006) Factors inhibiting bioremediation of soil contaminated with weathered oils and drill cuttings. Environ Pollut 144: 255-265. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.12.016
|
| [79] |
Sayara T, Borràs E, Caminal G, et al. (2011) Bioremediation of PAHs-contaminated soil through composting: Influence of bioaugmentation and biostimulation on contaminant biodegradation. Int Biodeter Biodegr 65: 859-865. doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2011.05.006
|
| [80] |
Ros M, Rodriguez I, Garcia C, et al. (2010) Microbial communities involved in the bioremediation of an aged recalcitrant hydrocarbon polluted soil by using organic amendments. Bioresour Technol 101: 6916-6923. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.126
|
| [81] |
Blyth W, Shahsavari E, Morrison PD, et al. (2015) Biosurfactant from red ash trees enhances the bioremediation of PAH contaminated soil at a former gasworks site. J Environ Manage 162: 30-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.07.041
|
| [82] |
Mair J, Schinner F, Margesin R (2013) A feasibility study on the bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil from an alpine former military site: effects of temperature and biostimulation. Cold Reg Sci Technol 96: 122-128. doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2013.07.006
|
| [83] |
Liu W, Luo Y, Teng Y, et al. (2010) Bioremediation of oily sludge-contaminated soil by stimulating indigenous microbes. Environ Gecochem Hlth 32: 23-29. doi: 10.1007/s10653-009-9262-5
|
| [84] |
Palmroth MR, Pichtel J, Puhakka JA (2002) Phytoremediation of subarctic soil contaminated with diesel fuel. Bioresour Technol 84: 221-228. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00055-X
|
| [85] |
Schaefer M, Juliane F (2007) The influence of earthworms and organic additives on the biodegradation of oil contaminated soil. Appl Soil Ecol 36: 53-62. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.11.002
|
| [86] |
Suja F, Rahim F, Taha MR, et al. (2014) Effects of local microbial bioaugmentation and biostimulation on the bioremediation of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in crude oil contaminated soil based on laboratory and field observations. Int Biodeter Biodegr 90: 115-122. doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2014.03.006
|
| [87] | Al-Sulaimani HS, Al-Wahaibi YM, Al-Bahry S, et al. (2010) Experimental investigation of biosurfactants produced by Bacillus species and their potential for MEOR in Omani oil field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. |
| [88] |
Reid BJ, Jones KC, Semple KT (2000) Bioavailability of persistent organic pollutants in soils and sediments—a perspective on mechanisms, consequences and assessment. Environ Pollut 108: 103-112. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(99)00206-7
|
| [89] |
Liu PWG, Chang TC, Chen CH, et al. (2014) Bioaugmentation efficiency investigation on soil organic matters and microbial community shift of diesel-contaminated soils. Int Biodeter Biodegr 95: 276-284. doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2014.05.004
|
| [90] |
Hyun S, Ahn MY, Zimmerman AR, et al. (2008) Implication of hydraulic properties of bioremediated diesel-contaminated soil. Chemosphere 71: 1646-1653. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.01.026
|
| [91] |
Nam K, Chung N, Alexander M (1998) Relationship between organic matter content of soil and the sequestration of phenanthrene. Environ Sci Technol 32: 3785-3788. doi: 10.1021/es980428m
|
| [92] | Alexander M (2000) Aging, bioavailability, and overestimation of risk from environmental pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 34: 4259-4265. |
| [93] |
Si-Zhong Y, Hui-Jun J, Zhi W, et al. (2009) Bioremediation of oil spills in cold environments: a review. Pedosphere 19: 371-381. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(09)60128-4
|
| [94] | Okoh AI (2006) Biodegradation alternative in the cleanup of petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants. Biotechnol Mol Biol Rev 1: 38-50. |
| [95] | Margesin R, Schinner F (2001) Biodegradation and bioremediation of hydrocarbons in extreme environments. Appl Microbiol Biot 56: 650-663. |
| [96] |
Perfumo A, Banat IM, Marchant R, et al. (2007) Thermally enhanced approaches for bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Chemosphere 66: 179-184. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.006
|
| [97] |
Scherr K, Aichberger H, Braun R, et al. (2007) Influence of soil fractions on microbial degradation behavior of mineral hydrocarbons. Eur J Soil Biol 43: 341-350. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.03.009
|
| [98] |
Amellal N, Portal J-M, Berthelin J (2001) Effect of soil structure on the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons within aggregates of a contaminated soil. Appl Geochem 16: 1611-1619. doi: 10.1016/S0883-2927(01)00034-8
|
| [99] |
Chaerun S, Tazaki K (2005) How kaolinite plays an essential role in remediating oil-polluted seawater. Clay Miner 40: 481-491. doi: 10.1180/0009855054040185
|
| [100] | Atlas RM, Philp J (2005) Bioremediation. Applied microbial solutions for real-world environmental cleanup. ASM Press. |
| [101] |
Zucchi M, Angiolini L, Borin S, et al. (2003) Response of bacterial community during bioremediation of an oil-polluted soil. J Appl Microbiol 94: 248-257. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01826.x
|
| [102] | Tang J, Wang M, Wang F, et al. (2011) Eco-toxicity of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil. J Environ Sci 23: 845-851. |
| [103] |
Sheppard PJ, Adetutu EM, Makadia TH, et al. (2011) Microbial community and ecotoxicity analysis of bioremediated, weathered hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Soil Research 49: 261-269. doi: 10.1071/SR10159
|
| 1. | Annela Semai, Frédéric Plewniak, Armelle Charrié-Duhaut, Amalia Sayeh, Lisa Gil, Céline Vandecasteele, Céline Lopez-Roques, Emmanuelle Leize-Wagner, Farid Bensalah, Philippe N. Bertin, Characterisation of hydrocarbon degradation, biosurfactant production, and biofilm formation in Serratia sp. Tan611: a new strain isolated from industrially contaminated environment in Algeria, 2021, 114, 0003-6072, 411, 10.1007/s10482-021-01527-5 | |
| 2. | Maryam Rezaei Somee, Mahmoud Shavandi, Seyed Mohammad Mehdi Dastgheib, Mohammad Ali Amoozegar, Bioremediation of oil-based drill cuttings by a halophilic consortium isolated from oil-contaminated saline soil, 2018, 8, 2190-572X, 10.1007/s13205-018-1261-8 | |
| 3. | Chinedu Christopher Obieze, Chioma Blaise Chikere, Rasheed Adeleke, Onyewuchi Akaranta, 2019, Formulation and Evaluation of Slow-Release Fertilizer from Agricultural and Industrial Wastes for Remediation of Crude Oil-Polluted Soils, 10.2118/198815-MS | |
| 4. | Farah Eryssa Khalid, Zheng Syuen Lim, Suriana Sabri, Claudio Gomez-Fuentes, Azham Zulkharnain, Siti Aqlima Ahmad, Bioremediation of Diesel Contaminated Marine Water by Bacteria: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis, 2021, 9, 2077-1312, 155, 10.3390/jmse9020155 | |
| 5. | Daniela Zuzolo, Carmine Guarino, Maria Tartaglia, Rosaria Sciarrillo, Plant-Soil-Microbiota Combination for the Removal of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH): An In-Field Experiment, 2021, 11, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2020.621581 | |
| 6. | Simranjeet Singh, Vijay Kumar, Shivika Datta, Daljeet Singh Dhanjal, Parul Parihar, Joginder Singh, 2021, 9780128211991, 79, 10.1016/B978-0-12-821199-1.00008-0 | |
| 7. | Takamitsu Kai, Hiromi Ikeura, Suzuka Ozawa, Masahiko Tamaki, Effects of basal fertilizer and perlite amendment on growth of zinnia and its remediation capacity in oil-contaminated soils, 2018, 20, 1522-6514, 1236, 10.1080/15226514.2018.1460310 | |
| 8. | T. Yu. Korshunova, S. P. Chetverikov, M. D. Bakaeva, E. V. Kuzina, G. F. Rafikova, D. V. Chetverikova, O. N. Loginov, Microorganisms in the Elimination of Oil Pollution Consequences (Review), 2019, 55, 0003-6838, 344, 10.1134/S0003683819040094 | |
| 9. | Charles Oluwaseun Adetunji, Osikemekha Anthony Anani, Deepak Panpatte, 2021, Chapter 8, 978-981-15-7454-2, 189, 10.1007/978-981-15-7455-9_8 | |
| 10. | Mingqian Xia, Romy Chakraborty, Norman Terry, Rajendra Prasad Singh, Dafang Fu, Promotion of saltgrass growth in a saline petroleum hydrocarbons contaminated soil using a plant growth promoting bacterial consortium, 2020, 146, 09648305, 104808, 10.1016/j.ibiod.2019.104808 | |
| 11. | Monica Butnariu, Marian Butu, 2020, Chapter 9, 978-3-030-48689-1, 195, 10.1007/978-3-030-48690-7_9 | |
| 12. | C. J. Okonkwo, N. Liu, J. Li, A. Ahmed, Experimental thawing events enhance petroleum hydrocarbons attenuation and enzymatic activities in polluted temperate soils, 2021, 1735-1472, 10.1007/s13762-021-03175-8 | |
| 13. | Martina Cecotti, Bibiana M. Coppotelli, Verónica C. Mora, Marisa Viera, Irma S. Morelli, Efficiency of surfactant-enhanced bioremediation of aged polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soil: Link with bioavailability and the dynamics of the bacterial community, 2018, 634, 00489697, 224, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.303 | |
| 14. | Arumugam Arul Prakash, Natarajan Srinivasa Prabhu, Aruliah Rajasekar, Punniyakotti Parthipan, Mohamad S. AlSalhi, Sandhanasamy Devanesan, Muthusamy Govarthanan, Bio-electrokinetic remediation of crude oil contaminated soil enhanced by bacterial biosurfactant, 2021, 405, 03043894, 124061, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124061 | |
| 15. | Weiyi Tao, Junzhang Lin, Weidong Wang, He Huang, Shuang Li, Biodegradation of aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by the thermophilic bioemulsifier-producing Aeribacillus pallidus strain SL-1, 2020, 189, 01476513, 109994, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109994 | |
| 16. | Polina Galitskaya, Liliya Biktasheva, Polina Kuryntseva, Svetlana Selivanovskaya, Response of soil bacterial communities to high petroleum content in the absence of remediation procedures, 2021, 28, 0944-1344, 9610, 10.1007/s11356-020-11290-1 | |
| 17. | Hafida Baoune, Juan Daniel Aparicio, Adrian Acuña, Aminata Ould El Hadj-khelil, Leandro Sanchez, Marta Alejandra Polti, Analia Alvarez, Effectiveness of the Zea mays-Streptomyces association for the phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons impacted soils, 2019, 184, 01476513, 109591, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109591 | |
| 18. | Carolina Guatemala Hernández, Josefina Barrera-Cortés, Carlos M. Cerda García-Rojas, Mauricio D. Carbajal Tinoco, Teresa Ponce-Noyola, Margarita Sánchez Domínguez, Benjamín Chávez Gómez, Weathered Railroad Diesel Removed from a Loamy Sand Soil by Means of Mono-rhamnolipids, 2021, 30, 1532-0383, 350, 10.1080/15320383.2020.1854676 | |
| 19. | Tatiana Shapiro, Konstantin Chekanov, Alina Alexandrova, Galina Dolnikova, Ekaterina Ivanova, Elena Lobakova, Revealing of Non-Cultivable Bacteria Associated with the Mycelium of Fungi in the Kerosene-Degrading Community Isolated from the Contaminated Jet Fuel, 2021, 7, 2309-608X, 43, 10.3390/jof7010043 | |
| 20. | Yu. A. Nikolaev, E. V. Demkina, I. V. Perminova, N. G. Loiko, I. A. Borzenkov, A. E. Ivanona, A. I. Konstantinov, G. I. El’-Registan, Role of Humic Compounds in Viability Prolongation of the Cells of Hydrocarbon-Oxidizing Bacteria, 2019, 88, 0026-2617, 764, 10.1134/S0026261719060122 | |
| 21. | Haneen I. Eldos, Mohammad Y. Ashfaq, Mohammad A. Al-Ghouti, Rapid assessment of the impact of microwave heating coupled with UV-C radiation on the degradation of PAHs from contaminated soil using FTIR and multivariate analysis, 2020, 13, 18785352, 7609, 10.1016/j.arabjc.2020.08.031 | |
| 22. | Guixiang Quan, Qinya Fan, Liqiang Cui, Andrew R. Zimmerman, Hailong Wang, Zhiyuan Zhu, Bin Gao, Limin Wu, Jinlong Yan, Simulated photocatalytic aging of biochar in soil ecosystem: Insight into organic carbon release, surface physicochemical properties and cadmium sorption, 2020, 183, 00139351, 109241, 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109241 | |
| 23. | Eraldo Ferreira Lopes, Josemar Gurgel Da Costa, Ivan Rodrigo Wolf, José Paulo de Araújo Lima, Spartaco Astolfi-Filho, Draft Genome Sequence of Burkholderia gladioli Coa14, a Bacterium with Petroleum Bioremediation Potential Isolated from Coari Lake, Amazonas, Brazil, 2018, 6, 2169-8287, e00301-18, 10.1128/genomeA.00301-18 | |
| 24. | Sunita Varjani, Vivek N. Upasani, Soil Microcosm Study for Bioremediation by a Crude Oil Degrading Pseudomonas aeruginosa NCIM 5514 , 2020, 146, 0733-9372, 04020027, 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001687 | |
| 25. | Margarita Bakaeva, Elena Kuzina, Lidiya Vysotskaya, Guzel Kudoyarova, Tat’yana Arkhipova, Gulnaz Rafikova, Sergey Chetverikov, Tat’yana Korshunova, Dar’ya Chetverikova, Oleg Loginov, Capacity of Pseudomonas Strains to Degrade Hydrocarbons, Produce Auxins and Maintain Plant Growth under Normal Conditions and in the Presence of Petroleum Contaminants, 2020, 9, 2223-7747, 379, 10.3390/plants9030379 | |
| 26. | Justyna Staninska-Pięta, Jakub Czarny, Agnieszka Piotrowska-Cyplik, Wojciech Juzwa, Łukasz Wolko, Jacek Nowak, Paweł Cyplik, Heavy Metals as a Factor Increasing the Functional Genetic Potential of Bacterial Community for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Biodegradation, 2020, 25, 1420-3049, 319, 10.3390/molecules25020319 | |
| 27. | Nishi Kumari Singh, Sangeeta Choudhary, Bacterial and archaeal diversity in oil fields and reservoirs and their potential role in hydrocarbon recovery and bioprospecting, 2021, 0944-1344, 10.1007/s11356-020-11705-z | |
| 28. | D.M. Cocarta, D.M. Dumitru, L. Pesciaroli, M. Felli, B. Raduly, S. Crognale, Cultivable Hydrocarbonoclastic Microbial Community from Historically Polluted Soil: Tests for Consortium Development, 2019, 28, 1532-0383, 334, 10.1080/15320383.2019.1578335 | |
| 29. | Zulfiqar Ahmad, Xuezhi Zhang, Muhammad Imran, Hua Zhong, Shaista Andleeb, Rabail Zulekha, Guansheng Liu, Iftikhar Ahmad, Frederic Coulon, Production, functional stability, and effect of rhamnolipid biosurfactant from Klebsiella sp. on phenanthrene degradation in various medium systems, 2021, 207, 01476513, 111514, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111514 | |
| 30. | Huu-Tuan Tran, Chitsan Lin, Xuan-Thanh Bui, Huu-Hao Ngo, Nicholas Kiprotich Cheruiyot, Hong-Giang Hoang, Chi-Thanh Vu, Aerobic composting remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Current and future perspectives, 2021, 753, 00489697, 142250, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142250 | |
| 31. | N M Jabbar, A K Mohammed, S M Jabber, E H Kadhim, The use of Mixed Bacterial Culture to improve the Biodegradation of Diesel Pollution, 2019, 579, 1757-899X, 012011, 10.1088/1757-899X/579/1/012011 | |
| 32. | Polina Galitskaya, Liliya Biktasheva, Sergey Blagodatsky, Svetlana Selivanovskaya, Response of bacterial and fungal communities to high petroleum pollution in different soils, 2021, 11, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-020-80631-4 | |
| 33. | Natalia Ptaszek, Magdalena Pacwa-Płociniczak, Magdalena Noszczyńska, Tomasz Płociniczak, Comparative Study on Multiway Enhanced Bio- and Phytoremediation of Aged Petroleum-Contaminated Soil, 2020, 10, 2073-4395, 947, 10.3390/agronomy10070947 | |
| 34. | Daniel Morales‐Guzmán, Fernando Martínez‐Morales, Brandt Bertrand, Nashbly Sarela Rosas‐Galván, Nidya Fabiola Curiel‐Maciel, Karla Verónica Teymennet‐Ramírez, Luis Enrique Mazón‐Román, Alexei Fedorovish Licea‐Navarro, María R. Trejo‐Hernández, Microbial prospection of communities that produce biosurfactants from the water column and sediments of the Gulf of Mexico, 2020, 0885-4513, 10.1002/bab.2042 | |
| 35. | Slimane Mokrani, El-hafid Nabti, Heavy metal resistance and bioremediation capacity of rhizospheric strain BioRPaz-3 Pseudomonas azotoformans endowed with antifungal activities and multi-abiotic stress tolerance in in vitro trials, 2020, 2, 2523-3963, 10.1007/s42452-020-03828-2 | |
| 36. | Yu. Nikolaev, I. Borzenkov, N. Loyko, A. Ivanova, T. Kanapatsky, E. Demkina, S. Karabashev, I. Bliznetc, G. El- Registan, CREATION OF BIOCOMPOSITE MATERIALS FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE BASED ON THE IMMOBILIZATION OF HYDROCARBON-OXIDIZING BACTERIA ON THE SURFACE OF MICROCAPSULES, 2020, 2312-640X, 314, 10.37747/2312-640X-2020-18-314-316 | |
| 37. | Tianxin Li, Fang Zhang, Xu Wang, Ying Su, Effect of Lead Zirconate Titanate Bimorph on Soil Microorganisms: A Preliminary Study, 2021, 13, 2071-1050, 4193, 10.3390/su13084193 | |
| 38. | Dwaipayan Sinha, Suchetana Mukherjee, Dakshayani Mahapatra, 2021, chapter 8, 9781799870623, 205, 10.4018/978-1-7998-7062-3.ch008 | |
| 39. | M. G. Silva, L. M. Volcão, E. R. Seus, M. I. Machado, N. Mirlean, P. R. M. Baisch, F. M. R. da Silva Júnior, Comparative evaluation of different bioremediation techniques for crude oil-contaminated soil, 2021, 1735-1472, 10.1007/s13762-021-03325-y | |
| 40. | Attila Bodor, Naila Bounedjoum, Gábor Feigl, Ágnes Duzs, Krisztián Laczi, Árpád Szilágyi, Gábor Rákhely, Katalin Perei, Exploitation of extracellular organic matter from Micrococcus luteus to enhance ex situ bioremediation of soils polluted with used lubricants, 2021, 03043894, 125996, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125996 | |
| 41. | Kien A. Vu, Catherine N. Mulligan, Utilization of a biosurfactant foam/nanoparticle mixture for treatment of oil pollutants in soil, 2022, 29, 0944-1344, 88618, 10.1007/s11356-022-21938-9 | |
| 42. | Mabatho Moreroa, Moses Basitere, The challenges and treatment of abattoir effluents: a South African perspective, 2022, 17, 1751-231X, 2598, 10.2166/wpt.2022.147 | |
| 43. | Débora Conde Molina, Franco A. Liporace, Carla V. Quevedo, Optimization of biomass production by autochthonous Pseudomonas sp. MT1A3 as strategy to apply bioremediation in situ in a chronically hydrocarbon-contaminated soil, 2022, 12, 2190-572X, 10.1007/s13205-022-03183-6 | |
| 44. | Ebru Uyar, Özgür Sağlam, Isolation, screening and molecular characterization of biosurfactant producing bacteria from soil samples of auto repair shops, 2021, 203, 0302-8933, 4929, 10.1007/s00203-021-02483-4 | |
| 45. | Emmanuel Emeka Arinze, Benjamin Nnamdi Ekwueme, Anthony Chibuzo Ekeleme, The Effect of Soil Particle Sizes on Bioremediation Efficiency of Petroleum Contaminated Soils, 2023, 32, 1532-0383, 274, 10.1080/15320383.2022.2079609 | |
| 46. | Noor M. Jabbar, Saja M. Alardhi, Alaa K. Mohammed, Issam K. Salih, Talib M. Albayati, Challenges in the implementation of bioremediation processes in petroleum-contaminated soils: A review, 2022, 18, 22151532, 100694, 10.1016/j.enmm.2022.100694 | |
| 47. | Georgia C. Ntroumpogianni, Eleni Giannoutsou, Amalia D. Karagouni, Alexandros L. Savvides, Bacterial Isolates from Greek Sites and Their Efficacy in Degrading Petroleum, 2022, 14, 2071-1050, 9562, 10.3390/su14159562 | |
| 48. | Nandita Das, Ankita Das, Sandeep Das, Vasudha Bhatawadekar, Prisha Pandey, Kamlesh Choure, Samir Damare, Piyush Pandey, Petroleum Hydrocarbon Catabolic Pathways as Targets for Metabolic Engineering Strategies for Enhanced Bioremediation of Crude-Oil-Contaminated Environments, 2023, 9, 2311-5637, 196, 10.3390/fermentation9020196 | |
| 49. | Zhe Liu, Meixia Gu, Wei Zhu, Mengru Zhang, Weizhi Zhou, Petroleum‐contamination drives the shift of microbiome through modifying soil metallome, 2022, 33, 1085-3278, 1718, 10.1002/ldr.4260 | |
| 50. | Cindy Baburam, Alfred Mitema, Tsepo Tsekoa, Naser Aliye Feto, 2022, Chapter 5, 978-3-030-85464-5, 101, 10.1007/978-3-030-85465-2_5 | |
| 51. | Ritu PANWAR, Jyoti MATHUR, Remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soils using microbes and nanoparticles: A review, 2023, 33, 10020160, 93, 10.1016/j.pedsph.2022.06.032 | |
| 52. | Yingjin Song, Ruiyi Li, Guanyi Chen, Beibei Yan, Lei Zhong, Yuxin Wang, Yihang Li, Jinlei Li, Yingxiu Zhang, Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status on Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soils during 2000–2019, 2021, 18, 1660-4601, 8859, 10.3390/ijerph18168859 | |
| 53. | Siddhartha Narayan Borah, Niharika Koch, Suparna Sen, Ram Prasad, Hemen Sarma, 2022, 9780323851602, 643, 10.1016/B978-0-323-85160-2.00024-X | |
| 54. | Alexis Nzila, Musa M. Musa, Current Knowledge and Future Challenges on Bacterial Degradation of the Highly Complex Petroleum Products Asphaltenes and Resins, 2021, 9, 2296-665X, 10.3389/fenvs.2021.779644 | |
| 55. | Gessesse Kebede, Tekle Tafese, Ebrahim M. Abda, M. Kamaraj, Fassil Assefa, Yuhe He, Factors Influencing the Bacterial Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminants in the Soil: Mechanisms and Impacts, 2021, 2021, 2090-9071, 1, 10.1155/2021/9823362 | |
| 56. | María Guirado, Daniel Garrido-Sanz, Oscar Pindado, Manuel Rodríguez-Rastrero, Luis Merino-Martín, María José Sierra, Olga Escolano, Rafael Rivilla, Rocio Millán, Effectiveness of biochar application and bioaugmentation techniques for the remediation of freshly and aged diesel-polluted soils, 2021, 163, 09648305, 105259, 10.1016/j.ibiod.2021.105259 | |
| 57. | Essouassi Elikem, Arantxa P. Persico, David Bulmer, Steven D. Siciliano, Paolo Mussone, Derek Peak, A sustainable colloidal material with sorption and nutrient‐supply capabilities for in situ groundwater bioremediation, 2021, 50, 0047-2425, 1440, 10.1002/jeq2.20293 | |
| 58. | Soni Kumari Singh, Ashish Sachan, 2022, 9780128234433, 419, 10.1016/B978-0-12-823443-3.00007-7 | |
| 59. | Ana B. Medić, Ivanka M. Karadžić, Pseudomonas in environmental bioremediation of hydrocarbons and phenolic compounds- key catabolic degradation enzymes and new analytical platforms for comprehensive investigation, 2022, 38, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-022-03349-7 | |
| 60. | Nasser Al-Kaabi, Zulfa Al Disi, Mohammad A. Al-Ghouti, Theis Ivan Solling, Nabil Zouari, Interaction between indigenous hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria in reconstituted mixtures for remediation of weathered oil in soil, 2022, 36, 2215017X, e00767, 10.1016/j.btre.2022.e00767 | |
| 61. | Paolo Stincone, Robson Andreazza, Carolina Faccio Demarco, Thays França Afonso, Adriano Brandelli, 2023, Chapter 8, 978-3-031-17225-0, 147, 10.1007/978-3-031-17226-7_8 | |
| 62. | Innocent Chukwunonso Ossai, Fauziah Shahul Hamid, Auwalu Hassan, 2022, Chapter 4, 978-1-80355-378-8, 10.5772/intechopen.102053 | |
| 63. | Grifoni Martina, Rosellini Irene, Angelini Paolo, Petruzzelli Gianniantonio, Pezzarossa Beatrice, Martina Grifoni, A Preliminary Study on Lupinus albus and Raphanus sativus Grown in Soil Affected by Oil Spillage, 2021, 107, 0007-4861, 917, 10.1007/s00128-021-03290-9 | |
| 64. | Mirosław Wyszkowski, Natalia Kordala, Role of Different Material Amendments in Shaping the Content of Heavy Metals in Maize (Zea mays L.) on Soil Polluted with Petrol, 2022, 15, 1996-1944, 2623, 10.3390/ma15072623 | |
| 65. | Di Ma, Jie Xu, Jipeng Zhou, Lili Ren, Jian Li, Zaiwang Zhang, Jiangbao Xia, Huicheng Xie, Tao Wu, Using Sweet Sorghum Varieties for the Phytoremediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Salinized Soil: A Preliminary Study Based on Pot Experiments, 2023, 11, 2305-6304, 208, 10.3390/toxics11030208 | |
| 66. | Yury Nikolaev, Igor Borzenkov, Elena Demkina, Natalia Loiko, Timur Kanapatsky, Irina Perminova, Alexander Volikov, Anna Khreptugova, Igor Bliznetc, Nadezhda Grigoreva, Galina El-Registan, Immobilization of Cells of Hydrocarbon-oxidizing Bacteria for Petroleum Bioremediation Using New Materials, 2021, 15, 1735-6865, 971, 10.1007/s41742-021-00367-5 | |
| 67. | Tahany Mahmoud, Walaa S. Gado, A. H. Mady, Khalid I. Kabel, 2022, Chapter 35-1, 978-3-030-83783-9, 1, 10.1007/978-3-030-83783-9_35-1 | |
| 68. | M. Khazaei, A. Etminan, S. Dashti, S.A. Hosseini, Assessing the degradation potential of light petroleum hydrocarbons using bacterial activity (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and root exudate of Conocarpus (Conocarpus erectus), 2021, 24, 23521864, 101865, 10.1016/j.eti.2021.101865 | |
| 69. | Giovanni Gallo, Rosanna Puopolo, Miriam Carbonaro, Emanuela Maresca, Gabriella Fiorentino, Extremophiles, a Nifty Tool to Face Environmental Pollution: From Exploitation of Metabolism to Genome Engineering, 2021, 18, 1660-4601, 5228, 10.3390/ijerph18105228 | |
| 70. | Mohammad Ali Zahed, Mohammad Ali Matinvafa, Aryandokht Azari, Leila Mohajeri, Biosurfactant, a green and effective solution for bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in the aquatic environment, 2022, 2, 2730-647X, 10.1007/s43832-022-00013-x | |
| 71. | Natthariga Laothamteep, Kallayanee Naloka, Onruthai Pinyakong, Bioaugmentation with zeolite-immobilized bacterial consortium OPK results in a bacterial community shift and enhances the bioremediation of crude oil-polluted marine sandy soil microcosms, 2022, 292, 02697491, 118309, 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118309 | |
| 72. | Oludaisi Adekomaya, Thokozani Majozi, Promoting natural cycle and environmental resilience: A pathway toward sustainable development, 2022, 42, 10269185, 229, 10.1016/j.sajce.2022.09.002 | |
| 73. | Tatiana Vyacheslavovna Funtikova, Lenar Imametdinovich Akhmetov, Irina Filippovna Puntus, Pavel Alexeevich Mikhailov, Nurbol Orynbasaruly Appazov, Roza Abdibekovna Narmanova, Andrey Evgenievich Filonov, Inna Petrovna Solyanikova, Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Soil of the Republic of Kazakhstan Using a New Biopreparation, 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 522, 10.3390/microorganisms11020522 | |
| 74. | Manish Kumar, Nanthi Bolan, Tahereh Jasemizad, Lokesh P. Padhye, Srinidhi Sridharan, Lal Singh, Shiv Bolan, James O'Connor, Haochen Zhao, Sabry M. Shaheen, Hocheol Song, Kadambot H.M. Siddique, Hailong Wang, M.B. Kirkham, Jörg Rinklebe, Mobilization of contaminants: Potential for soil remediation and unintended consequences, 2022, 839, 00489697, 156373, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156373 | |
| 75. | Pranjal Bharali, Yasir Bashir, Anggana Ray, Nipu Dutta, Pronab Mudoi, Viphrezolie Sorhie, Vinita Vishwakarma, Palash Debnath, Bolin Kumar Konwar, Bioprospecting of indigenous biosurfactant-producing oleophilic bacteria for green remediation: an eco-sustainable approach for the management of petroleum contaminated soil, 2022, 12, 2190-572X, 10.1007/s13205-021-03068-0 | |
| 76. | Tahany Mahmoud, Walaa S. Gado, A. H. Mady, Khalid I. Kabel, 2023, Chapter 35, 978-3-031-09709-6, 1651, 10.1007/978-3-031-09710-2_35 | |
| 77. | Balakrishnan Muthukumar, Saravanan Surya, Krithiga Sivakumar, Mohamad S. AlSalhi, Tentu Nageswara Rao, Sandhanasamy Devanesan, Paulraj Arunkumar, Aruliah Rajasekar, Influence of bioaugmentation in crude oil contaminated soil by Pseudomonas species on the removal of total petroleum hydrocarbon, 2023, 310, 00456535, 136826, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136826 | |
| 78. | Jaber Neshati, Faraz Biabanaki, Nader Shariatmadari, An investigation into the efficiency of electrokinetic and electrokinetic coupled with calcium peroxide permeable reactive barriers techniques for soil remediation using a statistical analysis, 2023, 195, 0167-6369, 10.1007/s10661-022-10736-y | |
| 79. | Robert Kowalik, Małgorzata Widłak, Agata Widłak, Sorption of Heavy Metals by Sewage Sludge and Its Mixtures with Soil from Wastewater Treatment Plants Operating in MBR and INR Technology, 2021, 11, 2077-0375, 706, 10.3390/membranes11090706 | |
| 80. | Ivica Kisić, Jasna Hrenović, Željka Zgorelec, Goran Durn, Vladislav Brkić, Domina Delač, Bioremediation of Agriculture Soil Contaminated by Organic Pollutants, 2022, 15, 1996-1073, 1561, 10.3390/en15041561 | |
| 81. | Charles Chinyere Dike, Ibrahim Gbolahan Hakeem, Alka Rani, Aravind Surapaneni, Leadin Khudur, Kalpit Shah, Andrew S. Ball, The co-application of biochar with bioremediation for the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from contaminated soil, 2022, 849, 00489697, 157753, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157753 | |
| 82. | Kallayanee Naloka, Jirakit Jaroonrunganan, Naphatsakorn Woratecha, Nichakorn Khondee, Hideaki Nojiri, Onruthai Pinyakong, Physiological changes in Rhodococcus ruber S103 immobilized on biobooms using low-cost media enhance stress tolerance and crude oil-degrading activity, 2022, 12, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-022-14488-0 | |
| 83. | Elena Kuzina, Gulnaz Rafikova, Lidiya Vysotskaya, Tatyana Arkhipova, Margarita Bakaeva, Dar’ya Chetverikova, Guzel Kudoyarova, Tatyana Korshunova, Sergey Chetverikov, Influence of Hydrocarbon-Oxidizing Bacteria on the Growth, Biochemical Characteristics, and Hormonal Status of Barley Plants and the Content of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Soil, 2021, 10, 2223-7747, 1745, 10.3390/plants10081745 | |
| 84. | Abel Inobeme, Jaison Jeevanandam, Charles Oluwaseun Adetunji, Osikemekha Anthony Anani, Devarajan Thangadurai, Saher Islam, Olubukola Monisola Oyawoye, Julius Kola Oloke, Mohammed Bello Yerima, Olugbemi T. Olaniyan, 2021, 9780128226964, 89, 10.1016/B978-0-12-822696-4.00010-3 | |
| 85. | Tarun Kumar Kumawat, Varsha Kumawat, Swati Sharma, Nirat Kandwani, Manish Biyani, 2021, Chapter 11, 978-3-030-75288-0, 285, 10.1007/978-3-030-75289-7_11 | |
| 86. | Khadijah Nabilah Mohd Zahri, Khalilah Abdul Khalil, Claudio Gomez-Fuentes, Azham Zulkharnain, Suriana Sabri, Peter Convey, Sooa Lim, Siti Aqlima Ahmad, Mathematical Modelling of Canola Oil Biodegradation and Optimisation of Biosurfactant Production by an Antarctic Bacterial Consortium Using Response Surface Methodology, 2021, 10, 2304-8158, 2801, 10.3390/foods10112801 | |
| 87. | E. V. Babynin, I. A. Degtyareva, Possibilities of using information resources In bioremediation, 2021, 11, 2500-1558, 372, 10.21285/2227-2925-2021-11-3-372-383 | |
| 88. | Gilberto Martins, Sara Campos, Ana Ferreira, Rita Castro, Maria Salomé Duarte, Ana J. Cavaleiro, A Mathematical Model for Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils, 2022, 12, 2076-3417, 11069, 10.3390/app122111069 | |
| 89. | Gurpreet Kaur, Magdalena Krol, Satinder Kaur Brar, Geothermal heating: Is it a boon or a bane for bioremediation?, 2021, 287, 02697491, 117609, 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117609 | |
| 90. | Lucas Martinez Alvarez, Henk Bolhuis, Goh Kian Mau, Chan Kok-Gan, Chan Chia Sing, Walter Mac Cormack, Lucas Ruberto, Identification of key bacterial players during successful full-scale soil field bioremediation in Antarctica, 2022, 168, 09648305, 105354, 10.1016/j.ibiod.2021.105354 | |
| 91. | Giovanna Carpani, Ilaria Pietrini, Massimiliano Baric, Francesca D'Ambrosi, Carlo Alberto Cova, Jahanzaib Akhtar, Melania Buffagni, 2021, Bioremediation of Cutting Pits by Autochtonous Bacteria-Fungi Consortia, 10.2118/207921-MS | |
| 92. | Oxana V. Masyagina, Anastasia I. Matvienko, Tatiana V. Ponomareva, Irina D. Grodnitskaya, Elizaveta V. Sideleva, Valeriy K. Kadutskiy, Svetlana V. Prudnikova, Viktoria S. Bezbido, Kristina A. Kudryavtseva, Svetlana Y. Evgrafova, Soil contamination by diesel fuel destabilizes the soil microbial pools: Insights from permafrost soil incubations, 2023, 323, 02697491, 121269, 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121269 | |
| 93. | Chongshu Li, Changzheng Cui, Jie Zhang, Jing Shen, Baoyan He, Yan Long, Jinshao Ye, Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons based pollutants in contaminated soil by exogenous effective microorganisms and indigenous microbiome, 2023, 253, 01476513, 114673, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114673 | |
| 94. | A. A. Vetrova, S. Ya. Trofimov, R. R. Kinzhaev, N. A. Avetov, A. V. Arzamazova, I. F. Puntus, O. I. Sazonova, S. L. Sokolov, R. A. Streletskii, K. V. Petrikov, Ya. A. Delegan, V. A. Samoylenko, A. E. Filonov, Development of Microbial Consortium for Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Soils in the Middle Ob Region, 2022, 55, 1064-2293, 651, 10.1134/S1064229322050106 | |
| 95. | Gessesse Kebede Bekele, Solomon Abera Gebrie, Eshetu Mekonen, Tekle Tafese Fida, Adugna Abdi Woldesemayat, Ebrahim M. Abda, Mesfin Tafesse, Fasil Assefa, Todd R. Callaway, Isolation and Characterization of Diesel-Degrading Bacteria from Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Sites, Flower Farms, and Soda Lakes, 2022, 2022, 1687-9198, 1, 10.1155/2022/5655767 | |
| 96. | Yojana Waychal, Shreya Gawas, Sagar H. Barage, 2022, Chapter 10, 978-3-030-89983-7, 157, 10.1007/978-3-030-89984-4_10 | |
| 97. | T. Yu. Korshunova, M. D. Bakaeva, E. V. Kuzina, G. F. Rafikova, S. P. Chetverikov, D. V. Chetverikova, O. N. Loginov, Role of Bacteria of the Genus Pseudomonas in the Sustainable Development of Agricultural Systems and Environmental Protection (Review), 2021, 57, 0003-6838, 281, 10.1134/S000368382103008X | |
| 98. | Roberto Orellana, Andrés Cumsille, Paula Piña-Gangas, Claudia Rojas, Alejandra Arancibia, Salvador Donghi, Cristian Stuardo, Patricio Cabrera, Gabriela Arancibia, Franco Cárdenas, Felipe Salazar, Myriam González, Patricio Santis, Josefina Abarca-Hurtado, María Mejías, Michael Seeger, Economic Evaluation of Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Urban Soils in Chile, 2022, 14, 2071-1050, 11854, 10.3390/su141911854 | |
| 99. | Mahsa Mohammadi, Mohammadreza Khanmohammadi Khorrami, Hamid Vatanparast, Amirmohammad Karimi, Mina Sadrara, Classification and determination of sulfur content in crude oil samples by infrared spectrometry, 2022, 127, 13504495, 104382, 10.1016/j.infrared.2022.104382 | |
| 100. | A. A. Farouq, H. Y. Ismail, A. B. Rabah, A. B. Muhammad, U. B. Ibrahim, A. Y. Fardami, Cowpea induced physicochemical and biological rhizosphere changes in hydrocarbon contaminated soil, 2022, 477, 0032-079X, 759, 10.1007/s11104-022-05460-y | |
| 101. | Bhupendra Nath Tiwary, Reena Das, Vaishali Paul, 2022, Chapter 20, 978-981-16-5213-4, 589, 10.1007/978-981-16-5214-1_20 | |
| 102. | S. Sreevidya, Kirtana Sankara Subramanian, Yokraj Katre, Ajaya Kumar Singh, 2021, 9780128226964, 291, 10.1016/B978-0-12-822696-4.00003-6 | |
| 103. | Teklit Gebregiorgis Ambaye, Alif Chebbi, Francesca Formicola, Shiv Prasad, Franco Hernan Gomez, Andrea Franzetti, Mentore Vaccari, Remediation of soil polluted with petroleum hydrocarbons and its reuse for agriculture: Recent progress, challenges, and perspectives, 2022, 293, 00456535, 133572, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133572 | |
| 104. | Jane Alexander Ruley, Alice Amoding, John Baptist Tumuhairwe, Twaha Ateenyi Basamba, 2022, 9780323898744, 263, 10.1016/B978-0-323-89874-4.00008-X | |
| 105. | Melinda Mandaresu, Ludovica Dessì, Andrea Lallai, Marco Porceddu, Maria Enrica Boi, Gianluigi Bacchetta, Tiziana Pivetta, Raffaela Lussu, Riccardo Ardu, Marika Pinna, Federico Meloni, Enrico Sanjust, Elena Tamburini, Helichrysum microphyllum subsp. tyrrhenicum, Its Root-Associated Microorganisms, and Wood Chips Represent an Integrated Green Technology for the Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils, 2023, 13, 2073-4395, 812, 10.3390/agronomy13030812 | |
| 106. | Jonathan Wijaya, Haeil Byeon, Woosik Jung, Joonhong Park, Seungdae Oh, Machine learning modeling using microbiome data reveal microbial indicator for oil-contaminated groundwater, 2023, 53, 22147144, 103610, 10.1016/j.jwpe.2023.103610 | |
| 107. | Nurzat Totubaeva, Zhiide Tokpaeva, Janarbek Izakov, Mirlan Moldobaev, Bioremediation approaches for oil contaminated soils in extremely high-mountainous conditions, 2023, 69, 12141178, 188, 10.17221/433/2022-PSE | |
| 108. | MSc Yuletsis Díaz Rodríguez, Roberto Romero Silva, Danai Hernández Hernández, Claudia Chao Reyes, Carlos C. Cañete Pérez, Silvia Lilibet Acosta Díaz, Aplicación en campo de la biorremediación mejorada a cortes de perforación contaminados con diésel, 2023, 17, 2683-3360, e1146, 10.54167/tch.v17i1.1146 | |
| 109. | Tatyana Korshunova, Elena Kuzina, Svetlana Mukhamatdyarova, Yuliyana Sharipova, Milyausha Iskuzhina, Promising Strains of Hydrocarbon-Oxidizing Pseudomonads with Herbicide Resistance and Plant Growth-Stimulating Properties for Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Agricultural Soils, 2023, 13, 2077-0472, 1111, 10.3390/agriculture13061111 | |
| 110. | Yun-Yeong Lee, Soo Yeon Lee, Kyung-Suk Cho, Phytoremediation and bacterial community dynamics of diesel- and heavy metal-contaminated soil: Long-term monitoring on a pilot scale, 2023, 183, 09648305, 105642, 10.1016/j.ibiod.2023.105642 | |
| 111. | Wei Zheng, ZhiGuo Zhou, Lan Wang, Yang Gao, ShiJun Chen, Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Phenol in Oilfield Wastewater Using TiO2/CNTs nanocomposite Modified Glassy Carbon Electrode, 2022, 17, 14523981, 221138, 10.20964/2022.11.44 | |
| 112. | Daoqing Liu, Qianwei Li, Enhui Liu, Miao Zhang, Jicheng Liu, Chunmao Chen, Biomineralized nanoparticles for the immobilization and degradation of crude oil-contaminated soil, 2023, 1998-0124, 10.1007/s12274-023-5788-6 | |
| 113. | Victoria Koshoffa Akinpelumi, Kwakye George Kumi, Amarachi Paschaline Onyena, Sam Kabari, Anthoneth Ndidi Ezejiofor, Chiara Frazzoli, Osazuwa Clinton Ekhator, Godswill J. Udom, Orish Ebere Orisakwe, A comparative study of the impacts of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in water and soils in Nigeria and Ghana: Towards a framework for public health protection., 2023, 27724166, 100336, 10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100336 | |
| 114. | Mayada K. Kansour, Dina M. Al-Mailem, Bioremediation of two oil-contaminated Kuwaiti hyper-saline soils by cross bioaugmentation and the role of indigenous halophilic/halotolerant hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria, 2023, 32, 23521864, 103259, 10.1016/j.eti.2023.103259 | |
| 115. | Devargya Ganguly, K. L. V. Prasanna, Swaroopa Neelapu, Gargi Goswami, 2023, Chapter 19, 978-981-99-2815-6, 549, 10.1007/978-981-99-2816-3_19 | |
| 116. | Ikeabiama Ndubuisi Azuazu, Kabari Sam, Pablo Campo, Frederic Coulon, Challenges and opportunities for low-carbon remediation in the Niger Delta: Towards sustainable environmental management, 2023, 900, 00489697, 165739, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165739 | |
| 117. | S. U. Oghoje, C. I. Omoruyi, C. Ojeomo, J. E. Ukpebor, I. H. Ifijen, Revolutionizing Soil Remediation: Harnessing the Potential of Chicken Manure Digestates for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination, 2023, 2522-5758, 10.1007/s42250-023-00711-6 | |
| 118. | Moirangthem Singh Goutam, Madhava Anil Kumar, 2023, Chapter 20, 978-981-99-2597-1, 443, 10.1007/978-981-99-2598-8_20 | |
| 119. | Gurpreet Kaur, Joanna Lecka, Magdalena Krol, Satinder Kaur Brar, Novel BTEX-degrading strains from subsurface soil: Isolation, identification and growth evaluation, 2023, 335, 02697491, 122303, 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122303 | |
| 120. | Yulia Sotnikova, Anna Grigoriadi, Vadim Fedyaev, Margarita Garipova, Ilshat Galin, Guzal Sharipova, Anna Yamaleeva, Sergey Chetverikov, Dmitriy Veselov, Guzel Kudoyarova, Rashit Farkhutdinov, Influence of a Hydrocarbon Biodestructor on the Growth and Content of Phytohormones in Secale cereale L. Plants under Petroleum Pollution of the Soil, 2023, 13, 2077-0472, 1640, 10.3390/agriculture13081640 | |
| 121. | Jadwiga Wyszkowska, Agata Borowik, Magdalena Zaborowska, Jan Kucharski, Biochar, Halloysite, and Alginite Improve the Quality of Soil Contaminated with Petroleum Products, 2023, 13, 2077-0472, 1669, 10.3390/agriculture13091669 | |
| 122. | Mahsa Mohammadi, Mohammadreza Khanmohammadi Khorrami, Arezoo Rezaei, Hamid Vatanparast, Mohammad Mahdi Khanmohammadi Khorrami, Robust Principal Component Analysis-Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (rPCA-MARS) Model for Determining Total Acid Number (TAN) and Total Base Number (TBN) of Crude Oil Samples Using Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) Spectroscopy, 2023, 09242031, 103579, 10.1016/j.vibspec.2023.103579 | |
| 123. | Patricia Giovanella, Rodrigo Gouvêa Taketani, Ruben Gil-Solsona, Luiz Leonardo Saldanha, Samantha Beatríz Esparza Naranjo, Juan V. Sancho, Tania Portolés, Fernando Dini Andreote, Sara Rodríguez-Mozaz, Damià Barceló, Lara Durães Sette, A comprehensive study on diesel oil bioremediation under microcosm conditions using a combined microbiological, enzymatic, mass spectrometry, and metabarcoding approach, 2023, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-023-29474-w | |
| 124. | Marina Chugunova, Lyudmila Bakina, Alexander Gerasimov, D. Nazarov, A. Juraeva, Features of the self-restoration of the oil-contaminated peat-bog soil – a field study, 2023, 67, 2117-4458, 01009, 10.1051/bioconf/20236701009 | |
| 125. | Ponnusamy Kulanthaivel, Ammapalyam Ramasamy Krishnaraja, Suresh Muthusamy, Om Prava Mishra, Mizaj Shabil Sha, Kishor Kumar Sadasivuni, An Experimental Analysis of Precipitated Silica in Petroleum-Contaminated Clay for the Strengthening of Soil Characteristics, 2023, 2228-6160, 10.1007/s40996-023-01242-3 | |
| 126. | Joshelin Huanca-Juarez, Edson Alexandre Nascimento-Silva, Ninna Hirata Silva, Rafael Silva-Rocha, María-Eugenia Guazzaroni, Identification and functional analysis of novel protein-encoding sequences related to stress-resistance, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1268315 | |
| 127. | Ákos Ferenc Fazekas, Tamás Gyulavári, Zsolt Pap, Attila Bodor, Krisztián Laczi, Katalin Perei, Erzsébet Illés, Zsuzsanna László, Gábor Veréb, Effects of Different TiO2/CNT Coatings of PVDF Membranes on the Filtration of Oil-Contaminated Wastewaters, 2023, 13, 2077-0375, 812, 10.3390/membranes13100812 | |
| 128. | Yahaya Y. Riko, Zubairu U. Darma, 2024, 9781119989288, 239, 10.1002/9781119989318.ch15 | |
| 129. | Suzanne C. Henderson, Amalesh Dhar, M. Anne Naeth, Reclamation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils Using Soil Amendments and Native Plant Species, 2023, 12, 2079-9276, 130, 10.3390/resources12110130 | |
| 130. | Tatiana Minnikova, Anna Ruseva, Sergey Kolesnikov, 2023, Chapter 18, 978-3-031-37215-5, 225, 10.1007/978-3-031-37216-2_18 | |
| 131. | Oscar Daniel Navas-Cáceres, Mayra Parada, German Zafra, Development of a highly tolerant bacterial consortium for asphaltene biodegradation in soils, 2023, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-023-30682-7 | |
| 132. | Jamilah Ahmad, Nuratiqah Marsidi, Siti Rozaimah Sheikh Abdullah, Hassimi Abu Hasan, Ahmad Razi Othman, Nur 'Izzati Ismail, Setyo Budi Kurniawan, Integrating phytoremediation and mycoremediation with biosurfactant-producing fungi for hydrocarbon removal and the potential production of secondary resources, 2024, 349, 00456535, 140881, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140881 | |
| 133. | Oluwafemi Sunday Obayori, Oluwadamilola Deborah Adesina, Lateef Babatunde Salam, Ahmeed Olalekan Ashade, Francisca Obiageri Nwaokorie, Depletion of hydrocarbons and concomitant shift in bacterial community structure of a diesel-spiked tropical agricultural soil, 2023, 0959-3330, 1, 10.1080/09593330.2023.2291421 | |
| 134. | Dorjjugder Nasanjargal, Baldorj Pagmadulam, Munkhbayar Uuriintuya, Mendbayar Mend-Amar, Renchindorj Urjinlkham, Khandaa Oyunkhan, Tserennadmid Rentsenkhand, mini-review of petroleum and sludge bioremediation using microorganisms, 2023, 39, 2788-9823, 151, 10.5564/pib.v39i1.3149 | |
| 135. | Yaru Wang, Shuo Sun, Qiyou Liu, Yuhua Su, Hang Zhang, Mingjun Zhu, Fang Tang, Yingying Gu, Chaocheng Zhao, Characteristic microbiome and synergistic mechanism by engineering agent MAB-1 to evaluate oil-contaminated soil biodegradation in different layer soil, 2024, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-024-31891-4 | |
| 136. | Barbara Bertović, Monika Šabić Runjavec, Nolla Todorović, Ivan Zgrebec, Marija Vuković Domanovac, Biotechnological Potential of Oil-Tolerant Strains for Possible Use in Bioremediation, 2024, 16, 2071-1050, 563, 10.3390/su16020563 | |
| 137. | Pooja C. Mayekar, Rafael Auras, Accelerating Biodegradation: Enhancing Poly(lactic acid) Breakdown at Mesophilic Environmental Conditions with Biostimulants, 2024, 1022-1336, 10.1002/marc.202300641 | |
| 138. | Samuel Fosu Gyasi, Mark Kwasi Sarfo, Amos Tiereyangn Kabo-Bah, Bright Adu, Andrew Sarkodie Appiah, Yaw Serfor-Armah, In vitro assessment of crude oil degradation by Acinetobacter junii and Alcanivorax xenomutans isolated from the coast of Ghana, 2024, 10, 24058440, e24994, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24994 | |
| 139. | Li Fan, Xianhe Gong, Quanwei Lv, Denghui Bin, Li’Ao Wang, Construction of Shale Gas Oil-Based Drilling Cuttings Degrading Bacterial Consortium and Their Degradation Characteristics, 2024, 12, 2076-2607, 318, 10.3390/microorganisms12020318 | |
| 140. | Sudesh Kumar, 2023, Chapter 10, 978-3-031-48219-9, 205, 10.1007/978-3-031-48220-5_10 | |
| 141. | Chioma B. Ehis-Eriakha, Stephen E. Akemu, Damilola O. Osofisan, 2024, 0, 2754-6713, 10.5772/intechopen.114081 | |
| 142. | Emmanuel Oliver Fenibo, Rosina Nkuna, Tonderayi Matambo, Impact of artisanal refining activities on bacterial diversity in a Niger Delta fallow land, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-53147-4 | |
| 143. | Bassazin Ayalew Mekonnen, Tadele Assefa Aragaw, Melkamu Birlie Genet, Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil: a review on principles, degradation mechanisms, and advancements, 2024, 12, 2296-665X, 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1354422 | |
| 144. | Kevin C. Lee, Stephen D.J. Archer, Mayada K. Kansour, Dina M. Al-Mailem, Bioremediation of oily hypersaline soil via autochthonous bioaugmentation with halophilic bacteria and archaea, 2024, 922, 00489697, 171279, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171279 | |
| 145. | G. K. Vasilyeva, E. R. Strijakova, J. J. Ortega-Calvo, 2024, Chapter 1080, 1867-979X, 10.1007/698_2024_1080 | |
| 146. | Charles Chinyere Dike, Alka Rani Batra, Leadin S. Khudur, Kamrun Nahar, Andrew S. Ball, Effect of the Application of Ochrobactrum sp.-Immobilised Biochar on the Remediation of Diesel-Contaminated Soil, 2024, 12, 2305-6304, 234, 10.3390/toxics12040234 | |
| 147. | Godwin U. A., Inu N. U., Effect of Crude Oil Contamination on Microbial Community Structure and Urease Activity in Coastal Plain Sands of Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, 2024, 7, 2689-9434, 51, 10.52589/AJENSR-28GRZZ4K | |
| 148. | Jonathan Wijaya, Joonhong Park, Yuyi Yang, Sharf Ilahi Siddiqui, Seungdae Oh, A metagenome-derived artificial intelligence modeling framework advances the predictive diagnosis and interpretation of petroleum-polluted groundwater, 2024, 03043894, 134513, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.134513 | |
| 149. | Kelly Hidalgo-Martinez, Admir José Giachini, Marcio Schneider, Adriana Soriano, Marcus Paulus Baessa, Luiz Fernando Martins, Valéria Maia de Oliveira, Shifts in structure and dynamics of the soil microbiome in biofuel/fuel blend–affected areas triggered by different bioremediation treatments, 2024, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-024-33304-y | |
| 150. | Yong-Tao Li, Qin Sui, Xi Li, Xin-Yue Liu, Hao Liu, Yu-Qin Wang, Wan-Ying Du, Remediation of diesel contaminated soil by using activated persulfate with Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles: effect and mechanisms, 2024, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-024-33408-5 | |
| 151. | Mingjian Zhang, Qing Chen, Zheng Gong, Microbial remediation of petroleum-contaminated soil focused on the mechanism and microbial response: a review, 2024, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-024-33474-9 | |
| 152. | Wenjie Yu, Minglei Yang, Yuzhu Liu, Real-time in situ detection of petroleum hydrocarbon pollution in soils via a novel optical methodology, 2024, 13861425, 124526, 10.1016/j.saa.2024.124526 | |
| 153. | Fatemah Aghazadeh Amiri, Nafisah Aghazadeh Amiri, Pouria Karimi, Akbar Eslami, Leila Faravardeh, Mohammad Rafiee, Abolghasem Ghasemi, Bioaugmentation of Bio-Slurry Reactor Containing Pyrene Contaminated Soil by Engineered Pseudomonas putida KT2440, 2024, 235, 0049-6979, 10.1007/s11270-024-07186-2 | |
| 154. | Mohamad Reza Fadaei Tehrani, Ali Asghar Besalatpour, A combined landfarming-phytoremediation method to enhance remediation of mixed persistent contaminants, 2024, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-024-33606-1 | |
| 155. | Achmad Buhori, Juwon Lee, Min Ji Cha, Jung Ho Ahn, Sung Ok Han, Jae-Wook Choi, Kwang Ho Kim, Jeong-Myeong Ha, Gyeongtaek Gong, Chun-Jae Yoo, Synthesis of biosurfactants from polyethylene waste via an integrated chemical and biological process, 2024, 12, 22133437, 113322, 10.1016/j.jece.2024.113322 | |
| 156. | Elena Nikitina, Valeriya Smirnova, Angelina Danilova, Possibilities of spectral analysis methods for the oil sludge research, 2024, 5, 2782-1900, 127, 10.52957/2782-1900-2024-5-2-127-132 | |
| 157. | Adama Sawadogo, Hama Cissé, Harmonie Cécile Otoidobiga, Ismail A. Odetokun, Cheikna Zongo, Dayéri Dianou, Aly Savadogo, Characterization of two bacterial strains isolated from wastewater and exhibiting in-vitro degradation of diesel and used oils, 2024, 24682276, e02289, 10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02289 | |
| 158. | Elena Nikitina, Valeriya Smirnova, Angelina Danilova, Vozmozhnosti spektral`ny`x metodov analiza v issledovanii nefteshlamov, 2024, 5, 2782-1900, 55, 10.52957/2782-1900-2024-5-2-55-60 | |
| 159. | Afrah Siddique, Zulfa Al Disi, Mohammad AlGhouti, Nabil Zouari, Diversity of hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria in mangroves rhizosphere as an indicator of oil-pollution bioremediation in mangrove forests, 2024, 205, 0025326X, 116620, 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116620 | |
| 160. | Shanky Jindal, Kamal Krishan Aggarwal, Pseudomonas aeruginosa PR23 isolated from oil contaminated soil tolerate and degrades mixture of polyaromatic hydrocarbons and express novel proteins, 2024, 40, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-024-04071-2 | |
| 161. | Aimée D. Schryer, Steven D. Siciliano, Do phosphorus amendments enhance biodegradation activity in stalled petroleum hydrocarbon‐contaminated soil?, 2024, 0047-2425, 10.1002/jeq2.20594 | |
| 162. | Sahaya Nadar, Tabassum Khan, 2024, 9781119851127, 257, 10.1002/9781119851158.ch17 | |
| 163. | Ewelina Zając, Monika J. Fabiańska, Elżbieta Jędrszczyk, Tomasz Skalski, Hydrocarbon Degradation and Microbial Survival Improvement in Response to γ-Polyglutamic Acid Application, 2022, 19, 1660-4601, 15066, 10.3390/ijerph192215066 | |
| 164. | Małgorzata Widłak, Renata Stoińska, Robert Kowalik, Assessment of physical and chemical pollution of urban agglomeration soils, 2020, 199, 19443986, 137, 10.5004/dwt.2020.25980 | |
| 165. | Roda F. Al-Thani, Bassam T. Yasseen, Methods Using Marine Aquatic Photoautotrophs along the Qatari Coastline to Remediate Oil and Gas Industrial Water, 2024, 12, 2305-6304, 625, 10.3390/toxics12090625 | |
| 166. | Małgorzata Widłak, Robert Kowalik, Szymon Sobura, Quality of the soil and water environment in the immediate vicinity of the Barania Gora Forest Reserve, 2021, 232, 19443986, 404, 10.5004/dwt.2021.27604 | |
| 167. | Parviz Behdarvandan, Reza Jalilzadeh Yengejeh, Sima Sabzalipour, Laleh Roomiani, Khoshnaz Payandeh, Evaluating effect of aeration and sand addition on soil physicochemical properties and soil total petroleum hydrocarbon bioremediation efficiency by indigenous isolated bacteria, 2024, 0277-2248, 1, 10.1080/02772248.2024.2421236 | |
| 168. | Balázs Libisch, N-Alkane Assimilation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Its Interactions with Virulence and Antibiotic Resistance, 2024, 13, 2079-6382, 1028, 10.3390/antibiotics13111028 | |
| 169. | Anastasiia T. Davletgildeeva, Nikita A. Kuznetsov, Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Means of Bacteria and Bacterial Enzymes, 2024, 12, 2076-2607, 1814, 10.3390/microorganisms12091814 | |
| 170. | Chinedu Emeka Ihejirika, Joseph Ifeanyichukwu Garricks, Ejeagba Okorie Imo, Joseph Ikechukwu Nwachukwu, Ihuoma Ezichi Mbuka-Nwosu, Etienne Chukwuma Chinakwe, Ursula Ngozi Nwaogwugwu, Christopher Chibuzor Ejiogu, Obenade Moses, Biodegradation efficiencies of Low Pour Fuel Oil by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus licheniformis isolates, 2024, 1, 3020-7886, 1, 10.70099/BJ/2024.01.04.15 | |
| 171. | Samira Pakdel, Ali Beheshti Ale Agha, Rouhallah Sharifi, Alireza Habibi, Firoozeh Gholami, Diesel-degradation by indigenous bacteria of petroleum-contaminated soils, 2024, 1618-1905, 10.1007/s10123-024-00616-5 | |
| 172. | Eziafakaego M. Ibo, Aina O. Adeogun, Michael U. Orji, Odera R. Umeh, Harnessing microbial synergy: A comprehensive evaluation of consortia-mediated bioremediation strategies for petroleum refinery wastewater treatment, 2024, 2, 29502632, 100055, 10.1016/j.clwat.2024.100055 | |
| 173. | Lucas M. Martínez Álvarez, Francisco Massot, Martin Andres Diaz, W.P. Mac Cormack, Lucas A.M. Ruberto, 2025, 9780443217036, 701, 10.1016/B978-0-443-21703-6.00013-8 | |
| 174. | Wei-Ting Chen, Ku-Fan Chen, Der-Shyan Sheu, Rao Y. Surampalli, Tian C. Zhang, Chih-Ming Kao, Development of a Novel Lyophilization Method for the Production of Bacterial Strain Powders to Enhance the Cleanup Efficiency of Petroleum Hydrocarbon–Polluted Soils, 2025, 151, 0733-9372, 10.1061/JOEEDU.EEENG-7735 | |
| 175. | Katie E. Howland, Jack J. Mouradian, Donald R. Uzarski, Michael W. Henson, Donald G. Uzarski, Deric R. Learman, Arpita Bose, Nutrient amendments enrich microbial hydrocarbon degradation metagenomic potential in freshwater coastal wetland microcosm experiments, 2024, 0099-2240, 10.1128/aem.01972-24 | |
| 176. | Pratik Kakde, Jaigopal Sharma, Microbial Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soil: Structural Complexity, Degradation Dynamics and Advanced Remediation Techniques, 2024, 18, 09737510, 2244, 10.22207/JPAM.18.4.28 | |
| 177. | Kuok Ho Daniel Tang, Phytoremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Update of Its Recent Progress, 2024, 2, 3009-0806, 10.53623/tebt.v2i2.532 | |
| 178. | Zhuorong Du, Xudong Wang, Zhao Song, Baikang Zhu, Lijuan Feng, Zhi Chen, Qingguo Chen, Effect of konjac glucomannan aerogel‐immobilized Chlorella vulgaris LH‐1 on oil‐contaminated seawater remediation and endogenous bacterial community diversity, 2025, 97, 1061-4303, 10.1002/wer.70009 | |
| 179. | K.J. Hidalgo, L.G. Cueva, A.J. Giachini, M.R. Schneider, A.U. Soriano, M.P. Baessa, L.F. Martins, V.M. Oliveira, Long-term microbial functional responses in soil contaminated with biofuel/fossil fuel blends triggered by different bioremediation treatments, 2025, 02697491, 125685, 10.1016/j.envpol.2025.125685 | |
| 180. | Bzhwen Khalid Majeed, Dler M.S Shwan, Khasraw Abdullah Rashid, A review on environmental contamination of petroleum hydrocarbons, its effects and remediation approaches, 2025, 2050-7887, 10.1039/D4EM00548A | |
| 181. | Musa Manga, Herbert Cirrus Kaboggoza, Swaib Semiyaga, Lauren Sprouse, Jiahui Guo, Anais Gentles, Yashraj Banga, Sarah Lebu, Chimdi Muoghalu, 2025, 9780323998895, 149, 10.1016/B978-0-323-99889-5.00009-8 | |
| 182. | Rantim Bhattacharjee, Bhaskar Venkateswaran Parli, Marine siderophores and its implications in changing polar ecosystem: a review, 2025, 48, 0722-4060, 10.1007/s00300-025-03355-z | |
| 183. | Audrey Vauloup, Aurélie Cébron, Development of a device to trap soil bacteria capable of degrading organic contaminants such as alkanes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 2025, 03043894, 137690, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.137690 | |
| 184. | Dian Andriani, Rina Andriyani, Astari Prabandani, Mutia Dewi Yuniati, Dede Heri Yuli Yanto, Nur Syamimi Zaidi, Mohd Hafiz Puteh, Characterization and Treatment Methods of Hazardous Compounds in Batik Wastewater: A Review, 2025, 19, 1735-6865, 10.1007/s41742-025-00741-7 | |
| 185. | Sima Abdoli, Behnam Asgari Lajayer, Sepideh Bagheri Novair, Gordon W. Price, Unlocking the Potential of Biosurfactants in Agriculture: Novel Applications and Future Directions, 2025, 17, 2071-1050, 2110, 10.3390/su17052110 | |
| 186. | Mihaela Marilena Stancu, Investigating the Potential of Native Soil Bacteria for Diesel Biodegradation, 2025, 13, 2076-2607, 564, 10.3390/microorganisms13030564 | |
| 187. | Kashif Hussain, Muhammad Hassan Bashir, Hamaad Raza Ahmad, Muhammad Tahir Shehzad, Amna Zulfqar, Modeling source identification of dust and paint metals effecting workshops indoor air quality: associated contamination and cancer risk, 2025, 11, 2363-6203, 10.1007/s40808-025-02372-5 | |
| 188. | Mohammad Kamranifar, Hamidreaza Pourzamani, Rasoul Khosravi, Gholamhassan Ranjbar, Karim Ebrahimpour, Phytotoxic effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on germination and growth of the native halophyte Salicornia sinus persica in oil contaminated soil, 2025, 15, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-025-92512-9 | |
| 189. | Matthew Chidozie Ogwu, Aliu Olugbemiga Ojo, Amarachi Chekosiba Alaka, 2025, Chapter 5, 978-3-031-81965-0, 113, 10.1007/978-3-031-81966-7_5 | |
| 190. | Roda F. Al-Thani, Bassam T. Yasseen, The Role of Phytoplankton in Phycoremediation of Polluted Seawater: Risks, Benefits to Human Health, and a Focus on Diatoms in the Arabian Gulf, 2025, 17, 2073-4441, 920, 10.3390/w17070920 |
Figures(6) / Tables(4)
Eman Koshlaf, Andrew S Ball. Soil bioremediation approaches for petroleum hydrocarbon polluted environments[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(1): 25-49. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.25
| Remediation strategy | Example of method | Treating site | Cost (US $/m3) a | Benefits | Limitations |
| Physical | Vapour extraction | Ex situ | 405-1,485 | -Fast -Permanentremoval of pollutants -Ideal for high levels of pollution |
-Costly -Destructive -Prone to secondary pollution |
| Chemical | Thermal desorption | Ex situ | 80-440 | -Fast -Dose not generatelarge volumes of waste material -Ideal for high level of contamination |
-Costly -Destructive -Prone to secondary pollution |
| Biological | Biostimulation | In situ | 30-100 | -Environmentally friendly -Cost effective -Minimum site disruption -Useful for low level of pollutants |
-Require longer time -Low predictability -Reliant on environmental factors |
DownLoad: CSV| Species/Strain | Substrate | Species/Strain | Substrate |
| Achromobacter sp. NCW | CBZ | Geobacillus thermodenitrificans NG80-2 | C15-C36 |
| Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1 | −C36 | Gordonia sp. TY-5 | C3, C13-C22 |
| A. calcoaceticus 69-V | C11-C18 | Janibacter sp. YY-1 | DBF, FLE, DBT, PHE, ANT, DD |
| A. calcoaceticus EB104 | C6-C18 | Marinobacter NCE312 | NAP |
| A. calcoaceticus NCIB 8250 | C8-C16 | Marinobacter sp. BC36, BC38, & BC42 | C18 |
| Acinetobacter sp. 2796A | C10-C16 | Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus 617 | C16-C30 |
| Acinetobacter sp. M-1 | C13-C44 | Mycobacterium avium | paraffins |
| Acinetobacter calcoaceticus RR8 | C10-C34 | M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis | paraffins |
| Acinetobacter lwoffi | C12-C28 | M. bovis BCG | C12-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. ODDK71 | C12-C30 | M. smegmatis | C9-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. S30 | −C33 | M. tuberculosis H37Rv | C11-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. DSM17874 | C10-C40 | Mycobacterium sp. CH1 | C12-C28 |
| Alcanivorax borkumensis AP1 | C10-C20 | Mycobacterium sp. HXN 600 | C6-C24 |
| Alcanivorax borkumensis SK2 | C8-C32 | Mycobacterium sp. OFS | C11-C28 |
| Alcaligenes odorans P20 | −C33 | Mycobacterium sp. | PYR, BaP |
| Alcaligenes denitrificans | FLA | Mycobacterium sp.JS14 | FLA |
| Arthrobacter nicotianae KCC B35 | C10-C40 | Mycobacterium sp. 6PY1, KR2, AP1 | PYR |
| Arthrobacter sp.F101 | FLE | Mycobacterium sp. RJGⅡ-135 | PYR, BaA, BaP |
| Arthrobacter sp. P1-1 | DBT, CBZ, PHE | Mycobacterium sp. PYR-1, LB501T | FLA, PYR, PHE, ANT |
| Arthrobacter sulphureus RKJ4 | PHE | Mycobacterium sp. CH1, BG1, BB1, KR20 | PHE, FLE, FLA, PYR |
| Acidovorax delafieldii P4-1 | PHE | Mycobacterium flavescens | PYR, FLA |
| Bacillus cereus P21 | PYR | Mycobacterium vanbaalenii PYR-1 | PHE, PYR, dMBaA |
| Bacillus thermoleovorans B23 & H41 | C9-C30 | Mycobacterium sp. KMS | PYR |
| Bacillus thuringiensis/cereus A2 | C6-C28 | Nocardioides aromaticivorans IC177 | CBZ |
| Brevibacteriumsp. HL4 | PHE | Nocardioides sp. CF8 | C2-C16 |
| Burkholderia sp.S3702, RP007, 2A 12TNFYE-5, BS3770 | PHE | Paracoccus sereniphilus/marcusii A7 | C6-C28 |
| Burkholderia cepacia ATCC 25416 | C10-C16 | Paracoccus sp. strains Ophe1 & Sphe1 | C10-C28 |
| Burkholderia cepacia RR10 | C12-C34 | Pasteurella sp. IFA | FLA |
| Burkholderia sp.C3 | PHE | Planococcus alkanoclasticus MAE2 | C11-C33 |
| Burkholderia cepacia BU-3 | NAP, PHE, PYR | Polaromonas naphthalenivorans CJ2 | NAP |
| Burkholderia cocovenenans | PHE | Prauserella rugosa NRRL B-2295 | C8-C14 |
| Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 | BZ, BP | Pseudomonas aureofaciens RWTH 529 | C10 |
| B. mallei | C10-C16 | Pseudomonas sp. 7/156 | n. d |
| B. pseudomallei | C10-C16 | Pseudomonas putida GPo1 | C5-C12 |
| Chryseobacterium sp. NCY | CBZ | P. putida P1 | C8 |
| Cycloclasticus sp. P1 | PYR | Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 | C12-C32 |
| Brachybacterium sp. | C10-C20 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 | C12-C24 |
| Desulfatibacillum aliphaticivorans CV2803 | C13-C18 | P. aeruginosa PG201 | C10-C16 |
| Dietzia cinnamea P4 | C11-C24 | P. aeruginosa KSLA473 | C5-C16 |
| Dietzia psychralcaliphila | C13-C24 | P. aeruginosa NCIMB 8704 & 9571 | C8-C16 |
| P. aeruginosa ATCC 17423 | C8-C16 | R. erythropolis Q15 | C8-C32 |
| P. aeruginosa RR1 | C12-C34 | R. erythropolis 35-O | C6-C16 |
| P. aeruginosa strains A1, A3, A4, A5, A6 | C6-C28 | R. erythropolis 23-D | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp. PUP6 | C12-C28 | R. erythropolis NRRL B-16531 | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp.C18, PP2, DLC-P11 | NAP, PHE | R. erythropolis 42-O | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp.BT1d | HFBT | R. erythropolis 62-O | C6-C16 |
| Pseudomonas sp.B4 | BP, CBP | R. erythropolis 23-D | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp.HH69 | DBF | R. erythropolis 50-V | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp. CA10 | CBZ, CDD | R. erythropolis NRRL B-16531 | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp. NCIB 9816-4 | FLE, DBF, DBT | Rhodococcus fascians 115-H | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp. F274 | FLE | R. fascians 154-S | C6-C24 |
| Pseudomonas paucimobilis | PHE | Rhodococcus rhodochrous | C12-C20 |
| Pseudomonas vesicularis OUS82 | FLE | Staphylococcus sp. PN/Y | PHE |
| Pseudomonas putida P16, BS3701, BS3750, BS590-P, BS202-P1 | NAP, PHE | Stenotrophomonas maltophilia VUN 10,010 | PYR, FLA, BaP |
| Pseudomonas putida CSV86 | MNAP | S. maltophilia VUN 10,003 | PYR, FLA, BaA, BaP, DBA, COR |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens BS3760 | PHE, CHR, BaA | Sphingomonas yanoikuyae R1 | PYR |
| Pseudomonas stutzeri P15 | PYR | Sphingomonas yanoikuyae JAR02 | BaP |
| Pseudomonas saccharophilia | PYR | Sphingomonas sp.P2, LB126 | FLE, PHE, FLA, ANT |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | PHE | Sphingomonas sp. | DBF, DBT, CBZ |
| Ralstonia sp. SBUG 290 U2 | DBF NAP | Sphingomonas paucimobilis EPA505 | FLA, NAP, ANT, PHE |
| Rhodanobacter sp. BPC-1 | BaP | Sphingomonas wittichii RW1 | CDD |
| Rhodococcus sp. | PYR, FLA | strain AK01 | C13-C18 |
| Rhodococcus sp. 1BN | C6-C28 | strain HdN1 | C14-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp. RR12 & RR14 | C14-C34 | strain Hxd3 | C12-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp. strains T12 & TMP2 | C9-C22 | Terrabacter sp.DBF63 | DBF, CDBF, CDD, FLE |
| Rhodococcus sp. NCIM5126 | C13-C20 | Thalassolituus oleivorans | C 7-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp.WU-K2R | NAT, BT | Thermooleophilum album | C13-C 20 |
| Rhodococcus erythropolis I-19 | ADBT | Thermus sp. C2 | C9-C39 |
| R. erythropolis D-1 | DBT | Weeksella sp. RR7 | C12-C34 |
| P. aeruginosa ATCC 17423 | C8-C16 | Xanthamonas sp. | PYR, BaP, CBZ |
| P. aeruginosa RR1 | C12-C34 | Xylella fastidiosa RR15 | C14-C34 |
| Pyrene (PYR), anthracene (ANT), fluorene (FLE), dibenz[a, h]anthracene (DBA), naphthalene (NAP), phenanthrene (PHE), benz[a]anthracene (BaA), dimethylbenz[a]anthracene(dMBaA), chlorinated dibenzothophene (CDBF), benzothiophene(BT), alkylated dibenzothiophene (ADBT), 3-hydroxy-2-formylbenzothiophene (HFBT), chrysene (CHR), dibenzo-p-dioxin (DD), biphenyl; CBP, fluoranthene (FLA), chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), coronene(COR), methyl naphthalene (MNAP), carbazole (CBZ), chlorobiphenyl (BP), naphthothiophene (NAT), dibenzofuran (DBF), benzoate (BZ). | |||
DownLoad: CSV| Bioremediation method | Main features | Advantages | limitations |
| 1. Natural attenuation | Utilising indigenous microbial populations under natural conditions | Cost effective | Requires extensive long-range observation Not always effective |
| 2. Bioaugmentation Isolated strain Microbial consortium |
Addition of efficient pollutant of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes Catalyse the degradation of single molecules or simple mixtures Catalyse the degradation of complex pollutant mixtures |
Using a high biomass of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes | Requires extensive long-term monitoring Not always effective Poor adaptation of hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms to the contaminated site Introduced strains can be inhibited by co-pollutants or native microorganisms |
| 3. Biostimulation Fertilizers (Bio) surfactants |
Management of environmental factors (addition of nutrient) Restoration of nutrient balance, C/N/P ratio optimization Stimulation of contaminant bioavailability |
More efficient than natural attenuation |
Not always effective Optimal C/N/P ratio and pollutant bioavailability have to be determined |
| 4. Phytoremediation | Application of plants and their associated microorganisms |
Supports hydrocarbon-degrading microbes within plant root |
Pollutants toxic to the plant |
DownLoad: CSV| Factor | Description and effect on bioremediation rate | Reference |
| Temperature | -Temperature affects rates of hydrocarbon degradation and the physico-chemical composition of oil, result in enhanced hydrocarbon bioavailability as well as the composition and metabolic activity of the microbial communities. -In soils 30-40 °C is the temperature range in which the highest degradation rates generally occurs. -Increased temperature also decreases oil viscosity, increases hydrocarbon solubility, hastening the diffusion of hydrophobic pollutants and enhancing degradation rates of hydrocarbons. |
[93,94,95,96]. |
| Nutrients | -The absence of or low levels of key nutrients in the soil directly affects microbial cell growth and activity. -Optimal level of nutrients is essential for higher hydrocarbon-utilising microbial activity. -Excessive amounts of nutrients such as NPK in the soil can also negatively affect the biodegradation of hydrocarbons resulting in inhibition of the microbial biodegradation activity. |
[78,93] |
| Characteristics and concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons |
-The rate at which hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms breakdown the hydrocarbons depends upon hydrocarbon characteristics including chemical structure and concentration of these pollutants. -Petroleum fractions, n-alkanes of intermediate length (C10-C25) are preferred and more degradable. Longer chain alkanes (C25-C40) are hard to degrade due to their hydrophobicity, poor water solubility and bioavailability. -Branched chain alkanes and cycloalkanes degrade more slowly than the corresponding unbranched alkanes. -Complex and less soluble compounds result in reduced hydrocarbon degradation rates. -High concentrations of hydrocarbons are toxic to microorganisms involved in hydrocarbon degradation, as they affect their growth and activity. |
[2] |
| Bioavailability | -The rate of degradation determined by the bioavailability of hydrocarbons. -As the molecular weight of hydrocarbons increases, the solubility of these pollutants decrease resulting in lower accessibility of hydrocarbons for metabolism by the microbial cell. -PAHs are hydrophobic compounds with low bioavailability and rapid sorption to organic matter and soil matrix making them recalcitrant. -The longer the contact between soil and hydrocarbon contaminants the more irreversible the sorption, and the lower is the extractability of the pollutants from the soil. |
[2] |
| Soil Characteristics | -The structure and conditions of the soil determine the movement of the pollutants, thereby affecting the rate of biodegradation. -High concentrations of soil organic matter in fine soil enhances bacterial growth and stimulates the biodegradation of hydrocarbons. |
[97,98,99] |
| -A higher rate of degradation of hydrocarbons occurs in silty soil compared to sandy soil due to the poor microbial content in the sand fraction which corresponds to a high C: N ratio and lower internal surface structure. | ||
| Oxygen availability and transport | -Dissolved molecular oxygen soil and the requirements for its delivery are crucial keys for the success of the bioremediation process. -The importance of oxygen derives from the respiration process and the participation of oxygenases in the subsequent degradation pathway of the hydrocarbons. -For example, in soil it usually takes 2 × 106 m3 of water saturated at 10 mg/litre O2 to effectively oxidize 10 m3 of hydrocarbon to carbon dioxide and water. -Oxygen availability in soil is reliant on soil type, moisture content and the rate of biodegradation. |
[2,100] |
| Microbial presence of active hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms | -Microbial strains which have the ability to survive in the presence of pollutants and use them as a source for growth and metabolism are the dominant microorganisms in the contaminated soil. -The number of hydrocarbon degrading organisms in the contaminated soil determines the rate of degradation; a lack of these microbes leads to a reduced hydrocarbon degradation rate. -The contaminated soil must contain a sufficient number of hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms, specifically those which are active. -As a result of bioremediation, the active microbes may increase the microbial community in the soil. -A lack of hydrocarbonoclastic microbes in the contaminated soil can be overcome by inoculating the soil with a selection of appropriate strains to biodegrade contaminants (bioaugmentation). |
[22,101] |
| Eco-toxicity | -Petroleum hydrocarbons have a toxic effect on bacterial activity, some plant species and earthworms resulting in reduced biodegradation rates. | [102,103] |
DownLoad: CSV| Remediation strategy | Example of method | Treating site | Cost (US $/m3) a | Benefits | Limitations |
| Physical | Vapour extraction | Ex situ | 405-1,485 | -Fast -Permanentremoval of pollutants -Ideal for high levels of pollution |
-Costly -Destructive -Prone to secondary pollution |
| Chemical | Thermal desorption | Ex situ | 80-440 | -Fast -Dose not generatelarge volumes of waste material -Ideal for high level of contamination |
-Costly -Destructive -Prone to secondary pollution |
| Biological | Biostimulation | In situ | 30-100 | -Environmentally friendly -Cost effective -Minimum site disruption -Useful for low level of pollutants |
-Require longer time -Low predictability -Reliant on environmental factors |
| Species/Strain | Substrate | Species/Strain | Substrate |
| Achromobacter sp. NCW | CBZ | Geobacillus thermodenitrificans NG80-2 | C15-C36 |
| Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1 | −C36 | Gordonia sp. TY-5 | C3, C13-C22 |
| A. calcoaceticus 69-V | C11-C18 | Janibacter sp. YY-1 | DBF, FLE, DBT, PHE, ANT, DD |
| A. calcoaceticus EB104 | C6-C18 | Marinobacter NCE312 | NAP |
| A. calcoaceticus NCIB 8250 | C8-C16 | Marinobacter sp. BC36, BC38, & BC42 | C18 |
| Acinetobacter sp. 2796A | C10-C16 | Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus 617 | C16-C30 |
| Acinetobacter sp. M-1 | C13-C44 | Mycobacterium avium | paraffins |
| Acinetobacter calcoaceticus RR8 | C10-C34 | M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis | paraffins |
| Acinetobacter lwoffi | C12-C28 | M. bovis BCG | C12-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. ODDK71 | C12-C30 | M. smegmatis | C9-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. S30 | −C33 | M. tuberculosis H37Rv | C11-C16 |
| Acinetobacter sp. DSM17874 | C10-C40 | Mycobacterium sp. CH1 | C12-C28 |
| Alcanivorax borkumensis AP1 | C10-C20 | Mycobacterium sp. HXN 600 | C6-C24 |
| Alcanivorax borkumensis SK2 | C8-C32 | Mycobacterium sp. OFS | C11-C28 |
| Alcaligenes odorans P20 | −C33 | Mycobacterium sp. | PYR, BaP |
| Alcaligenes denitrificans | FLA | Mycobacterium sp.JS14 | FLA |
| Arthrobacter nicotianae KCC B35 | C10-C40 | Mycobacterium sp. 6PY1, KR2, AP1 | PYR |
| Arthrobacter sp.F101 | FLE | Mycobacterium sp. RJGⅡ-135 | PYR, BaA, BaP |
| Arthrobacter sp. P1-1 | DBT, CBZ, PHE | Mycobacterium sp. PYR-1, LB501T | FLA, PYR, PHE, ANT |
| Arthrobacter sulphureus RKJ4 | PHE | Mycobacterium sp. CH1, BG1, BB1, KR20 | PHE, FLE, FLA, PYR |
| Acidovorax delafieldii P4-1 | PHE | Mycobacterium flavescens | PYR, FLA |
| Bacillus cereus P21 | PYR | Mycobacterium vanbaalenii PYR-1 | PHE, PYR, dMBaA |
| Bacillus thermoleovorans B23 & H41 | C9-C30 | Mycobacterium sp. KMS | PYR |
| Bacillus thuringiensis/cereus A2 | C6-C28 | Nocardioides aromaticivorans IC177 | CBZ |
| Brevibacteriumsp. HL4 | PHE | Nocardioides sp. CF8 | C2-C16 |
| Burkholderia sp.S3702, RP007, 2A 12TNFYE-5, BS3770 | PHE | Paracoccus sereniphilus/marcusii A7 | C6-C28 |
| Burkholderia cepacia ATCC 25416 | C10-C16 | Paracoccus sp. strains Ophe1 & Sphe1 | C10-C28 |
| Burkholderia cepacia RR10 | C12-C34 | Pasteurella sp. IFA | FLA |
| Burkholderia sp.C3 | PHE | Planococcus alkanoclasticus MAE2 | C11-C33 |
| Burkholderia cepacia BU-3 | NAP, PHE, PYR | Polaromonas naphthalenivorans CJ2 | NAP |
| Burkholderia cocovenenans | PHE | Prauserella rugosa NRRL B-2295 | C8-C14 |
| Burkholderia xenovorans LB400 | BZ, BP | Pseudomonas aureofaciens RWTH 529 | C10 |
| B. mallei | C10-C16 | Pseudomonas sp. 7/156 | n. d |
| B. pseudomallei | C10-C16 | Pseudomonas putida GPo1 | C5-C12 |
| Chryseobacterium sp. NCY | CBZ | P. putida P1 | C8 |
| Cycloclasticus sp. P1 | PYR | Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 | C12-C32 |
| Brachybacterium sp. | C10-C20 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 | C12-C24 |
| Desulfatibacillum aliphaticivorans CV2803 | C13-C18 | P. aeruginosa PG201 | C10-C16 |
| Dietzia cinnamea P4 | C11-C24 | P. aeruginosa KSLA473 | C5-C16 |
| Dietzia psychralcaliphila | C13-C24 | P. aeruginosa NCIMB 8704 & 9571 | C8-C16 |
| P. aeruginosa ATCC 17423 | C8-C16 | R. erythropolis Q15 | C8-C32 |
| P. aeruginosa RR1 | C12-C34 | R. erythropolis 35-O | C6-C16 |
| P. aeruginosa strains A1, A3, A4, A5, A6 | C6-C28 | R. erythropolis 23-D | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp. PUP6 | C12-C28 | R. erythropolis NRRL B-16531 | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp.C18, PP2, DLC-P11 | NAP, PHE | R. erythropolis 42-O | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp.BT1d | HFBT | R. erythropolis 62-O | C6-C16 |
| Pseudomonas sp.B4 | BP, CBP | R. erythropolis 23-D | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp.HH69 | DBF | R. erythropolis 50-V | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp. CA10 | CBZ, CDD | R. erythropolis NRRL B-16531 | C6-C36 |
| Pseudomonas sp. NCIB 9816-4 | FLE, DBF, DBT | Rhodococcus fascians 115-H | C6-C32 |
| Pseudomonas sp. F274 | FLE | R. fascians 154-S | C6-C24 |
| Pseudomonas paucimobilis | PHE | Rhodococcus rhodochrous | C12-C20 |
| Pseudomonas vesicularis OUS82 | FLE | Staphylococcus sp. PN/Y | PHE |
| Pseudomonas putida P16, BS3701, BS3750, BS590-P, BS202-P1 | NAP, PHE | Stenotrophomonas maltophilia VUN 10,010 | PYR, FLA, BaP |
| Pseudomonas putida CSV86 | MNAP | S. maltophilia VUN 10,003 | PYR, FLA, BaA, BaP, DBA, COR |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens BS3760 | PHE, CHR, BaA | Sphingomonas yanoikuyae R1 | PYR |
| Pseudomonas stutzeri P15 | PYR | Sphingomonas yanoikuyae JAR02 | BaP |
| Pseudomonas saccharophilia | PYR | Sphingomonas sp.P2, LB126 | FLE, PHE, FLA, ANT |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | PHE | Sphingomonas sp. | DBF, DBT, CBZ |
| Ralstonia sp. SBUG 290 U2 | DBF NAP | Sphingomonas paucimobilis EPA505 | FLA, NAP, ANT, PHE |
| Rhodanobacter sp. BPC-1 | BaP | Sphingomonas wittichii RW1 | CDD |
| Rhodococcus sp. | PYR, FLA | strain AK01 | C13-C18 |
| Rhodococcus sp. 1BN | C6-C28 | strain HdN1 | C14-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp. RR12 & RR14 | C14-C34 | strain Hxd3 | C12-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp. strains T12 & TMP2 | C9-C22 | Terrabacter sp.DBF63 | DBF, CDBF, CDD, FLE |
| Rhodococcus sp. NCIM5126 | C13-C20 | Thalassolituus oleivorans | C 7-C20 |
| Rhodococcus sp.WU-K2R | NAT, BT | Thermooleophilum album | C13-C 20 |
| Rhodococcus erythropolis I-19 | ADBT | Thermus sp. C2 | C9-C39 |
| R. erythropolis D-1 | DBT | Weeksella sp. RR7 | C12-C34 |
| P. aeruginosa ATCC 17423 | C8-C16 | Xanthamonas sp. | PYR, BaP, CBZ |
| P. aeruginosa RR1 | C12-C34 | Xylella fastidiosa RR15 | C14-C34 |
| Pyrene (PYR), anthracene (ANT), fluorene (FLE), dibenz[a, h]anthracene (DBA), naphthalene (NAP), phenanthrene (PHE), benz[a]anthracene (BaA), dimethylbenz[a]anthracene(dMBaA), chlorinated dibenzothophene (CDBF), benzothiophene(BT), alkylated dibenzothiophene (ADBT), 3-hydroxy-2-formylbenzothiophene (HFBT), chrysene (CHR), dibenzo-p-dioxin (DD), biphenyl; CBP, fluoranthene (FLA), chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), coronene(COR), methyl naphthalene (MNAP), carbazole (CBZ), chlorobiphenyl (BP), naphthothiophene (NAT), dibenzofuran (DBF), benzoate (BZ). | |||
| Bioremediation method | Main features | Advantages | limitations |
| 1. Natural attenuation | Utilising indigenous microbial populations under natural conditions | Cost effective | Requires extensive long-range observation Not always effective |
| 2. Bioaugmentation Isolated strain Microbial consortium |
Addition of efficient pollutant of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes Catalyse the degradation of single molecules or simple mixtures Catalyse the degradation of complex pollutant mixtures |
Using a high biomass of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes | Requires extensive long-term monitoring Not always effective Poor adaptation of hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms to the contaminated site Introduced strains can be inhibited by co-pollutants or native microorganisms |
| 3. Biostimulation Fertilizers (Bio) surfactants |
Management of environmental factors (addition of nutrient) Restoration of nutrient balance, C/N/P ratio optimization Stimulation of contaminant bioavailability |
More efficient than natural attenuation |
Not always effective Optimal C/N/P ratio and pollutant bioavailability have to be determined |
| 4. Phytoremediation | Application of plants and their associated microorganisms |
Supports hydrocarbon-degrading microbes within plant root |
Pollutants toxic to the plant |
| Factor | Description and effect on bioremediation rate | Reference |
| Temperature | -Temperature affects rates of hydrocarbon degradation and the physico-chemical composition of oil, result in enhanced hydrocarbon bioavailability as well as the composition and metabolic activity of the microbial communities. -In soils 30-40 °C is the temperature range in which the highest degradation rates generally occurs. -Increased temperature also decreases oil viscosity, increases hydrocarbon solubility, hastening the diffusion of hydrophobic pollutants and enhancing degradation rates of hydrocarbons. |
[93,94,95,96]. |
| Nutrients | -The absence of or low levels of key nutrients in the soil directly affects microbial cell growth and activity. -Optimal level of nutrients is essential for higher hydrocarbon-utilising microbial activity. -Excessive amounts of nutrients such as NPK in the soil can also negatively affect the biodegradation of hydrocarbons resulting in inhibition of the microbial biodegradation activity. |
[78,93] |
| Characteristics and concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons |
-The rate at which hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms breakdown the hydrocarbons depends upon hydrocarbon characteristics including chemical structure and concentration of these pollutants. -Petroleum fractions, n-alkanes of intermediate length (C10-C25) are preferred and more degradable. Longer chain alkanes (C25-C40) are hard to degrade due to their hydrophobicity, poor water solubility and bioavailability. -Branched chain alkanes and cycloalkanes degrade more slowly than the corresponding unbranched alkanes. -Complex and less soluble compounds result in reduced hydrocarbon degradation rates. -High concentrations of hydrocarbons are toxic to microorganisms involved in hydrocarbon degradation, as they affect their growth and activity. |
[2] |
| Bioavailability | -The rate of degradation determined by the bioavailability of hydrocarbons. -As the molecular weight of hydrocarbons increases, the solubility of these pollutants decrease resulting in lower accessibility of hydrocarbons for metabolism by the microbial cell. -PAHs are hydrophobic compounds with low bioavailability and rapid sorption to organic matter and soil matrix making them recalcitrant. -The longer the contact between soil and hydrocarbon contaminants the more irreversible the sorption, and the lower is the extractability of the pollutants from the soil. |
[2] |
| Soil Characteristics | -The structure and conditions of the soil determine the movement of the pollutants, thereby affecting the rate of biodegradation. -High concentrations of soil organic matter in fine soil enhances bacterial growth and stimulates the biodegradation of hydrocarbons. |
[97,98,99] |
| -A higher rate of degradation of hydrocarbons occurs in silty soil compared to sandy soil due to the poor microbial content in the sand fraction which corresponds to a high C: N ratio and lower internal surface structure. | ||
| Oxygen availability and transport | -Dissolved molecular oxygen soil and the requirements for its delivery are crucial keys for the success of the bioremediation process. -The importance of oxygen derives from the respiration process and the participation of oxygenases in the subsequent degradation pathway of the hydrocarbons. -For example, in soil it usually takes 2 × 106 m3 of water saturated at 10 mg/litre O2 to effectively oxidize 10 m3 of hydrocarbon to carbon dioxide and water. -Oxygen availability in soil is reliant on soil type, moisture content and the rate of biodegradation. |
[2,100] |
| Microbial presence of active hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms | -Microbial strains which have the ability to survive in the presence of pollutants and use them as a source for growth and metabolism are the dominant microorganisms in the contaminated soil. -The number of hydrocarbon degrading organisms in the contaminated soil determines the rate of degradation; a lack of these microbes leads to a reduced hydrocarbon degradation rate. -The contaminated soil must contain a sufficient number of hydrocarbon-utilising microorganisms, specifically those which are active. -As a result of bioremediation, the active microbes may increase the microbial community in the soil. -A lack of hydrocarbonoclastic microbes in the contaminated soil can be overcome by inoculating the soil with a selection of appropriate strains to biodegrade contaminants (bioaugmentation). |
[22,101] |
| Eco-toxicity | -Petroleum hydrocarbons have a toxic effect on bacterial activity, some plant species and earthworms resulting in reduced biodegradation rates. | [102,103] |
