Organic Wastes Bioremediation

Science of the Total Environment 824 (2022) 153889
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
Organic wastes bioremediation and its changing prospects

⁎
Anil Kumar Patel a,b,c, , Reeta Rani Singhania a,b,c, Frank Paolo Jay B. Albarico a,d,e, Ashok Pandey c,f,g,
⁎⁎
Chiu-Wen Chen a,b, Cheng-Di Dong a,b,
a
Department of Marine Environmental Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung City 81157, Taiwan
b
Sustainable Environment Research Center, National Kaohsiung University of science and Technology, Kaohsiung City 81157, Taiwan
c
Centre for Energy and Environmental Sustainability, Lucknow 226 029, Uttar Pradesh, India
d
Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung City 81157, Taiwan
e
Fisheries and Marine Research Station (FaMaRS), Fisheries and Marine Sciences Department, College of Fisheries and Allied Sciences, Northern Negros State College of Science and Technology, Sagay City
6122, Philippines
f
Centre for Innovation and Translational Research, CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow 226 001, India
g
Sustainability Cluster, School of Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun 248 007, Uttarakhand, India
H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T
• Bioremediation preferred over non-

biological process due to sustainability as-
pects
• Sustainability involves, economic, eco-
logic, environmental and social stability.
• Its best selection depends on pollution
level, pollutant types & location.
• Best fitting method is the key for effective
bioremediation in-situ/ex-situ.
• Bioremediation involves oxidoreduction
process for organic pollutants degrada-
tion.
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: Increasing inappropriate anthropogenic activities and industrialization have resulted in severe environmental pollu-
Received 21 December 2021 tion worldwide. Their effective treatment is vital for general health concerns. Depending on the characteristics of pol-
Received in revised form 4 February 2022 lutants, the severity of pollution may differ. For sustainable treatment of polluted environments, bioremediation is
Accepted 11 February 2022
accepted as the most efficient, economical, and environmentally friendly method hence largely preferred. However,
Available online 15 February 2022
every bioremediation technique has its own unique advantages and limitations due to its defined applications criteria.
Editor: Mukesh Kumar Awasthi In bioremediation, microorganisms play a decisive role in detoxification by degrading, mineralizing and accumulating
various forms of harmful and biodegradable pollutants from the surroundings and transforming them into less lethal
Keywords: forms. Bioremediation is performed ex-situ or in-situ, based on location of polluted site as well as characteristics,
Bioremediation type and strength of the pollutants. Furthermore, the most popular methodologies for bioremediation include bioaug-
Organic waste mentation, biostimulation, bioattenuation among others which depend on the prevailing environmental factors into
Biostimulation the microbial system. Implementing them appropriately and effectively under ex-situ or in-situ method is extremely
Bioaugmentation important not only for obtaining efficient treatment but also for the best economic, environmental, and social impacts.
Microorganism
Therefore, this review aims to analyze various bioremediation methods for organic pollutants remediation from soil/
sediments and wastewater, their strength, limitation, and insights for the selection of appropriate bioremediation tech-
niques based on nature, types, degree, and location of the pollution. The novelty aspect of the article is to give updates
on several key supporting technologies which have recently emerged and exhibited great potential to enhance the
⁎ Correspondence to: A.K. Patel, Centre for Energy and Environmental Sustainability, Lucknow 226 029, Uttar Pradesh, India.
⁎⁎ Correspondence to: C.D. Dong, Sustainable Environment Research Center, National Kaohsiung University of science and Technology, Kaohsiung City 81157, Taiwan.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.K. Patel), [email protected] (C.-D. Dong).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153889
0048-9697/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.K. Patel et al. Science of the Total Environment 824 (2022) 153889
present bioremediation efficiency such as nanobubble, engineered biochar, mixotrophic microalgae, nanotechnology
etc. Moreover, amalgamation of these technologies with existing bioremediation facilities are significantly changing
the scenario and scope of environmental remediation towards sustainable bioremediation.
1. Introduction 2021, 2022), Especially, when microalgae are employed for treatment pro-
cess the recovery of energy is more promising from obtained biomass (Choi
Recently, there has been a significant advancement in the field of biore- et al., 2019; Hong et al., 2019).
mediation with the aim of recovering polluted environments in a sustain- Current review aims to critically analyze various bioremediation
able way. The technology has been around for decades, but recent methods on solid and aqueous wastes, technological advancements in
advancements have led to greater efficiency. Different bioremediation tech- existing technology, their strength, limitation and provide the basis of selec-
niques have been developed and designed by researchers; but, due to the tion of appropriate bioremediation techniques based on nature, types, de-
type of pollutant and nature of bioremediation, none of the sole technique gree, and location of the pollution. It provides comprehensive updates
serves as a panacea for all pollutants cleanup. While there are challenges as- during five years and comparative account within ex-situ and in-situ biore-
sociated with microbial degradation of pollutants, most naturally occurring mediation methods, status and prospects. It also covers number of keys
microbes can handle them effectively, hence growth and metabolism are supporting technologies recently emerged and their amalgamation with
supported in polluted environments if the surrounding environment is con- existing bioremediation technologies which are significantly changing the
ducive (Verma and Jaiswal, 2016). The most significant advantages of bio- scenario and scope of environmental remediation.
remediation over chemical or physical remediation involve environmental
friendliness and cost-effectiveness. 2. Bioremediation
Biological remediation processes convert hazardous substances such as
heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other toxic com- In the last few decades, bioremediation techniques have advanced to re-
pounds into non-toxic or less toxic compounds. Compared with other reme- store polluted environments as well as clean them effectively, economi-
diation technologies, bioremediation processes offer many advantages: cally, and environmentally. As we mentioned in previous section that in
(1) Biologically driven remediation removes hazardous elements from pol- comparison with both chemical and physical remediation methods, biore-
luted media rather than simply transferring them, (2) It is remarkably less mediation is an environmentally friendly, more cost-effective, and sustain-
disruptive than the several excavation-based methods to the environment, able method. The restoration of polluted environments can be achieved
and (3) By bioremediation processes, treatment of hazardous waste sites through different bioremediation techniques. There are two types of micro-
can be significantly less expensive than any conventional methods organisms that can be used in bioremediation: indigenous bacteria or non-
(Azubuike et al., 2016). indigenous bacteria. These indigenous microorganisms are already present
The suitability of bioremediation technologies to a site depends on sev- in every polluted environment that holds the key role to resolve many chal-
eral factors, including the site conditions, native microorganism popula- lenges associated with bioremediation of pollutants (Verma and Jaiswal,
tions, and the type, quantity, and toxicity of chemicals present. Nutrition 2016).
is sometimes added to treatment technologies to stimulate indigenous mi- The bioremediation process involves a wide range of microorganisms
crobes or accelerate their activity. Microorganisms usually thrive in optimal for detoxifying, reducing, degrading, mineralizing, or transforming more
environmental conditions, and when the population of microbial cells is in- toxic or unstable pollutants to less- or non-toxic and more stable forms.
creased, hazardous substances are efficiently degraded. It is also possible to The efficiency of the pollutant remediation process primarily depends on
introduce microorganisms from other locations that are suitable for the characteristics of the organic or inorganic pollutants such as agrochem-
degrading a particular contaminant if the necessary biological activity at icals, dyes, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, plastics, nuclear waste etc. This
the site is lacking. Additionally, there are other bioremediation methods process involves a variety of microbes e.g., aerobic, and anaerobic bacteria,
such as (a) Phytoremediation: in which plants are used to remove contam- yeast, algae, fungi etc. These microbes utilize the organic and inorganic com-
inants from soil and groundwater; (b) Mycoremediation: in which white-rot pounds as a source of nutrients and energy to grow which result in pollutants
and other fungi are used to reduce contaminants; (c) Phycoremediation: in degradation. During bioremediation process, microbes are degrading, eradi-
which microalgae and macroalgae are used for pollutant degradation. cating, immobilizing, or detoxifying the wide variety of chemical wastes
Pollutant removal can be performed in several ways, that differs de- and physical hazardous materials from the environment in a comprehensive
pending on the organic and inorganic nature of the pollutant, which in- manner. Several aerobic bacteria involved often in bioremediation of pollut-
cludes aromatic and aliphatic compounds such as dyes, hydrocarbons, ants are Bacillus, Arthrobacter, Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, Pseudomonas,
agrochemicals, heavy metals, chlorinated substances, greenhouse gases, Corynebacterium, Mycobacterium, Flavobacterium, Nitrosomonas, Xanthobacter
plastics, sewage etc. Various factors such as pollutants type, degree and etc. Moreover, known anaerobic bacteria are Clostridium, Bacteroidetes,
depth of pollution, environment, location, cost, and environmental policy Firmicutes, Chloroflexi, Proteobacteria, Pelotomaculum, Smithllela, Syntrophus,
should be considered when selecting the suitable bioremediation tech- Syntrophomonas, Methanobacterium, Methanothermobacter, Methanobrevibacter,
niques (Smith et al., 2015; Frutos et al., 2012). Methanospirillum, Methanoculleus etc. (Mehariya et al., 2018; Patel et al., 2014,
Several industrial discharges are turbid wastewaters and laden with sig- 2016). Fig. 1 is summarizing various ex-situ and in-situ bioremediation
nificant chemical oxygen demands (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), bi- methods where microbes are being employed in varying capacity depending
ological oxygen demands (BOD), fats, oils, grease (FOG), nitrogen and on pollutant types, pollutant media and method of bioremediation.
phosphates. In addition, food processing wastewater exhibits seasonal var- There are two types of factors that determine degradation rates: biotic
iation, hourly variations in contaminants and their concentrations, daily and abiotic. The bioremediation process is currently applied in different
fluctuating flow patterns, unstable nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon ways and with different strategies. The two categories of bioremediation in-
loads which affect the bioremediation process. Therefore, based on compo- clude in-situ and ex-situ processes. In which in-situ method are defined to
sition and nature of the pollutants, bioremediation processes are designed treat pollutants at contaminated soil or water where it is originated,
by regulating the appropriate organic loading rate and hydraulic retention whereas ex-situ bioremediation involves excavation or transportation of
time for degrading microbes to perform it optimally (Mehariya et al., contaminated soils or water before the treatment begins. Since transloca-
2018). Moreover, recent bioremediation approaches are not only curbed tion of the polluted media is not required while adopting in-situ technique,
to the treatment process or waste valorization alone but also aimed to re- therefore, it is less expensive, less dust and contamination forming than ex-
cover energy, and other value-added products (Singhania et al., 2013a,b, situ method. Ex-situ techniques on the other hand, can treat a broader range
2
Fig. 1. Summary of various bioremediation methods used under ex-situ and in-situ conditions.
of contaminants, moreover, easier to control and able to treat faster than in- exhibited reduction of 90.7% in TPH, with respect to control setup that re-
situ techniques. Currently, the use of bioremediation is limited by the lack moved TPH by 48% on average (Gomez and Sartaj, 2014). Whereas, after
of knowledge of control and processes. To expand the applicability of this pretreatment of soil samples and subsequent biostimulation with fishmeal,
technology, a greater understanding of engineering techniques is necessary. there was a 71% reduction in total TPH concentration, and significant
Furthermore, technical, and regulatory agencies must be convinced for the changes in bacterial structure over a 50-day biopiling period was observed
reliability of economic feasibility data before full acceptance can be gained. in another study (Dias et al., 2015). In combination with bioaugmentation,
biostimulation significantly reduced the TPH, and the effect was synergistic
2.1. Ex-situ bioremediation methods whereas only biostimulation exhibits less reduction. Thus, demonstrating
the flexibility and effectiveness of biopiling for bioremediation.
Pollutants are removed from polluted sites and transported to a new site Certain modification such as heating system and aeration integration
for treatment using these methods. There are many factors which are sub- can significantly improve the performance of biopiling via enhancing the
jected to when considering ex-situ bioremediation techniques, including microbial activity (Azubuike et al., 2016). To enhance the remediation pro-
the cost of treatment, the depth and type of pollution, degree and location cess, bulking agents like straw sawdust, bark, and wood chips are added.
of the pollution. The performance criteria determine the selection of most However robust engineering, maintenance and operation cost, lack of
fitting ex-situ bioremediation techniques among these methods. power supply at remote sites could facilitate constant air circulation in con-
taminated (piled) soil through air pumps. Although biopiling can be con-
2.1.1. Bioheaps or biopile nected to other in-situ engineered bioremediation techniques for better
It is an ex-situ simple, efficient, and cost-effective bioremediation performance. Additionally, extreme air temperatures may cause soil to
method which treat the transported pile of polluted solid phase such as dry, inhibiting the microbial activity and resulting in more volatilization
soil, sediment or solid waste above the dumping ground or pad equipped than biodegradation (Sanscartier et al., 2009). An average cost is approxi-
with aeration device to control microbial activity. These pads are usually mately $190 per cubic meter with a prepared bed and liner of biopiling.
having facility of foundation (to avoid leaching), covering (to protect
from cold, rain etc.) the pile, aeration, and drainage. Moreover, equipped 2.1.2. Windrow
with probes to monitor moisture, temperature, pH, pollutant level etc. A common aerobic treatment applies for soils and lagoon sediments
Bioheaps are designed between 3 and 10 ft. high however width and Height contaminated with biodegradable organic pollutants. This aerobic
can be unlimited. The moisture content must be maintained between 40 composting process can lower the explosive concentrations and toxicity of
and 85% of the field capacity (EPA, 2017) to provide a suitable condition TNT, RDX and HMX materials as well as PAHs contamination. Rotating or
for biodegradation. An optimum balance of carbon, nitrogen, and phospho- mixing polluted soil or sediment periodically is an essential component of
rus can be achieved by adding fertilizer 100:10:1 or 100:10:0.5 ratios (EPA, a windrow bioremediation technique to enhance the microbial degradation
2017). A soil or sediment can also be analyzed for total pollutant level to de- of native and transient biodegradable pollutants. Turning polluted soil reg-
termine an optimum N/P ratio. It is simple to distribute fertilizer at regular ularly results in increased aeration, uniform distribution of nutrients, pol-
intervals by dissolving the fertilizer in water prior to distributing it. More- lutants, and enzyme activity. Such changes subsequently increase the rate
over, for optimum microbial activity and biodegradation, a soil pH between of bioremediation, which is accomplished through better acclimatization,
6 and 8 is desirable. As necessary, buffering agents and other amendments biotransformation, and mineralization. Windrow treatment as compared
such as sulfur and lime can be added to keep the pH within this range. This to biopile treatment, showed higher rate of hydrocarbon removal however,
method is highly popular for petroleum hydrocarbon remediation (TPH) the effectiveness of the windrow depends on the soil type (Coulon et al.,
from soil. Biopiling is desirable to reduce the volatilization of low- 2010). A windrow treatment that involves periodic turning is not the best
molecular pollutants, and more adopted especially in cold countries choice, if bioremediation is to be performed on soil contaminated with
(Whelan et al., 2015; Gomez and Sartaj, 2014). In field-scale biopiles, bio- toxic volatile compounds. The use of windrow treatment has been
augmentation and biostimulation were applied for TPH degradations. associated with greenhouse gas (CH4) release because anaerobic zones
Using 3–6 ml m−3 of microbial consortiums, and 5–10% mature compost are created inside the polluted soil pile, reducing the requirement of
on total TPH, a 94 days bioaugmented and biostimulated biopiling aeration (Hobson et al., 2005).
3
2.1.3. Field-farming wide range of pollutants in in-situ and ex-situ conditions. From studies,
Field farming refers to a bioremediation treatment process that could be packed bed, slurry phase, and sequence batch reactors were highly efficient
carried out in-situ and ex-situ. It is performed in the upper soil zone or an (>80%) for remediation of organic pollutants such as PAHs, VOCs, pesti-
impermeable lined bed, depending on the location. It is among the simplest cides etc. compared to other bioreactors (Yang et al., 2015; Liu et al.,
and cost-effective remediation method which require least equipment. In 2017; Pino-Herrera et al., 2017). For organic solvent removal from waste-
this process, polluted soils, sediments, or sludges are spread onto the soil water, bi-phase partitioning, biotrickling filter and up-flow anaerobic
surface and aerated by turning or tilling the mixture periodically. This sludge blanket and expanded granular sludge bed bioreactors were largely
method is most popular for petroleum hydrocarbon and pesticide remedia- used and effective treatments have been obtained (Singh and Fulekar,
tion and can be applied for large volume of polluted soil with low capital 2010; Firmino et al., 2015; Schmidt and Anderson, 2017). Membrane bio-
input and environmental impact. Bioremediation could be done without ex- reactor was efficiently used for pharmaceuticals organic pollutants remedi-
cavation for most pollutants up to 1 m, but for pollutants over 1.7 m, well- ations (Couto et al., 2018). Whereas CSTR was effectively utilized for
tilled soil is needed for enhanced bioremediation (Nikolopoulou et al., petroleum and PAHs remediations (Chikere et al., 2016).
2013). By enabling the desired bioreactor parameter regulation, bioremedia-
In the land farming, tillage refers to aeration, nutrients (N, P, and tion can be enhanced, and treatment time can be reduced. The bioreactor-
K) addition, and irrigation as the main operations which favors autochtho- based bioremediation process is more efficient because it provides pollutant
nous microorganisms to enhance bioremediation. By using tillage and irri- accessibility, nutrient addition, controlled bioaugmentation, and mass-
gation without adding nutrients to polluted soil with adequate microbial transfer which effectively enhance the treatment. Furthermore, due to
activity, heterotrophic diesel-degraders are increased, which resulted in controlled environment facilitation, treatment duration can be de-
an increase in bioremediation. The activity of dehydrogenase is also an ac- signed depending on the nature of various pollutants such as volatile
curate indicator of the effects of biostimulation to determine the efficiency organic compounds, xylenes, ethylbenzene, benzene, and toluene
of field farming technology (Silva-Castro et al., 2015). Laboratory studies etc.
generally cost $35,000, pilot tests less than $100,000, and the cost of a pre-
pared bed is typically up to $100 per cubic meter (Silva-Castro et al., 2015). 2.1.6. Comparative accounts of ex-situ bioremediation techniques
Major affecting factors are rain fall and temperature, and warm geographi- Among the various ex-situ methods, bioreactor found to be the most ef-
cal area is not suitable for it, as it accelerates volatile compounds emission. fective technique to be operated under optimum treatment condition and
By building an impermeable liner at the bottom of a suitable land farming usually protected from fluctuating condition exist outside environment.
design, it can minimize pollutants leaching during bioremediation (da Bioreactor provides divers application options which can be implied for
Silva et al., 2012). wide range of pollutants remediation effectively. A bioreactor is a closed
environment that allows the use of genetically modified microbes for biore-
2.1.4. Biofilter mediation and bioaugmentation. These can be destroyed before being re-
In biofiltration, vapour-phase organic pollutants, such as hydrocarbons turned to the soil after treatment. Biosurfactants role is rejected in
are passed through a soil bed where they bind to the soil surface and are
destroyed by soil microbes. Filters may be filled with specific strains of bac-
Table 1
teria that degrade specific compounds preferentially. Compared to conven-
Type of bioreactors used for bioremediation of wide range of pollutants.
tional activated carbon adsorbers, the biofilter has several advantages.
Bioreactor Application and removal efficiency Reference
Because biofilters regenerate themselves, they maintain the maximum ad-
sorption capacity. Their greatest advantage is that they destroy pollutants Packed bed Various microbes used for bioremediation of Liu et al.
rather than only separate them (Saravanan et al., 2015). In the past, PAHs, pesticides, and heavy metals. Bacteria (2017)
& fungi remediated respectively 52–99.8
biofilters did not have the capability of treating chlorinated compounds. and 0.5–96.6% them depending on
In recent demonstrations, it has been demonstrated that they can also be pollutants' nature & initial concentration
used to remove chlorinated compounds. In the presence of excess bacteria, Biotrickling filter >80% of butanol remediation efficiency Schmidt and
filters must be cleaned periodically using mechanical methods. from recycling water (initial conc. of butanol Anderson
ranging 0.4–1.2 g−3 from off gas in water) (2017)
Slurry phase VOC & PAHs remediation by fungi & bacteria; Pino-Herrera
2.1.5. Bioreactor 89–96% removal efficiency in 2 weeks et al. (2017)
It is a one of the most adopted containers used for controlled bioremedi- treatment of creosote contaminated soil by
ation of polluted slurry, however, it is not preferred for polluted soil or sed- Pseudomonas and Alcaligenes bioaugmentation
iment. It can be operated under batch, fed-batch, sequencing batch, Bi-phase partitioning 67–100% benzene bioremediation by dung Singh and
microflora (initial conc. 100–250 mg L−1) Fulekar (2010)
multistage and continuous modes depending on the pollutant's nature. It Fluidized bed Pharmaceuticals bioremediation by Pleurotus Svobodová
needs high capital investment, however, offer controlled regulation (for de- ostreatus & activated sludge co-cultures, et al. (2016)
sired pH, temperature, mixing, aeration, substrate, and inoculum ratios decolorization efficiency up to 95% by
etc.) for best bioremediation. It saves from external affecting factors such laccase activity (156.7 UL−1)
Membrane bioreactor Pharmaceuticals remediation from ground- & Couto et al.
as rain, fluctuating weather such as extreme cold and warm conditions.
wastewater, close-fitting NF membranes were (2018)
As, in-situ bioremediation process is slow, and difficult to control and opti- more efficient than movable membranes,
mize. Bioreactors were developed to solve these problems. A bioreactor giving >99% of removal efficiency
provides ideal conditions for the growth of microorganisms and protects Air-lift Fungal decolorization/remediation of textile Mahmood
from fluctuating environments that exist in open condition; desirable dye effluent, microbubbles increase the et al. (2015)
mixing efficiency in airlift bioreactors
growth conditions can be maintained required. Microbiological biodegra-
Upflow anaerobic 51–86% remediation of toluene, benzene, ethyl Firmino et al.
dation mechanisms are accessed via enzymes in bioremediation to attain sludge blanket benzene, & xylene from contaminated water (2015)
the remediation target. Various bioreactor modes of operation exist, includ- Sequence batch 83–96% remediation of Nanofullerenes Yang et al.
ing batch, fed batch, and continuous with a variety of designs, including reactor (2 mg L−1) and Nanosilver from (2015)
wastewaters by 30 days treatment
partitioning, slurry-phase, bioscrubbers, airlift, continuous stirred tanks,
Expanded granular Up to 92.5% linear alkyl benzene sulfonate Delforno et al.
biofilters, fluidized-bed, trickle-bed, packed-bed, and membrane bioreac- sludge bed remediation from laundry wastewater (2015)
tors. Each bioreactor design has its specific demand/application and has bioreactors
limitations too, thus, their proper selection according to fitting design and Continuously stirred 82–97% remediation of petroleum & Chikere et al.
requirement, helps to avail its best advantage (Srivastava et al., 2021). tank bioreactor polyaromatic hydrocarbon by mixed (2016)
(CSTR) microbial cultures from polluted sediments
Table 1 summarizes the type of bioreactors used for bioremediation of
4
bioreactor operations as the mixing is efficient in bioreactors (Mustafa 2.2. In-situ bioremediation methods
et al., 2015). Additionally, this method assists in monitoring microbial pop-
ulation dynamics in bioremediating slurries, leading to easier identification Polluted substances are treated at the site of pollution which is usually
of microbial groups contributing to bioremediation (Zangi-Kotler et al., cost-effective using these techniques. Since there is no extra cost applied
2015; Chikere et al., 2016). Owing to various advantages, the full-scale for excavation processes, these techniques should be less expensive than
use of bioreactors for bioremediation is not popular. Ex-situ technology is those used for ex-situ bioremediation. However, the cost of designing and
cost-effective due to the amount of soil and other solid media that must installing equipment necessary to maximize microbial activity during bio-
be treated on a large scale, therefore requiring more labor, capital invest- remediation is a major concern. These have been successfully used to
ment, and safety measures to transport the pollutants (Philp and Atlas, bioremediate polluted sites with chlorinated solvents, heavy metals, dyes,
2005). and hydrocarbons (Kim et al., 2014; Frascari et al., 2015; Roy et al.,
From these studies, it shows that each method exhibits effectiveness for 2015). It is important to optimize key affecting factors such as pH, temper-
certain pollutant. For example, land farming recognized for requirement of ature, electron acceptor, moisture content and nutrients availability, to
greater land area, which is a major drawback. However, it applies effec- achieve successful in-situ bioremediation. For example, Garcıa-Delgado
tively for hydrocarbon polluted sludge to improve aeration while drying et al. (2015) observed that intrinsic bioremediation cannot facilitate ade-
through air and sunlight, other methods are less effective to improve aera- quate PAHs remediation and, therefore, not achieving the overall reduction
tion and microbial activity. According to a general rule, polycyclic aromatic level necessary to become ecotoxic.
hydrocarbons with higher molecular weight are less susceptible to degrada-
tion by this method. Furthermore, chlorinated, or nitrated compounds are 2.2.1. Intrinsic bioremediation
more difficult to degrade. Biofilter could be effective for pollutants persis- It is also termed as in-situ natural reduction passive bioremediation
tent in liquid phase which can be filtered and retained by biofilter to be fur- technique; it does not involve outside intervention (human participation)
ther degraded. It may not be effective for sludge, soil, and other solid and polluted sites are passively remedied. It involves stimulating the native
media. Biopiling employs aeration system hence this method is effective or naturally occurring microorganisms in a polluted site. Biodegradation of
for fuel hydrocarbons, non-halogenated and halogenated VOCs, SVOCs & polluting elements containing recalcitrant components is based both on
pesticides. Depending on the contaminant group, the process effectiveness aerobic and anaerobic action by microbes. In contrast to other in-situ tech-
may vary and may only be applicable to certain compounds within men- niques, this one does not require external force, so it is less expensive. It
tioned groups. Major drawback with this method was, it takes more time must ensure that a valid intrinsic bioremediation must be monitored to
to complete cleanup for same batch sizes than for slurry phase processes. meet the following criteria: pollutant reduction from site with defined
This method can be scaled up with similar efficiency obtained in lab time frame, determination of pollutant reduction by native microbes via
scale. Windrow method is an effective process for explosive materials as precise lab analysis, determination of microbial degradation potential etc.
well as PAHs contamination in soil however if the bed depth is high, it (Philp and Atlas, 2005). Major drawback of this method is that it may
must be turn periodically to improve mixing and aeration for better degra- take longer time to remediate pollutant to reach desired level and human
dation. Table 2 is summarizing the adopted ex-situ bioremediation methods interventions are not incorporated to expedite the process.
for removal of selective organic pollutants in slurry phase (bioreactor) and
solid phase (biopiling, land farming, composting, biofilter) treatments for 2.2.2. Engineered bioremediation
better insights. From comparative analysis, antibiotic degradation (>98%) In the second approach, microorganisms are introduced by human in-
was effective using algal or bacterial-fungal cultures for respectively 12 terventions into the area to expedite the remediation of pollution. By mod-
and 30 days of treatments (bioreactor/composting) adopting windrow, ifying the physico-chemical conditions for better growth as well as the use
static and aeration methods (Hom-Diaz et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2019). of genetically engineered microorganisms in this bioremediation method
Followed by bacteria or algae-bacteria mediated toluene and petroleum can remarkably accelerate biodegradation. Enhance bioremediation are of
degradation from sludge and soil, showing >85% removal up to 63- and many kinds:
90-days of treatments while adopting bioreactor and biopiling ex-situ
methods (Lebrero et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2016b). Other treatments 2.2.2.1. Bioventing. In this technique, oxygen is delivered into unsaturated
have shown less remediation efficiencies for various organic pollutants zones to increase the activity of indigenous microbes and thus increase bio-
ranging 16–75% after 5–90 days of treatments by various ex-situ remediation. To enhance bioremediation, nutrients and moisture are also
methods (Table 2). added to enhance the bioventing efficiency. The goal of this method is to fa-
Bioremediation of crude-oil polluted forest soil was effective using cilitate bacterial conversion of organic pollutants to their nonhazardous
electrically heated thermostatic bioreactor. It also helped to test the ef- forms in unsaturated zone. Bioventing is becoming popular among various
fects of organic matter additives, surfactants, and oxygen providers in a in-situ bioremediation techniques in the restoration of sites polluted by
nine hydrocarbon-degrading fungal strains bioremediation system. light petroleum spills (Hohener and Ponsin, 2014). Air supply rate must
Efficiency of microbial remediation of forest soils in high and cold re- be adequate in saturated zone so that it can facilitate VOCs diffusion as
gions was examined at 20, 25, and 30 °C soil temperatures (Jia et al., well optimum aerobic microbial growth in unsaturated zones but also be
2021). The petroleum-contaminated forestlands remediation was ben- controlled the VOCs rising to the surface. Bioventing is not effective once
eficial for reforestation. Microbial treatment was most effective with the water table exist close enough to the treatment surface. It needs opti-
S2W1O1 (SDS, organic fertilizer, H2O2) combinations, exhibited best mum range of moisture content and temperature range. The cost of treat-
removal rate of 81.8% upon 28 days of treatment at 20 °C, followed ment is highly variable depending on soil type and its surface area.
by S1W1O1 (Tween-80, organic fertilizer, H 2 O2) and S2W2O1 (SDS,
corn cob, H 2 O 2 ) with 81.5% and 79.9% removal rates upon 28–30 2.2.2.2. Biosparging. Like bioventing, this technique involves injecting air into
days treatments at 25 and 30 °C soil temperature respectively (Jia subsurface soil to improve microbial activity, in turn stimulating the removal
et al., 2021). Among bioreactors, CSTR and air lift are quite effective of pollutants from polluted sites. The goal of bioventing is to allow VOCs to
to resolve mass transfer issues, moreover, sequential batch reactors ascend from saturated zones by air injection into unsaturated zones.
for percentage degradation and packed bed for enhanced microbial re- Bioventing ensures dispersion of volatile compounds from high to lower sat-
tention and activity (Chikere et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2015; Liu et al., urated zones evenly to stimulate biodegradation effectively (Gidarakos and
2017). Findings suggest the unique combinations of factors to be ap- Aivalioti, 2007). Based on permeability of the soil and biodegradability of
plied according to the temperature exist in various hot or cold coun- the pollutant, biosparging is deemed to be effective. The operation of
tries to avail the best bioremediation efficiency using specialized bioventing is closely related to the in-situ air sparging (IAS) method, which
bioreactor. uses high air-flow rates to volatilize pollutants, whereas biosparging
5
Table 2
Ex situ bioremediation: slurry phase (bioreactor) and solid phase (biopiling, land farming, composting, biofilter) treatments performance.
Species Ex-situ Waste treated Pollutant Removal rate Days Removal Reference
method efficiency (%)
Bacteria
Pseudomonas putida Bioreactor Sludge from wastewater Toluene 311.7 m3 h−1 63 91.6 Lebrero et al. (2016)
treatment plant
Bacterial assemblage: Firmicutes, Biopiling Petroleum-contaminated TPH 139.64 mg 80 48.36 Zhang et al. (2021)
Actinobacteria, α-, β- & γ-proteobacteria soil kg−1d−1
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biopiling Oil waste storage and Oil TPH – diesel range – 90 50.8 AlKaabi et al. (2020)
polluted soil organics
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biopiling Oil waste storage and Oil TPH – oil range – 90 29.2 AlKaabi et al. (2020)
Bacillus licheniformis Biopiling Oil waste storage and Oil TPH – diesel range – 90 53.5 AlKaabi et al. (2020)
Bacillus licheniformis Biopiling Oil waste storage and Oil TPH – oil range – 90 32.1 AlKaabi et al. (2020)
Mixed supplements: red bran, oxygenated Biopiling Weathered diesel TPH 3.20 × 10−2 42 79 Liu et al. (2021)
water, soluble fertilizer, TPH-degrading oil-contaminated soils d−1
bacteria (Sphingomonas & Pseudomonas)
direct compost of drilling waste Composting Drilling waste pit TPH – 90 41 Ma et al. (2016b)
Microbial consortium, in drilling waste Biopiling Drilling waste pit TPH – 90 87.4 Ma et al. (2016b)
(bulking agent & inorganic nutrients)
Microbial consortia Biopiling Drilling waste pit TPH – 90 44 Ma et al. (2016b)
Microbial consortia: Pseudoxanthomonas Biopiling Yellow-brown soil TPH – 35 75.42 Lu et al. (2019)
Pseudomonas, Nocardioides,
Achromobacter, & Caulobacter,
Methylobacillus, Methylophilaceae
Fungi and fungal co-cultures

Aspergillus sp. Bioreactor Molasses wastewater COD – 5 59 Yang et al. (2019)
Microbial community: (likely fungi and Composting Sludge from WWTP and Ampicillin, 0.027, 0.053 μg 15 16.7, 33.3 Khadra et al. (2019)
Actinobacteria) palm waste clarithromycin kg−1d−1
Microbial community (bacteria and fungi) Composting: Sewage sludge Norfloxacin, ofloxacin 0.016, 0.019 mg 30 98.4, 98.6 Zhang et al. (2019)
Windrow kg−1d−1
Microbial community (bacteria and fungi) Composting: Sewage sludge Norfloxacin, ofloxacin 0.020, 0.017 mg 30 98, 98.7 Zhang et al. (2019)
Static kg−1d−1
Microbial community (bacteria and fungi) Composting: Sewage sludge Norfloxacin, ofloxacin 0.018, 0.021 mg 30 98.2, 98.4 Zhang et al. (2019)
aeration kg−1d−1
Chlorella vulgaris and Aspergillus sp. Bioreactor Molasses wastewater COD – 5 70.68 Yang et al. (2019)
Algae
Scenedesmus quadricaudata & Tetraselmis Bioreactor Simulated wastewater Tetracycline – 8–12 48.8, 36.7 Daneshvar et al. (2018)
suecica
Chlorella & Scenedesmus dominated algal Bioreactor Urban and simulated Caffeine, ibuprofen, – 12 99, 99, 20 Hom-Diaz et al. (2017)
assemblage wastewater carbamazepine
Chlorella sorokiniana CCAP 211/8 K Bioreactor Simulated wastewater Paracetamol, salicylic 101.16, 20 69, 98 Escapa et al. (2017)
acid 99.62 mg
g−1d−1
Chlamydomonas mexicana Bioreactor Simulated wastewater Ciprofloxacin 0.024 mg 11 13 Xiong et al. (2017)
L−1d−1
Algal-bacterial reactor: Chlorella Bioreactor Sludge from wastewater Toluene 320 g−3 h−1 63 87.6 Lebrero et al. (2016)
sorokiniana & Pseudomonas putida treatment plant
Chlorella vulgaris Bioreactor Biogas slurry COD – 7 68.37 Wang et al. (2017)
Chlorella vulgaris Bioreactor Molasses wastewater COD – 5 25.96 Yang et al. (2019)
promotes microbial degradation. Diesel and kerosene-contaminated aquifers permeability and decreases efficient oxygen transfer, which reduces the mi-
or soils are more commonly treated with biosparging however it can be used crobial activity. While this method can't be used to remediate low perme-
for a wider range of volatile pollutants. Challenges exist to deliver soluble ni- able soils, however the procedure is a cost-effective operation because
trate (for creating anaerobic environment) and air/O2/H2O2 (for aerobic en- less groundwater is used, moreover, storage, treatment, and disposal costs
vironment) evenly. The cost of treatment is highly variable depending on are minimized. The costing range is approx. $60 per gallon LNAPL recov-
pollutant types and their concentrations, use of electron acceptor and ground- ered.
water pumping rate.
2.2.2.4. Biostimulation. Biostimulation is the process of initiating bioremedi-
2.2.2.3. Bioslurping. This method provides indirect oxygen and stimulates ation by stimulating the growth of naturally occurring bacteria in polluted
pollutant biodegradation by using soil vapour extraction, vacuum- sites. This can be accomplished by adding various types of rates limiting nu-
enhanced pumping, and bioventing to decontaminate groundwater and trients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, oxygen, or carbon and electron accep-
soil (Gidarakos and Aivalioti, 2007). Products can be recovered using this tors viz. molasses (Mehariya et al., 2018). In an anaerobic environment,
technique when remediating capillary, light non-aqueous phase liquids or remediation of halogenated pollutants can be induced by adding electron
LNAPL at unsaturated, and saturated zones. Using this method, VOCs and donors (organic substrates), allowing native microbes to accept the elec-
semi-VOCs can effectively be removed from soils. It works by spreading a trons from the halogenated pollutants.
“slurp” into the free layer of the product, which draws the liquids upwards. Biostimulation is among the best methods for bioremediation of hydro-
During pumping, the LNAPL is transported upwards, where it separates carbons. However, recent advances in stable isotope research, geophysics,
from the air and water at the surface. Moisture in the soil limits the air and molecular microbiology are promising, which can further enhance
6
biostimulation monitoring and performance after merging. Now the mod- passive to conserve energy, cheap and readily available, as well as readily
ern understanding of microbes can go beyond their presence to detect accessible (De Pourcq et al., 2015).
and regulate nutrients, electron donors and acceptors, contaminants, and
environmental stresses. By taking this knowledge into account and incorpo- 2.4. Comparative accounts of in-situ bioremediation techniques
rating it with critical biogeochemistry, hydrology, geology, and toxicology,
conceptual and numerical models can be developed to determine the best Each bioremediation method has its own specificity, strength and limi-
biostimulation strategy. It may lead to better environmental stewardship tation which must be explored within its defined limit by choosing the ap-
for the long run. This method was effective to remediate petroleum pollut- propriate parameter range, treatment condition and location precisely. The
ants, chlorinated compounds, and coke plant wastewaters. vast diversity of bioremediation techniques has proven effective at restor-
ing sites polluted with a variety of pollutants through proper method selec-
2.2.2.5. Bioaugmentation. Bioaugmentation is slightly different from biostim- tion. Since microorganism diversity, abundance, and community structure
ulation in which nutritional supplements helped to populate the indigenous play a key role in bioremediation and can provide insights into the fate of
bacteria to promote the bacterial metabolism. Biological augmentation is any ongoing bioremediation under optimal level. Furthermore, the use of
the addition of exogenous microbes required to speed up the rate of pollut- ‘Omics’ (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics etc.) enable
ant degradation. There is a possibility that waste can be broken down by na- us to understand microbial metabolism, function, and function-dependent
tive organisms already occurring in polluted areas, but it can be inefficient identification, outdated the culture-dependent identification. Several obsta-
and slower in degrading performance. As part of bioaugmentation, indige- cles can affect the process of bioremediation, including nutrient limitations,
nous varieties present in the location are studied to determine if biostimula- the lack of bacteria that can degrade pollutants, as well as bioavailability of
tion can be applied. Following the discovery of indigenous bacteria capable the pollutant.
of degrading contaminants, nutrient supplementation is used to stimulate Intrinsic bioremediation or monitored natural attenuation (MNA)
the cultures to enhance degradation. When indigenous varieties are unable method is thought to be the best approach for cold countries in the
to perform the effective remediation process, exogenous varieties with European region. Microorganisms dwelling in polluted sites have the innate
more sophisticated metabolic pathways are introduced via bioaugmenta- potentials to transform or biodegrade exiting pollutants and evidenced to
tion. Through bioaugmentation, advances are made in microbial ecology be more effective during lab investigation (Philp and Atlas, 2005). For chlo-
and biology, immobilization, and bioreactor performance (Herrero and rinated compounds trichloroethene (TCE), efficiency of biostimulation,
Stuckey, 2015). biostimulation-bioaugmentation and MNA was compared for ground
A bioaugmentation is a commonly used method of restarting activated water dichlorination. Effective reduction in TCE level has been observed
sludge bioreactors in municipal wastewater treatment. For bioaugmentation by MNA compared to other methods. Intrinsic bioremediation was not ef-
several strains are reported such as Bacillus thuringiensis, B. licheniformis, fective for PAH removal hence not able to minimize eco-toxicity of contam-
B. stearothermophilus, P. polymyxa, Aspergillus sp., Penicillium sp., Arthrobacter, inated soil (Garcıa-Delgado et al., 2015).
Flavobacterium, Streptomyces, Pseudomonas, Saccharomyces etc. (Mehariya Biostimulation and bioaugmentation are two popular methods adopted
et al., 2018). The use of bioaugmentation has many benefits, including im- often during the past years to accelerate bacterial actions at contaminated
proved efficiency and speed in breaking down substances and reduction in sites. An indigenous microbe is stimulated by nutrients addition to a pol-
pollutant concentrations. Table 3 is summarizing adopted in-situ bioremedi- luted media. However, excessive additions of stimulants found to reduce
ation methods for removal of selective organic pollutants under Intrinsic and bacterial metabolic activity and diversity (Wang et al., 2012). Alternatively,
engineered (biosparging, bioventing, bioslurping, biostimulation, bioaug- bioaugmentation is a better strategy to introduce or increase microbial pop-
mentation, natural attenuation) methods. From a comparative analysis, bio- ulations that are capable of degrading substances. According to recent find-
augmentation was found the most effective method for organic solvent ings, the degrading capacity of a microbial consortium is greater than that
degradation (>95%) for 60 days of in-situ treatment using bacterial cultures of pure isolates. When single isolates with different metabolic profiles are
(Hajieghrari and Hejazi, 2020). Followed by bacteria mediated biostimula- mixed, this may accelerate the degradation of pollutants due to synergistic
tion and biosparging (in-situ) methods for organic pollutants (COD), organic interactions, these isolates are likely to degrade pollutants quickly and
solvents and petroleum degradations, showing over 80% degradation from completely (Bhattacharya et al., 2015). Furthermore, it was found that
sludge and soil after 7–60 days of treatments (Safdari et al., 2018; Kim both biostimulation and bioaugmentation were efficient in remediating
et al., 2016; Ahmadnezhad et al., 2021; Tripathi et al., 2021). Other treat- PAHs pollutants from severely polluted samples with respect to the control
ments have shown less remediation efficiencies for various organic pollut- (Sun et al., 2012). Despite these findings, biostimulation is more efficient at
ants ranging 23–79% after 3–600 days of treatments by various in-situ remediating PAHs of low molecular size and contributes maximum (33.9%)
methods (Table 3). of total PAHs removal as compared to bioaugmentation (26.8%). Compared
to biostimulation, bioaugmentation was more efficient in remediating high
2.3. Permeable reactive barriers (PRB) molecular weight PAHs (HMW- PAHs) on a large scale, exhibiting a 22%
decrease in HMW-PAHs, versus only a 10.85% decrease in HWM-PAHs by
PRBs are also called permeable reactive treatment zones. It is a barrier biostimulation. Furthermore, when both methods were united, greater re-
that allows some pollution to pass through, but not all. PBR is an in-situ ductions in HMW- and LMW-PAHs were determined, respectively 44.9%
treatment zone that passively traps a plume of contaminants and removes and 55.0%. Biostimulation and bioaugmentation are important for biodeg-
or breaks them down, releasing clean water. It is an emerging technology radation of HMW of highly toxic compounds such as 4,5-Dichloroguaiacol,
that has been recognized as a cost-effective solution for in-situ groundwater 4-Chlorophenol, 2-Methoxy phenol, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 4,5-
remediation. PRB deals with several supportive methods to accelerate num- Dichlorocatechol Dehydroabietic acid etc. These compounds are generated
ber of bioremediation methods for pollutant remediation. It could be phys- from industries and highly toxic for animals and human systems. Table 4 is
ical or biological methods depending on the design and mechanism of summarizing selective HMW toxic organic pollutants discharged from in-
pollution remediation. Biological action is one of among existing several dustries, their toxic effects, and adopted treatment methods for their effec-
pollutant remediation mechanisms in PRB technique such as precipitation, tive bioremediations.
degradation, transformation, adsorption, chemical reactions etc. (Obiri- In addition, microbial fuel cells (MFCs) usually offer less efficiency
Nyarko et al., 2014). More alternative terms have been used for biological which is largely limiting with electron transfer ability of microbes. How-
activity such as passive bio-reactive barrier, biological PRB, bio-enhanced ever, MFCs inoculated with Shewanella and/or Pseudomonas were more
PRB to define the bioremediation segment of PRB. It is more popular promising for remediating phenanthrene-polluted sites then other microbes
method for groundwater remediation. For an effective barrier, it is typically (Adelaja et al., 2013). A study indicated that native microorganisms at
highly reactive to bind pollutants, however become permeable to water, contaminated sites are likely to remediate pollutants more effectively
7
Table 3
Application of intrinsic and engineered methods for bioremediation of various organic pollutants.
Species In-situ method Waste treated Pollutant Removal Days Removal Reference
Rate efficiency (%)
Bacteria
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus Natural attenuation Petroleum-hydrocarbon TPH 178.12 mg 60 51.49 Safdari et al. (2018)
subtilis contaminated soil kg−1d−1
Indigenous microorganisms Natural Attenuation Weathered diesel TPH 6.7 × 10−3 42 27 Liu et al. (2021)
oil-polluted soils d−1
Bacterial consortia: Variovorax sp., Biosparging Simulated Toluene, benzene, – 22 83, 81, 80 Ahmadnezhad
Pseudomonas balearica, BTE-contaminated ethylbenzene et al. (2021)
Ornithinibacillus sp. groundwater
– Biosparging Simulated polluted aquifer aqueous phase TCE – 2.5 41.3 Kim et al. (2016)
– Biosparging Simulated polluted aquifer Nonaq. liquid (PCE – 2.5 84.6, 94 Kim et al. (2016)
& Hexane)
Microbial assemblage (THAB & HDB) Biostimulation Hydrocarbon contaminated Hydrocarbon 41.31 mg 40 75.8 Martínez Álvarez
soil kg−1d−1 et al. (2017)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus Biostimulation Petroleum-hydrocarbon TPH 280.43 mg 60 81.91 Safdari et al. (2018)
Ex-situ (Bacillus sonorensis) Biostimulation Weathered oily soils DRO & PAH – 160 26.3, 23.7 Oualha et al. (2019)
Bacterial consortia dominated by Biostimulation Petroleum contaminated Petroleum – 30 56 Zheng et al. (2021)
Proteobacteria and Patescibacteria soil
Ex-situ (microbial consortia) (Klebsiella Biostimulation Distillery wastewater BOD, COD – 7 34.5, 44 Tripathi et al. (2021)
pneumoniae strain AS7 & K.
pneumoniae strain AS1
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus Bioaugmentation Petroleum-hydrocarbon TPH 304.92 mg 60 62.91 Safdari et al. (2018)
Ex-situ (Bacillus sonorensis) Bioaugmentation Weathered oily soils DRO & PAH – 160 39.2, 32.4 Oualha et al. (2019)
Ex-situ (Enterobacter cloacae Bioaugmentation Distillery wastewater BOD, COD – 7 85.4, 88.8 Tripathi et al. (2021)
(IITRCS10)
Immobilized Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bioaugmentation Simulated polluted soil n-Hexadecane 0.06 d−1 60 95.7 Hajieghrari and
Hejazi (2020)
Bacterial consortia dominated by Bioaugmentation Petroleum contaminated Petroleum – 30 75 Zheng et al. (2021)
Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria soil
Bacillus subtilis Bioaugmentation Simulated polluted sand PAH: fluoranthene – 14 30.6 Ma et al. (2016a)
Bacillus licheniformis Bioaugmentation Simulated polluted media β-Cypermethrin – 3 46.5 Zhao et al. (2016)
Bacterial consortia (heterotrophs & In-situ soil flushing with Phenol contaminated soil Phenol 0.325 mg 600 84.38 Guerin (2022)
phenol-utilizers) large bioreactor kg−1d−1
Fungi
Acremonium sp. Bioaugmentation Simulated polluted sand PAH: fluoranthene – 14 58.4 Ma et al. (2016a)
Bacillus subtilis-Acremonium sp. co-culture Bioaugmentation Simulated polluted sand PAH: fluoranthene – 14 64.1 Ma et al. (2016a)
Bacillus licheniformis and Aspergillus Bioaugmentation Simulated polluted media β-Cypermethrin – 3 78.9 Zhao et al. (2016)
oryzae co-culture
Piriformospora indica Bioaugmentation Contaminated soil DDT – 90 10 Li et al. (2022)
P. indica (inoculated to king grass) Bioaugmentation Contaminated soil DDT – 90 48.4 Li et al. (2022)
PCE-perchloroethene; THAB-total heterotrophic aerobic bacteria; HDB-hydrocarbon degrading bacteria.
than external microorganisms under optimal environmental conditions deal with bioaugmentation and/or biostimulation technology that could
(Fodelianakis et al., 2015). also be solely adopted for other nonbacterial microbes such as fungus
When dealing with aged or PAHs polluted environments, biosurfactants (Medaura et al., 2021), yeast (Fan et al., 2014) and plant (Chiaiese et al.,
are generally utilized to encourage desorption and dissolution of pollutants, 2018) to encourage bioremediation. This bioremediation method employs
so that pollutants can be more readily absorbed by degrading microbes. Be- fungal strains as dominant species. Various fungal strains are used in the re-
cause biosurfactants are environmentally friendly and biodegradable, they mediation of hazardous organic pollutants such as dyes, hazardous pheno-
are preferred over their chemical counterparts. Though, biosurfactants are lics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals etc. Among all the
not economically viable for large-scale use due to higher production costs species of organisms known to science, fungi are ubiquitous and diverse.
and lower scalability. Biosurfactant producers can produce more cost- They produce a wide variety of enzymes and metabolites (organic acids,
effective biosurfactants by including agro-industrial wastes as nutrients exopolysaccharides, etc.) which apply to the remediation process. Fungi
source during fermentation. Other studies have also examined the use of can efficiently degrade or transform hazardous pollutants through the syn-
microbial metabolites such as biosurfactants and dehydrogenase activity ergistic action of these metabolites. Furthermore, fungal biomass, whether
for waste oil biodegradation. The soil factors that affect the diesel removal living or dead, has a higher sorption capacity of pollutants than other mi-
in decreasing order from polluted soils is respectively sand content > cation croorganisms (Rudakiya et al., 2019). Most of the studies have shown
exchange capacity (CEC) > organic matter (OM) > clay and silt content > that white-rot fungi can be used for bioremediation through the production
SSA ≫ pH. The CEC, silt content, and pH interactions showed a maximum of ligninolytic enzymes such as laccases and peroxidases. The white-rot,
83.1% of variance is explained (Li et al., 2020). brown rot and basidiomycetes fungi models were used in mycoremediation
are Trametes versicolor, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Bjerkandera adjusta,
3. Other bioremediation methods Pleurotus sp., Oxyporus latermarginatus, Polyporus lepideus, Pycnoporus
sanguineus, Pycnoporus, Trametes hirsute, Cyclocybe erebia, Lycoperdon
3.1. Mycoremediation perlatum, Tricholoma sejunctum etc. (Eichlerova and Baldrian, 2020). Recent
studies broadly covered the wide range of fungal strains and their potential
Bioremediation methods which have been covered so far, mainly dom- for degrading organic dye such as Orange G and Remazol Brilliant Blue R
inated by bacterial and archaeal floras, other flora such as fungus, yeast, (RBBR), which were decolored using saprophytic basidiomycetes causing
algae could be a part of it in selective systems. Exceptionally, few studies white rot (WR), brown rot (BR), disease as well as showing litter
8
Table 4
Various physicochemical and bioremediation methods for removal of toxic pollutants from industrial wastewater.
Toxic pollutants Molecular size Toxicity Involved process and treatment efficiency Reference
and formula
4,5-Dichloroguaiacol 193; C7H6Cl2O2 Aquatic toxicity >90% removal of pollutant, interaction mechanism Garba et al. (2019)
e.g., π-π dispersion, H-bonding and electron donor--
acceptor were involved for the chlorophenols adsorp-
tion into various adsorbents used
4-Chlorophenol (4CP) 144; C6H5ClO2 Aquatic toxicity >98% degradation of 4CP (with 69–79% COD Lobo et al. (2018)
reduction) from industrial wastewater was achieved
using phenol-acclimated activated sludge in open
respirometry system
EDCs: Variable; Aquatic toxicity, mutagenic, Avg. 70–98% biodegradation achieved via Filtration Gadupudi et al. (2019)
Nonylphe-nol,17β-oestra-diol/17α-- 143–296.4 skin irritant —Sand/microfiltration, advance oxidation and
Ethinyle-stradiol etc. CxHxOHCHxCl Reverse osmosis
2-Methoxy phenol 124; C7H8O2 Acute toxicity, skin irritant Enzymatic degradation of pollutant in paper and pulp Taylor (2019)
industry wastewater
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Variable; Carcinogenic, neurological 75% of the anaerobically biodegraded PCBs from Jing et al. (2019)
C12H10-xClx problems, PCBs industrial wastewater
4,5-Dichlorocatechol 179; C6H4Cl2O2 Target organ toxicity, acute Up to 86% reduction of pollutants was observed after Malhotra et al. (2013)
toxicity, skin irritant pre and post microbial treatment adopted
Dehydroabietic acid 300; C20H28O2 Acute oral toxicity Treatment with lignolytic microorganisms such as Hubbe et al. (2016)
ascomycetes, bacterial, algae and fungi via enzymatic
remediation from industrial wastewater
5-Chlorovanillin 186; C8H7ClO3 Respiratory irritant, Skin Various EDCs pollutants were reduced between 9 and Kaur et al. (2019)
irritation, target organ toxicity 50% by thermochemical method in the paper industry
effluent
2-Chlorophenol 128; C6H5ClO Aquatic toxicity, Photochemical decomposition (photosensitized Foszpańczyk et al. (2018)
genotoxicity, mutagenicity oxidation) of EDCs under sunlight with
homo/heterogeneous system significantly (100%)
removed EDCs in wastewater
Pentachlorophenol 266; C6Cl5OH Mutagenicity, genotoxicity, >99% degradation was observed when Pseudomonas Ammeri et al. (2017)
aquatic toxicity, POPs fluorescens was grown in 250 mg L−1 PCP containing
solution
6-Chlorovanillin 187; C8H7ClO3 Skin irritant, Target organ Anodization technique used for the removal of Malhotra et al. (2013)
toxicity, environmental hazard significant 6-CV level from industrial wastewater
3,4-Dichlorophenol 163; C6H4Cl2O Skin & eye irritation, acute 41–87% COD degradation with 1.5% polyaluminium Choudhary et al. (2015)
toxicity chloride addition
2,4-Chlorophenol 128; C6H5ClO Aquatic toxicity, Photochemical decomposition (photosensitized Foszpańczyk et al. (2018)
genotoxicity, mutagenicity oxidation) of EDCs under sunlight with
homo/heterogeneous system significantly (100%)
removed EDCs in wastewater
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 197; C6H3Cl3O Mutagenicity, genotoxicity, 99% degradation of TCP (with 92% COD reduction) Khorsandi et al. (2018)
aquatic toxicity, POPs achieved using 8 h of HRT in SBR reactor employing
lignolytic microbes
4-Chloro-2-methoxyphenol 158; C7H7ClO2 Skin corrosion or irritation; Photoelectrocatalytic degradation exhibited 84% Rajput et al. (2021)
Target organ toxicity degradation efficiency and significant reduction in
COD after 6 h treatment of paper mill effluent
TCP: Trichlorophenol; HRT: Hydraulic retention time; EDCs: Endocrine disrupting compounds; COD: Chemical oxygen demand; SBR: Sequencing batch reactor; PCP:
Pentachlorophenol.
decomposition ability via laccase and Mn-peroxidase mediated degradation Mycoremediation also is in immature stage, this treatment found to be
(Eichlerova and Baldrian, 2020). Besides these, other enzymes were more effective in color reduction than the bacterial based activated sludge
catalases, cytochrome 450 monooxygenases which helped to fungi for process however later was effective for approx. 2-fold more COD reduction
degrading wide range of organic pollutants such as textile dyes, (Spina et al., 2012). As fungi degrade recalcitrant compounds extremely ef-
persistent organic pollutants, effluents from textile, leather tanning indus- ficiently, they have been used in the treatment of industrial wastewater that
tries, bleached kraft pulp, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum, pharma- contains toxic or recalcitrant compounds. As landfill leachate has a complex
ceuticals and personal care products, and pesticides (Deshmukh et al., 2016). composition and high toxicity, fungi have proven to be more efficient at re-
Aspergillus flavus known to contaminate nuts is a good producer of moving COD, toxicity, and color than conventional leachate treatment.
laccase, applies to remove surfactant and dyes from soil and wastewaters Yeast and white rot fungi have been the species studied so far to treat land-
(Ning et al., 2018), Bjerkandera adusta normally develops on decayed fill leachate. Research should be conducted in the future on the impact of
wood are good producer of lignin peroxidase, thus able to effectively de- ammonia in landfill leachate on the treatment process of fungi as well as
grade xenobiotics compounds (Rhodes, 2014), Some species are well in in- on other fungi species (Ren and Yuan, 2015).
organic remediation. Fusarium oxysporum grows well in desert, temperate,
and tropical, soils of tundra. They are efficient endoglucanase producers 3.2. Phytoremediation
successfully applied to degrade silver (Danesh et al., 2013). Monascus
purpureus and Penicillium purpurogenum were also utilized for bioremedia- Phytoremediation is bioremediation of polluted soils or water via
tion of orange processing waste which were also involved in commercial higher plants. The target of this method is to reduce the toxic properties
production of biobased pigments (Kantifedaki et al., 2018). White rot of pollutants by utilizing plant interactions employing chemical, physical,
fungi reported to efficiently degrade endocrine disrupting compounds, biological, and biochemical. A phytoremediation process may involve sev-
polycyclic aromatic compounds, pesticides, synthetic dye, pharmaceutical eral remediation mechanisms depending on the type and amount of pollu-
compounds etc. from wastewater (Zhuo and Fan, 2021; Akerman-Sanches tion. These mechanisms involve degradation, accumulation, extraction,
and Rojas-Jimenez, 2021). filtration, stabilization, and volatilization. Extraction, transformation, and
9
sequestration are common methods for removing heavy metals and radio- and animal feed industries (Priyadharshini et al., 2021). Several industries
nuclides. Most organic pollutants are rhizoremediated, degraded, stabilized, are installing algal remediation facilities to treat wastewater and to improve
and volatilized by a typical phytoremediation. However, mineralization is carbon footprint of their processes as microalgae-based remediation is the
only possible when some unique plants are used such as willows and alfalfa. only process which mitigate CO2 and reduce greenhouse effect (Patel et al.,
Plants as phytoremediators must have a few important characteristics: a 2020a,b).
persistent root system and the ability to adapt to the predominant environ-
mental conditions, a fast root growth rate, rapid adaptation, and most im- 3.4. Microbial fuel cells
portantly, the time it takes to achieve the desired level of cleanliness.
Plants must be disease-resistant and pest-resistant (Lee, 2013). As part of Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are an innovative approach of
phytoremediation, pollutants are taken up by roots and translocated to bioelectrochemical process that uses electrons derived from biochemical reac-
shoots. Furthermore, transpiration and partitioning play a role in transloca- tions catalyzed by microorganisms such as bacteria, microalgae etc. to pro-
tion and accumulation (Miguel et al., 2013). Despite this, the process is also duce electricity. Using the energy generated by MFCs in urban WWTPs,
affected based on affecting factors e.g., pollutant types and plant type. MFCs can partially meet the energy demand. It works by allowing bacteria
Many plants growing in a polluted area serves as good phytoremediators. to do what they are best at, oxidizing and reducing organic molecules
So, phytoremediation success principally relying on enhancing the degra- (Konovalova et al., 2018). As the organic fuel is oxidized at the anode, protons
dation potential of indigenous plants that grow in unclean environments and electrons are generated which ultimately implies for electricity generation
either by augmentation with endo- or exogenous plants. Plants are used but firstly that pass through the membrane to the cathode, and through the
to remediate polluted sites for a variety of reasons, including the fact anode to an external circuit. Mostly, Gram-negative microorganisms are
that valuable metals can be bioaccumulated in several types of potential used in MFC such as Escherichia coli, Bacillus violaceus, Proteus vulgaris,
plants and restored upon remediation, that process called phytomining. Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas methanica, Shewanella putrefaciens,
Phytoremediation is more appropriated for inorganic nature of pollutants. Desulfuromonas acetoxidans, Geobacter sulfurreducens, Methylovorus mays,
Several plant species can be used to improve the phytoremediation pro- Methylovorus dichloromethanicum, Geobacter metallireducens etc. (Konovalova
cess, as well as to treat various types of contaminated sites and pollutants et al., 2018). Table 4 is summarizing some bioelectrochemical remediation
such as heavy metals, dyes, fly ash, hydrocarbons, etc. Research is undergo- method for treatment as well as biofuel production. So far there is no
ing to explore new ways of improving the phytoremediation process bioelectrochemical based method demonstrated which could be used in in-
(Dhanwal et al., 2017). Advantage of this technology lies with low labor dustrial scale remediation process. Failure of this technology is mainly due
and operation cost, self-sustainable, effective in locations where less toxic to key technical barriers and their low remediation as well as conversion effi-
pollutants are exist, could be utilized for nonagricultural land. Disadvantage ciency (Zhou et al., 2013).
of the phytoremediation is due to low efficient remediation, low range of
pollutant can be targeted, time consuming, seasonal variation, risk of bioac- 4. Limitation of bioremediation
cumulation of pollutant in food chain is possible. Adequate skill about plant
utilization with respect to type of pollutants as well as good cultivation prac- Some of the limitations are associated with bioremediation processes. In
tice is required (Dhanwal et al., 2017). There is good public acceptance for some cases, bioremediation technologies have two major limitations:
phytoremediation. It is an eco-friendly, solar-powered technology that is fea- (1) highly chlorinated pollutants and HMW PAHs cannot easily be de-
sible and offers possibilities to scale up. This technology still is in immature graded by microbes, and (2) microbial remediation/degradation of some
stages, and several technical challenges need to be overcome to flourish. Ag- pollutants may yield even more toxic and unstable compounds than the
ronomic practices that are innovative and based on genetic engineering original pollutants. For example, reductive dehalogenation of TCE can
could greatly enhance this technique's effectiveness and simplicity. transform into toxic product vinyl chloride, which is a potential carcinogen
(Megharaj et al., 2014). Thus, bioremediation requires a former in-depth
3.3. Phycoremediation understanding of microbial processes prior to giving appropriate direction
and desirable outcome. Otherwise, the penalties could be dangerous for
Algae are instrumental in controlling and monitoring organic pollutants the ecosystem. Moreover, composition of pollutants is also not desirable
in aquatic ecosystems. Studies have been conducted extensively on the ex- in some waste streams which do not support adequate microbial growth
traction and bioremediation of heavy metals and organic pollutants using due to excessive organic load or less nutrients. Anaerobic co-digestion is
higher plants. Microalgae have yet to be extensively applied in the restoration also in major focus mainly to overcome overloading of organics and provide
of organic-polluted aquatic environments however few trials are reported so balanced waste composition and excessive/less nutrients (Mehariya et al.,
far. Microalgae species have a major role to play in phycoremediation of or- 2018). Other limitations include low bioavailability of pollutants at differ-
ganic pollutants in aquatic ecosystems, and their potential is currently in ent spatial and temporal scales, low microbial efficiency, and a lack of
great focus. The popular microalgal models utilized for bioremediation of benchmark values for bioremediation testing in the field (Singh et al.,
organic and inorganic pollutants includes Chlorella, Chlamydomonas, 2020). Several other factors are responsible for biodegradation, including
Scenedesmus, Spirulina, Phormidium, Oscillatoria, Botryococcus, Desmodesmus, temperature, nutrient and pollutant levels, and the presence of metaboli-
Nodularia, Arthrospira, Cyanothece, etc. (Baghour, 2019; Priyadharshini cally active microbial populations (Gkorezis et al., 2016). Organic pollut-
et al., 2021). Phycoremediation is an interesting form of wastewater treat- ants can be degraded by monoculture strains. However, microbial
ment because it provides tertiary bio-treatment while also producing poten- consortia and the combination of bacteria, algae and fungi may effectively
tially valuable biomass which can add value to offset treatment costs. The degrade PAHs and VOCs (Ghosal et al., 2016; Fulekar, 2017; Patel et al.,
phycoremediation process can also eliminate heavy metals as well as harmful 2020a). Additionally, not all compounds are rapidly and completely de-
organic materials without causing secondary contamination (Priyadharshini gradable, which limits the potency of bioremediation.
et al., 2021). Bioremediation processes that use bacteria do not offer the same
advantages as those that use algae. Algal remediation offers the advantage 5. Latest technological advancements and their roles for changing
that under light conditions, pollutants can be remediated without oxygen. Be- scope of environmental bioremediation
sides the algal processes, oxygen is being used and carbon dioxide is released
to the environment by all other bioprocesses for pollutants ingestion and di- Latest scenario of bioremediation method is not limited to the pollutant
gestion, which causes a greenhouse effect. For the removal of microplastics, removal, but it aimed beyond the treatment. Application of microalgae is
algal species with high flocculation capacities and adsorption mechanisms very important in the current scenario due to its growing implications in
have a lot of potential. The algal biomass generated during phycoremediation changing role of bioremediation process (Patel et al., 2020b). As the current
is also high in protein and lipid, thus promising to be utilized in biofuel, food, trend of bioremediation is not limited to remediation alone but also
10
improving the carbon footprint, best possible energy recovery via The advancement in biochar research especially in tailoring properties
extracting several value-added products from treatment process to offset also finds wider application to improve organic and inorganic bioremedia-
the treatment expenses (Patel et al., 2020a). Obtained dry biomass from tion. Preliminary role of biochar was confined to pollutant binding and re-
any bioremediation process can largely be utilized for biofuel productions moval from polluted media whereas the latest approaches are even larger,
(Choi et al., 2019), however safer waste stream can be targeted for other and its role is further extended towards ultimate degradation of organic
value-added products applies for health applications (Hong et al., 2019; and inorganic pollutants (Oliveira et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2021e). The bio-
Patel et al., 2021b). Table 5 is summarizing various advanced microalgal/ degradation of organic pollutants from biochar requires further additions.
non-microalgal treatment methods designed to derive values along with Therefore, to induce oxidoreduction reaction for organic pollutant degrada-
treatment as fuel. The latest progress in microalgal research has revealed tion, it is necessary to employ potential compounds such as sodium
a greater potential for remediation after investigation of their mixotrophic percarbonate (SPC), or peroxymonosulfate (PMS) along with biochar or tai-
growth potential (Sim et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2020b). Mixotrophic cultiva- lored biochars with biological agents can also play such role. Pollutant deg-
tion of microalgae reported to yield 3–5 folds higher biomass; as well as bet- radation could be achieved with or without involving microbes in the
ter yield of wide range of algal products as compared to other trophic biochar system. Further attention is given towards emergent several new
modes (Patel et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2021a). Moreover, mixotrophic tailoring methods to cover broad spectrum pollutants remediations using
growth modes are more suitable for changing growth environment espe- novel tailored biochar (Patel et al., 2021e). The interactions between mi-
cially varying light and nutrients condition to maintain better growth crobes and biochar improve the bioremediation level further, as well as de-
rate, DIC and CO levels and thus effective remediation (Sim et al., 2019; grade the pollutants from the environment, which opens the door to
Patel et al., 2019). Earlier, their roles were confined to tertiary treatment improved environmental and economic prospects. These benefits are in ac-
of wastewater for removal of inorganic pollutants (mainly N, P, K etc.), cordance with global trends towards the development of a biocircular econ-
whereas the recent advancement shows its greater promise for organic pol- omy.
lutants removal besides the formal role (Patel et al., 2020b, 2021a,b,c,d,e). Nonetheless, lignin waste generated about 35–40% of the processed
Table 6 is showing remediation profile of organic and inorganic pollutants biomass from 2nd generation bioethanol production (Singhania et al.,
from various wastewaters using microalgal/non-microalgal systems and 2022). Remediation or valorization of this fraction is currently in great
their efficiency for removal of organic fractions. Biorefinery approach of focus worldwide to meet the environmental challenges as well as to further
product extraction from obtained algal biomass of treatment process can economize the bioethanol process. Lignin remains after cellulose and hemi-
further economize the remediation process. Because it helps to segregate cellulose fractions removal from lignocellulosic biomass treatment. In fact,
multiple fuel and non-fuel high value products from same biomass until it lignin is composed of three aromatic monolignols: coumaryl alcohol (H),
could be used for final use such as anaerobic digestion and/or biogas pro- coniferyl alcohol (G), and sinapyl alcohol (S) (Singhania et al., 2022). Mi-
duction (Patel et al., 2021d). crobial enzymes efficiently hydrolyze the cellulosic and hemicellulosic frac-
Recent advancement in application of micro and nanobubble technol- tions (Agrawal et al., 2021; Singhania et al., 2013a, 2021a,c); however
ogy (MNBT) is remarkable to improve the efficiency of environmental bio- unable to utilize lignin fraction for bioethanol process. Recent advancement
remediation (Patel et al., 2021c; Xiao et al., 2019). Because the biological is uncovered the potential of several specific and nonspecific enzymes
living system require ideal dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration for their which helps to use this fraction and can lead to proper utilization/disposi-
adequate growth, metabolic activity and treatment performance. DO con- tion of this fraction (Singhania et al., 2021c). Laccase is one of the nonspe-
centration is the major challenge to maintain at desired levels especially cific hydrolytic enzymes used for wide spectrum organic pollutant removal,
under polluted environments. MNBT showed a great potential in wastewa- also reported for potential degradation of lignin (Cheng et al., 2021).
ter, groundwater, and sludge bioremediations due to their unique charac-
teristics implies for efficient gaseous-aqueous mass transfer such as 6. Technoeconomic analysis of algal bioremediations
negatively charged surface, large specific surface area, prolong stagnation
in aqueous phase, high gas transfer efficiency etc. Air, ozone, and oxygen Techno-economic analysis (TEA) mainly analyzes processes at larger
find major application as compared to other gases in environmental biore- scales and identifies potential areas of optimization. Moreover, continuing
mediation (Patel et al., 2021c; Xiao et al., 2019). Sludge is most challenging research help to reduce treatment costs and make it more competitive with
fraction for the treatment, for which several technical limitations are asso- existing technologies. Capital expenditure and treatment time can be re-
ciated. Latest MNBT technology offers effective treatment for its stabiliza- duced to bring down the costs up to 90% of the total treatment costs
tion. In addition to improving the biodegradability and disintegration of which can be saved through above mentioned efforts (Leflay et al., 2020).
sewage sludge, MNBTs can greatly improve the gas utilization rate within Recently, a technoeconomic analysis of the algal bioremediation process
the bubbles, dramatically increase sludge solubility, and reduce the opera- was conducted using experimental data collected from algal-bacterial
tional costs associated with sludge dissolution (Xiao et al., 2019). leachate treatment in a 300-liter photobioreactor. When optimization and
In a recent study, harmful algal blooms and cyanotoxins have been re- cost reduction strategies were not applied, each batch treatment cost esti-
moved from natural water bodies. Although, NB releases algogenic sub- mated approx. £170. To reduce the cost of the bioremediation process,
stances, however, side effects to water quality and aquatic organisms the major aim was to recover the metals and bioproducts from algal bio-
were negligible (Wen, 2020). Besides the deteriorating effect of *OH radi- mass. Product may vary depending on the local demand and nature of the
cals on algal bloom control, NB found to enhance DO level for better aquatic treatment process. It may include animal and aquaculture feed, plastic al-
life. In contrast to normal bubbles or microbubbles, oxygen, or ozone ternative, fertilizers, biofuels etc. These strategies are quite effective than
nanobubbles are highly reactive in water, which effectively disperses pol- other treatment methods such as reverse osmosis, electrodialysis etc.
lutants or pathogens (Wen, 2020). Utilization of ozone in NB production of- Scenario-based analysis shows that reduction in CaPEx and OpEx are cru-
fers increased radical levels for effective control of pathogens (Patel et al., cial to make the bioprocess feasible. Furthermore, the cost of PBRs can be
2021c). Moreover, oxygen and ozone nanobubbles can reduce COD by up reduced by 85% when using economies of scale for PBR purchases compa-
to 90% depending on the composition and origin of wastewater with rela- rable to manufacturer quotations and reducing dependence on freshwater
tively less treatment time than without MNBT (Yang et al., 2012). It has and bulk chemicals for media formulation (Kumar et al., 2020; Leflay
been shown that oxygen and ozone effectively decolorize the textile indus- et al., 2020). According to the sensitivity analysis, reducing the retention
try wastewater (Chu et al., 2007), and have also been shown to reduce the time required for algal-bacterial growth rates, or moving to continuous
organic pollutant fraction in water and soil contaminated by pesticides treatment, can reduce the number of annual batch treatments as well as
(Ikeura et al., 2011). In these studies, oxygen and ozone NBs significantly total cost reduction. Although this analysis is purely theoretical, it offers im-
enhanced the effectiveness of treatment, oxygenation, and nutrient disper- portant insights into where research should be directed towards an algal
sion (Ikeura et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2020). bioremediation technology that is more financially feasible.
11
Table 5
Various advanced microbial (bacterial, fungal, algal, yeast) treatment methods designed to derive values beside treatment as fuel product.
Waste stream Nature of Process adopted and steps Remark Treatment efficiency Value addition (fuel types) Reference
types pollutant
Biodiesel & bioethanol

Textile High BOD & Chlorella sp., Scenedesmus sp. Biomass harvested, lipid 60–80% COD removal Biodiesel (good yield at lab Fazal et al. (2018)
wastewater COD, dye, PO4, extracted for biodiesel scale)
NO3, other production
chemicals
Cheese whey High BOD & COD Chlorella protothecoides Biomass & lipid frac. obtained 99.7% COD, 91–100% Lipid frac. for biodiesel & Patel et al.
cont. sec. cheese respectively 4.54 & 1.80 g l−1 inorg. removal biomass for other biofuels (2020b)
whey
Sago High COD and Lipid from Candida tropicalis, used Innovative and ecologically 84% COD & 92% BOD Lipid with high oleic acid Thangavelu
processing BOD due to high for biodiesel sustainable technology removal content = 41.33% et al. (2020)
waste water starch
from
Cassava
Industry
Dairy 3–4% TS Kluyveromyces yeast was used to Bioethanol yield obtained from >90% ultra- & 97.4% bioethanol (good Leandro et al.
wastewater containing ferment lactose lactose containing retentate nano-filtration/reverse yield) (2019)
sludge wastewater osmosis was used
Biohydrogen
Tannery High COD Chlorella sp., Scenedesmus sp. Mixed with Kelp waste extract to COD & NH+ 4 removals Effective for TWW treatment Nagi et al. (2020)
Wastewater improve the nutrients level improved by 51 and and biodiesel
(TWW) 45%
Cheese whey High COD range Inhouse isolate Clostridium sp. Lactose concentration was >90% lactose and org. bioH2 yield 6.35 ± 0.2 Patel et al. (2016)
−1
IODB-O3 45–50 g L acids were removed mol-H2 mol−1 -lactose
Paperboard High COD and AD by MC (H2 producer) using Dominance of a novel HPB of 70% COD removal 5.29 mmol g−1 BioH2 yield Farghaly et al.
mill sludge BOD CUFAR; HRT = 9.6 h Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in (2016)
(PMS) PMS; Escherichia fergusonii &
Enterobacter hormaechei in MCB
Beverage High starch & Reactor-ASBR; Inoculum- sludge, Enriched with divers H2 34.7% COD removed BioH2 yield = 172 ml g−1 Prakash et al.
Industry glucose distillery anaerobic tank; HRT = producing bacteria (2018)
Wastewater 16 h
(Alcohol
distillery)
Sugary Rich in various Municipal sewage treatment Biogas containing 40% bioH2 Significant organic 1.37 H2 mol mol−1 hexose Tangkathitipong
wastewater sugar sludge, CSTR; HRT = 1 day sugar removed et al. (2017)
−1
Biodiesel High glycerin ASBR, activated sludge from Biogas containing 33.4% bioH2 Significant glycerin 75.15 H2 ml g glycerin Jaikeaw and
wastewater content biodiesel plant removed removed Chavadej (2017)
−1
Cheese High COD and Reactor-CSTR; Inoculum-AD COD is over 4500 mg L 45% COD removed BioH2 yield = 5–22 mmol Parihar and
Processing BOD sludge; HRT = 24–84 h g−1 Upadhyay (2016)
Wastewater
Bioelectricity
Kitchen High Organic Synecochococcus & Chlorococcum as Microalgae & light affected the Microalgae Power density: Naina Mohamed
Wastewater content cathode catalyst in MFC; Anode power generation by better significantly improved Synecochococcus −41.48 et al. (2020)
MC; 1600 lx photosynthesis and DO level; COD removal mW m−2; Chlorococcum-
improved reduction at cathode 30.2 mW m−2
Dairy High COD and MFC (dual chambered) with COD 1600 mg L−1; aerobic 90–91% COD removal Aerobic & anaerobic Elakkiya and
wastewater BOD anolyte (pH 7); where metabolism shoes columbic metabolisms give Power Matheswaran
aerobic/anaerobic bacteria are efficiency 3.7 times lower than density & COD removal 192 (2013)
employed anaerobic metabolism (17.17%) & 161 mW m−2 with 91 &
90%
Sewage Rich in organics MFC (single chambered), E. coli for Limitation: MFCs cannot be No precise Power density 152/91/6000 Rahimnejad
sludge e− transfer; Anode: graphite with operated at extremely low quantification for COD mW m−2 respectively et al. (2015)
neutral red or graphite with Mn4+ temperatures due to microbial reduction
or platinum & polyaniline inactivity
Urban Low BOD Salt bridge is present; graphite Electrogenic bacteria partake in No precise 25 mW m−2 Slate et al. (2019)
wastewater electrodes, bacteria for electron electron transfer could quantification for COD
transfer dramatically increase power reduction
outputs
Paper High organic and Mixed Enterobacter sp. for electron Enterobacter sp. exhibit moderate Moderate COD 5.5 mW m−2 Xiao and He
industry inorganic transfer, U-tube MFC system action for treatment reduction (2014)
wastewater pollutants
Sewage 12,110 mg L−1 MFC dual chambered; graphite Electrogenic bacteria via electron Moderate COD 9.1 W m−3 Bhatia et al.
sludge total COD fiber brush electrodes, Bacteria transfer could dramatically reduction (2021)
helped in e− transfer increase power outputs
HRT: hydraulic retention time; COD: Chemical oxygen demand; BOD: Biological oxygen demand; ASBR: Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor; CSTR: Continues stirred tank
reactor; MFC: microbial fuel cell; ASBR: Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor; CUFAR: Continuous up flow anaerobic reactor; TS-Total solid, AD-Anaerobic digestion; MC-
Mixed culture.
Another study conducted TEA on algal process for remediation of dairy 2020). This study also reported that 3m3 High Volume V-shape Pond was
wastewater, reported that a plant with a capacity of >1 million litre per day most cost-effective and area efficient. Annual algal biomass production
capacity and a life of 20 years is economically viable which provides inter- was 504 ton at $0.482/kg with ~240,000 m3 of treated clean water for ir-
nal rate of returns (IRR) 118% and 1.9-years payback period (Kumar et al., rigation (Kumar et al., 2020).
12
Table 6
Removal profile of organic pollutants from various waste(water) using various microbial systems.
Type of Nature of sample Microbial source Initial concentration Removal Efficiency Reference
wastewater
Fungal
Tannery Highly pH (>11), saline (>17 Aspergillus niger 25 g L−1 for unhairing effluent, 90% and 75% COD reductions, toxicity Boujelben et al.
wastewater mS cm−1) and COD (25 g 7.2 g L−1 for final effluent significantly removed, Cr conc. Reduced up to (2019)
L−1) load 70%
Textile wastewater TW1&2: High pH (10.9–11.9), Bjerkandera adusta Compared to fungal treatment, TW1: 74.7% COD reduction PW: 91% COD Spina et al.
(TW) and moderate COD (370 & 80.5% COD reduction in reduction (2012)
Pharmaceutical 400 mg L−1) PW: Low pH activated sludge, but TW2: 47.6–48.3% COD reduction in free and
wastewater (PW) (4.8), and high COD decolorization was immobilized form of fungal treatment their
(20,800 mg L−1) comparatively less up to 30.2% decolorization was obtained 62–63.8%
Brewery COD- 5567, TN-111, Trametes versicolor, Treatment carried out under T. harzianum showed best ability for COD Hultberg and
wastewater NH3-N- 53.0, Pleurotus ostreatus & submerged condition (89%) removal, nutrients and ammonia Bodin (2017)
PO4-P -62.6 Trichoderma harzianum removal (66.1%)
Bacterial
Dairy wastewater High COD Shewanella oneidensis & 2 Phase treatment: P1- 75 days & TCOD and TBOD: 94 & 96% under ER1 kΩ Marassi et al.
Clostridium butyricum P2- 30 days in MFC (P1) and 96 & 97% under ER 3 kΩ (P2); max. (2020)
power density 3.5 Wm−3 and current density
of 1.1 A m−3 (P1), and 2.4 W m−3 and 2.4 A
m−3 (P2); Coulombic efficiency of 2.1% (P1)
and 4.4% (P2)
Food wastes Bacillus paralicheniformis HPB improved biodegradation >85% GBP of FW after 4 days of biodigestion: Roslan et al.
(cooked rice egg & B. velezensis rate via producing maximum degrade total solids (>62%), protein (>19%), (2021)
shell, raw amylase, cellulase, protease and total fat (>51), total sugar (>86%), reducing
chicken gizzard, lipase activities sugar (>38%) and starch (>50%)
canned sardine
etc.)
Algal
Milk whey COD 80–95 g L−1, & BOD Scenedesmus acuminatus 70 days growth in Plexiglas COD: 93% (SA), 94% (PM), TN: 88% (SA) and Marazzi et al.
processing 40–48 g L−1 (SA) and a mixed column PBRs and 7 days HRT; 90% (PM), TP: 69% (SA) and 73% (PM) (2020)
wastewaters population (PM): Synergy between algae &
(Chlorella, Scenedesmus & bacteria for CO2 & O2
Chlamydomonas) production/consumption
Seafood wastewater SFW COD- 362.0; BOD- 215.5; Chlorella vulgaris 14 days treatment TSS removal of 93.0 ± 5.5%, nutrient Nguyen et al.
effluent TSS- 468.5 removal of 88.0 ± 2.2% (2019)
TN: Total nitrogen; NH3-N; Ammonium-nitrogen; PO4-P-Phosphate-phosphorus; COD-chemical oxygen demand; MFC: microbial fuel cell; ER: external resistance; P1: phase
1; P2: phase 2; GBP: gross biodegradation percentage; HPB: hydrolase-producing bacteria; COD: chemical oxygen demand; BOD: biological oxygen demand; and TSS: total
suspended solid.
According to the study of Silva et al. (2021), industrial effluent treat- utilizing controlled suicide techniques to kill any GEM that escapes the en-
ment and bioenergy production can be economically achieved by using vironment. Moreover, using synthetic biology techniques, microorganisms
microalgae. The study's best scenario has an IRR of 12% and a net present with targeted degradative pathways for target compounds could be
value of 15.4 million euros. We considered an anaerobic digestion effi- engineered to improve bioremediation efficiency. Especially, genomics,
ciency of 45%, 3% photosynthetic efficiency, and a lipid extraction effi- proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics provides insights about micro-
ciency of 75% in this scenario. A discounted payback period of 13 years bial metabolism, function, and function-dependent identification in any mi-
was the best scenario when analyzing DPP values, which may make the pro- crobial system which enable us to regulate them desirably. Nanomaterials
ject less attractive to stakeholders. However, this project has several posi- could make microorganisms less toxic to pollutants, but cost-effective nano-
tive aspects, especially at the level of sustainability: saving GHGs; treating material synthesis is yet to be developed. A nanomaterial increases surface
an effluent that is typically linked to the eutrophication phenomenon area and reduces activation energy, which facilitates the degradation of
(due to its high P content); increasing nutrient recycling and soil regenera- wastes and toxic materials by microorganisms, ultimately reducing treat-
tion; producing carbon-neutral biofuels; and fostering a circular economy. ment duration and budget (Rizwan et al., 2014).
Each bioremediation method has its own specificity, strength and limi-
7. Future prospects of bioremediation tation which must be explored within its defined limit by precisely choosing
the appropriate parameter range, treatment condition and location. Re-
It is possible to improve bioremediation efficacy by enhancing the bio- search outcome suggests, none of the single bioremediation methods pro-
degradation ability of employed microorganisms using the latest vide a comprehensive treatment level for various nature and degree of
supporting technologies. These include genetically engineered microorgan- pollutants. Depending on their varying nature some are effective for or-
isms (GEM), nano- and microbubble, engineered biochar, mixotrophic ganic removals and some for inorganic removal at various stages. These
microalgae, nanotechnology etc. By incorporating more efficient metabolic treatments were designed to carry out treatment in more than one stage
pathways into an engineered biocatalyst (GEM), can further improve the or even sequential modes to make the bioremediation effective. Research
bioremediation of even recalcitrant pollutants. Moreover, by extending suggests, some treatments require a combination of aerobic and aerobic
the feed range of defined pathways, catabolic stability and efficacy can treatments for effective remediation of both fractions. A fully enriched con-
also be increased (Benjamin et al., 2019). Two types of genes can be cloned sortia provides a balanced system to cope up with a stress environment as
in GEMs: degradative genes to degrade the pollutants and reported genes to compared to pure or less enriched bioremediation system (Samer, 2015).
monitor the level of pollution. It is a promising approach, but horizontal Overall to obtain an effective bioremediation technique, perhaps a combi-
gene exchange can lead to uncontrolled replication in an environment, nation of more than one or more techniques can be designed in various
which limits its application. Despite this, utilizing GEM to restore polluted stages of treatment based on pollutant composition. More advancement is
environments should be supported by bacterial containment systems, inevitable to gain adequate insights of bioremediation application in a
13
combined system. Moreover, according to the current trend of bioremedia- Akerman-Sanches, G., Rojas-Jimenez, K., 2021. Fungi for the bioremediation of
pharmaceutical-derived pollutants: a bioengineering approach to water treatment.
tion, it must be designed to obtain energy and other value additions rather Environ. Adv. 4, 100071.
than only bioremediation (Patel et al., 2020a,b). In this context, microalgal AlKaabi, N., Al-Ghouti, M.A., Jaoua, S., Zouari, N., 2020. Potential for native hydrocarbon-
process looks more promising to offer a wide range of products along with degrading bacteria to remediate highly weathered oil-polluted soils in Qatar through
self-purification and bioaugmentation in biopiles. Biotechnol. Rep. 28, e00543.
biomass to be used as energy precursors (Patel et al., 2021a,e), however Ammeri, R.M., Mehri, I., Badi, S., Hassen, W., Hassen, A., 2017. Pentachlorophenol degrada-
microalgae-bacterial systems are in major focus to make the bioremediation by Pseudomonas fluorescens. Water Qual. Res. J. 52 (2), 99–108.
tion effective. Auxiliary technologies such as nanobubbles, nanomaterials Azubuike, C.C., Chikere, C.B., Okpokwasili, G.C., 2016. Bioremediation techniques–
classification based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and pros-
and biochar are promising to make the microbial remediation effective.
pects. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 32, 180.
Baghour, M., 2019. Algal degradation of organic pollutants. In: Martínez, L.M.T., et al. (Eds.),
8. Conclusions Handbook of Ecomaterials. Springer Nature, Switzerland AG, pp. 565–586.
Benjamin, S.R., de Lima, F., Rathoure, A.K., 2019. Genetically engineered microorganisms for
bioremediation processes: GEMs for bioremediaton, biotechnology: concepts, methodolo-
Bioremediation has become an important choice in the current scenario gies, tools, and applications. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8903-7.ch067.
for domestic, municipal, and industrial sectors due to its several attractive Bhatia, S.K., Mehariya, S., Bhatia, R.K., Kumar, M., Pugazhendhi, A., Awasthi, M.K., Atabani,
A.E., Kumar, G., Kim, W., Seo, S.-O., et al., 2021. Wastewater based microalgal
advantages. It combines sustainability aspects, improvement in environ-
biorefinery for bioenergy production: progress and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 751,
ment and carbon footprint, negligible secondary pollutants generation 141599 29.
and most extraction of value-added products. Bioremediation can be feasi- Bhattacharya, M., Guchhait, S., Biswas, D., Datta, S., 2015. Waste lubricating oil removal in a
ble when the location is characterized for an effective in-situ or ex-situ tech- batch reactor by mixed bacterial consortium: a kinetic study. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 38,
2095–2106.
nique selection. Due to additional costs associated with excavation and Boujelben, R., Ellouze, M., Sayadi, S., 2019. Detoxification assays of tunisian tannery waste-
transportation, ex-situ bioremediation techniques usually are more expen- water under nonsterile conditions using the filamentous fungus Aspergillus niger. BioMed
sive. However, they can treat a broad range of pollutants in a precise con- Res. Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9020178.
Cheng, C.M., Patel, A.K., Singhania, R.R., Tsai, C.H., Chen, S.Y., Chen, C.W., Dong, C.D., 2021.
trol. On the other hand, in-situ bioremediation techniques do not raise Heterologous expression of bacterial CotA-laccase, characterization and its application
additional costs as no excavation charges apply. Although, some in-situ for biodegradation of malachite green. Bioresour. Technol. 340, 125708.
techniques are unpopular due to the onsite CapEx besides the inability to Chiaiese, P., Corrado, G., Colla, G., Kyriacou, M.C., Rouphael, Y., 2018. Renewable sources of
plant biostimulation: microalgae as a sustainable means to improve crop performance.
manipulate subsurface conditions on polluted sites. Therefore, the cost of Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1782.
remediation cannot be the major and only determinant factor of what Chikere, C.B., Okoye, A.U., Okpokwasili, G.C., 2016. Microbial community profiling of active
method of bioremediation should be applied to a polluted site. For the oleophilic bacteria involved in bioreactor-based crude-oil polluted sediment treatment.
J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 4, 1–20.
most suitable and efficient way of remediating the polluted environments, Choi, Y.Y., Patel, A.K., Hong, Min Eui, Chang, W.S., Sim, S.J., 2019. Microalgae bioenergy car-
soil type, pollutant type, pollutant volume, and site location should be con- bon capture utilization and storage (BECCS) technology: an emerging sustainable
sidered. Moreover, periodic assessment of microbial performance can be bioprocess for reduced CO2 emission and biofuel production. Bioresour. Technol. Rep.
7, 100270.
monitored, upon requirement amalgamation of suitable augmentation
Choudhary, A.K., Kumar, S., Sharma, C., 2015. Removal of chloro-organics and color from
methods must be applied to enhance bioremediation. Merging of other pulp and paper mill wastewater by polyaluminium chloride as coagulant. Desalin.
supporting technology e.g., nanobubble, engineered biochar, mixotrophic Water Treat. 53 (3), 697–708.
microalgae could be the breakthrough to improve the bioremediation per- Chu, L.B., Xing, X.H., Yu, A.F., Zhou, Y.N., Sun, X.L., Jurcik, B., 2007. Enhanced ozonation of
simulated dyestuff wastewater by microbubbles. Chemosphere 68, 1854–1860.
formance depending on the scope of adoption in existing facilities as well as Coulon, F., Al Awadi, M., Cowie, W., Mardlin, D., Pollard, S., Cunningham, C., et al., 2010.
pollutant types. When is a soil remediated? Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated
with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial. Environ. Pollut. 158, 3032–3040.
Couto, C.F., Lange, L.C., Amaral, M.C., 2018. A critical review on membrane separation pro-
CRediT authorship contribution statement cesses applied to remove pharmaceutically active compounds from water and wastewa-
ter. J. Water Proc. Eng. 26, 156–175.
Conceptualization- RRS, FPJBA and AKP; Background and data da Silva, L.J., Flavia, Chaves Alves, F.C., de Franca, F.P., 2012. A review of the technological
solutions for the treatment of oily sludges from petroleum refineries. Waste Manag. Res.
collection- RRS, FPJBA and AKP; Formal correction- AP, CWC and CDD; 30 (10), 1016–1030.
Validation- AP and CDD; Data curation- AKP and CDD; Writing-original Danesh, Y.R., Tajbakhsh, M., Goltapeh, E.M., Varma, A., 2013. Mycoremediation of heavy
draft preparation- RRS, FPJBA and AKP; Writing review and editing- AKP metals. Fungi as Bioremediators. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 245–267.
Daneshvar, E., Zarrinmehr, M.J., Hashtjin, A.M., Farhadian, O., Bhatnagar, A., 2018. Versatile
and RRS; Visualization- RRS, AP and AKP; Supervision- AP, CWC and CDD. applications of freshwater and marine water microalgae in dairy wastewater treatment,
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the lipid extraction and tetracycline biosorption. Bioresour. Technol. 268, 523–530.
manuscript. De Pourcq, K., Ayora, C., Missana, T., Carrera, J., Garcıa-Gutierrez, M., 2015. A clay perme-
able reactive barrier to remove Cs-137 from groundwater: column experiments.
J. Environ. Radioact. 149, 36–42.
Declaration of competing interest Delforno, T.P., Moura, A.G.L., Okada, D.Y., Sakamoto, I.K., Varesche, M.B.A., 2015. Microbial
diversity and the implications of sulfide levels in an anaerobic reactor used to remove an
anionic surfactant from laundry wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 192, 37–45.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter- Deshmukh, R., Khardenavis, A.A., Purohit, H.J., 2016. Diverse metabolic capacities of fungi
ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the for bioremediation. Indian J. Microbiol. 56 (3), 247–264.
work reported in this paper. Dhanwal, P., Kumar, A., Dudeja, S., Chhokar, V., Beniwal, V., 2017. Recent advances in
phytoremediation technology. In: Kumar, R., Sharma, A., Ahluwalia, S. (Eds.), Advances
in Environmental Biotechnology. Springer, Singapore.
Acknowledgement Dias, R.L., Ruberto, L., Calabró, A., Balbo, A.L., Del Panno, M.T., Mac, W.P., 2015. Hydrocarbon
removal and bacterial community structure in on-site biostimulated biopile systems de-
signed for bioremediation of diesel-contaminated Antarctic soil. Polar Biol. 38, 677–687.
AKP, RRS, CWC and CDD would like to acknowledge the Taiwan MOST
Eichlerova, I., Baldrian, P., 2020. Ligninolytic enzyme production and decolorization capacity
for funding support (Ref. No. 109-2222-E-992-002). of synthetic dyes by saprotrophic white rot, brown rot, and litter decomposing basidio-
mycetes. J. Fungi 6 (4), 301.
References Elakkiya, E., Matheswaran, M., 2013. Comparison of anodic metabolisms in bioelectricity pro-
duction during treatment of dairy wastewater in microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol.
136, 407–412.
Adelaja, O., Keshavarz, T., Kyazze, G., 2013. Enhanced biodegradation of phenanthrene using EPA, 2017. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank
different inoculum types in a microbial fuel cell. Eng. Life Sci. 14, 218–228. Sites - A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, Chapter 4. Biopiles. epa.gov.
Agrawal, R., Verma, A., Singhania, R.R., Varjani, S., Dong, C.D., Patel, A.K., 2021. Current un- (Accessed 9 November 2021).
derstanding of the inhibition factors and their mechanism of action for the lignocellulosic Escapa, C., Coimbra, R.N., Paniagua, S., García, A.I., Otero, M., 2017. Paracetamol and salicylic
biomass hydrolysis. Bioresour. Technol. 332, 125042. acid removal from contaminated water by microalgae. J. Environ. Manag. 203, 799–806.
Ahmadnezhad, Z., Vaezihir, A., Schüth, C., Zarrini, G., 2021. Combination of zeolite barrier Fan, M.Y., Xie, R.J., Qin, G., 2014. Bioremediation of petroleum-contaminated soil by a com-
and bio sparging techniques to enhance efficiency of organic hydrocarbon remediation bined system of biostimulation-bioaugmentation with yeast. Environ. Technol. 35 (1–4),
in a model of shallow groundwater. Chemosphere 273, 128555. 391–399.
14
Farghaly, A., Tawfik, A., Danial, A., 2016. Inoculation of paperboard mill sludge versus mixed Kaur, D., Bhardwaj, N.K., Lohchab, R.K., 2019. Impact of modifying conventional chlorine di-
culture bacteria for hydrogen production from paperboard mill wastewater. Environ. Sci. oxide stage to hot chlorine dioxide during rice straw pulp bleaching on pulp, paper and
Pollut. Res. 23, 3834–3846. effluent characteristics. Cellulose 26 (12), 7469–7482.
Fazal, T., Mushtaq, A., Rehman, F., Ullah Khan, A., Rashid, N., Farooq, W., Rehman, M.S.U., Khadra, A., Ezzariai, A., Merlina, G., Capdeville, M., Budzinski, H., Hamdi, H., Pinelli, E.,
Xu, J., 2018. Bioremediation of textile wastewater and successive biodiesel production Hafidi, M., 2019. Fate of antibiotics present in a primary sludge of WWTP during their
using microalgae. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 82, 3107–3126. co-composting with palm wastes. Waste Manag. 84, 13–19.
Firmino, P.I.M., Farias, R.S., Barros, A.N., Buarque, P.M.C., Rodrıguez, E., Lopes, A.C., dos- Khorsandi, H., Ghochlavi, N., Aghapour, A.A., 2018. Biological degradation of 2,4,6-
Santos, A.B., 2015. Understanding the anaerobic BTEX removal in continuous-flow biore- trichlorophenol by a sequencing batch reactor. Environ. Proc. 5 (4), 907–917.
actors for ex-situ bioremediation purposes. Chem. Eng. J. 281, 272–280. Kim, S., Krajmalnik-Brown, R., Kim, J.O., Chung, J., 2014. Remediation of petroleum
Fodelianakis, S., Antoniou, E., Mapelli, F., Magagnini, M., Nikolopoulou, M., Marasco, R., hydrocarbon-contaminated sites by DNA diagnosis-based bioslurping technology. Sci.
Barbato, M., Tsiola, A., Tsikopoulou, I., Giaccaglia, L., Mahjoubi, M., Jaouani, A., Amer, Total Environ. 497, 250–259.
R., Hussein, E., Al-Horani, F.A., Benzha, F., Blaghen, M., Malkawi, H.I., Abdel-Fattah, Kim, H., Ahn, D., Annable, M.D., 2016. Enhanced removal of VOCs from aquifers during air
Y., Cherif, A., Daffonchio, D., Kalogerakis, N., 2015. Allochthonous bioaugmentation in sparging using thickeners and surfactants: bench-scale experiments. J. Contam. Hydrol.
ex-situ treatment of crude oil-polluted sediments in the presence of an effective degrading 184, 25–34.
indigenous microbiome. J. Hazard. Mater. 287, 78–86. Konovalova, E.Y., Stom, D.I., Zhdanova, G.O., Yuriev, D.A., Li, Y., Barbora, L., Goswami, P.,
Foszpańczyk, M., Drozdek, E., Gmurek, M., Ledakowicz, S., 2018. Toxicity of aqueous mixture 2018. The microorganisms used for working in microbial fuel cells. AIP Conference Pro-
of phenol and chlorophenols upon photosensitized oxidation initiated by sunlight or Vis- ceedings. 1952.
lamp. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (35), 34968–34975. Kumar, A.K., Sharma, S., Dixit, G., Shah, E., Patel, A., 2020. Techno-economic analysis of
Frascari, D., Zanaroli, G., Danko, A.S., 2015. In-situ aerobic cometabolism of chlorinated sol- microalgae production with simultaneous dairy effluent treatment using a pilot-scale
vents: a review. J. Hazard. Mater. 283, 382–399. high volume v-shape pond system. Renew. Energ. 145, 1620–1632.
Frutos, F.J.G., Perez, R., Escolano, O., Rubio, A., Gimeno, A., Fernandez, M.D., Carbonell, G., Leandro, M.J., Marques, S., Ribeiro, B., Santos, H., Fonseca, C., 2019. Integrated process for
Perucha, C., Laguna, J., 2012. Remediation trials for hydrocarbon-contaminated sludge bioenergy production and water recycling in the dairy industry: selection of
from a soil washing process: evaluation of bioremediation technologies. J. Hazard. kluyveromyces strains for direct conversion of concentrated lactose-rich streams into
Mater. 199, 262–271. bioethanol. Microorganisms 7, 545.
Fulekar, M.H., 2017. Microbial degradation of petrochemical waste-polycyclic aromatic hy- Lebrero, R., Angeles, R., Pérez, R., Muñoz, R., 2016. Toluene biodegradation in an algal-
drocarbons. Bioresour. Bioproc. 4 (1), 28. bacterial airlift photobioreactor: influence of the biomass concentration and of the pres-
Gadupudi, C.K., Rice, L., Xiao, L., Kantamaneni, K., 2019. Endocrine disrupting compounds ence of an organic phase. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 585–593.
removal methods from wastewater in the United Kingdom: a review. Science 1 (1), 15. Lee, J.H., 2013. An overview of phytoremediation as a potentially promising technology for
Garba, Z.N., Zhou, W., Lawan, I., Xiao, W., Zhang, M., Wang, L., Chen, L., Yuan, Z.J., 2019. An environmental pollution control. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 18, 431–439.
overview of chlorophenols as contaminants and their removal from wastewater by ad- Leflay, H., Okurowska, K., Pandhal, J., Brown, S., 2020. Pathways to economic viability: a
sorption: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 241, 59–75. pilot scale and techno-economic assessment for algal bioremediation of challenging
Garcıa-Delgado, C., Alfaro-Barta, I., Eymar, E., 2015. Combination of biochar amendment and waste streams. Environ. Sci.: Water Res.Technol. 6, 3400–3414.
mycoremediation for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons immobilization and biodegrada- Li, X., Wu, B., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Xu, D., Li, F., Ma, F., Gu, Q., 2020. Effects of soil
tion in creosote-contaminated soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 285, 259–266. properties on the remediation of diesel-contaminated soil by triton x–100-aided washing.
Ghosal, D., Ghosh, S., Dutta, T.K., et al., 2016. Current state of knowledge in microbial Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 23323–23330.
degradation of polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): a review. Front. Microbiol. Li, D., Zheng, X., Lin, L., An, Q., Jiao, Y., Li, Q., Li, Z., Hong, Y., Zhang, K., Xie, C., Yin, J.,
7, 1369. Zhang, H., Wang, B., Hu, Y., Zhu, Z., 2022. Remediation of soils co-contaminated with
Gidarakos, E., Aivalioti, M., 2007. Large scale and long-term application of bioslurping: the cadmium and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes by king grass associated with
case of a greek petroleum refinery site. J. Hazard. Mater. 149, 574–581. Piriformospora indica: insights into the regulation of root excretion and reshaping of rhi-
Gkorezis, P., Daghio, M., Franzetti, A., et al., 2016. The interaction between plants and bacte- zosphere microbial community structure. J. Hazard. Mater. 422, 126936.
ria in the remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons: an environmental perspective. Front. Liu, S.H., Zeng, G.M., Niu, Q.Y., Liu, Y., Zhou, L., Jiang, L.H., et al., 2017. Bioremediation
Microbiol. 7, 1836. mechanisms of combined pollution of PAHs and heavy metals by bacteria and fungi: a
Gomez, F., Sartaj, M., 2014. Optimization of field scale biopiles for bioremediation of petro- mini review. Bioresour. Technol. 224, 25–33.
leum hydrocarbon contaminated soil at low temperature conditions by response surface Liu, P.F., Yang, Z.H., Chen, Y.L., Lo, K.H., Kao, C.M., 2021. Remediation of weathered diesel-
methodology (RSM). Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 89, 103–109. oil contaminated soils using biopile systems: an amendment selection and pilot-scale
Guerin, T.F., 2022. Using prototypes to enable development of commercially viable field scale study. Sci. Total Environ. 786, 147395.
contaminated site remediation processes. Chemosphere 288 (P2), 132481. Lobo, C.C., Bertola, N.C., Contreras, E.M., Zaritzky, N.E., 2018. Monitoring and modeling 4-
Hajieghrari, M., Hejazi, P., 2020. Enhanced biodegradation of n-hexadecane in solid-phase of chlorophenol biodegradation kinetics by phenol-acclimated activated sludge by using
soil by employing immobilized pseudomonas aeruginosa on size-optimized coconut fi- open respirometry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (22), 21272–21285.
bers. J. Hazard. Mater. 389, 122134. Lu, C., Hong, Y., Liu, J., Gao, Y., Ma, Z., Yang, B., Ling, W., Waigi, M.G., 2019. A PAH-
Herrero, M., Stuckey, D.C., 2015. Bioaugmentation and its application in wastewater treat- degrading bacterial community enriched with contaminated agricultural soil and its util-
ment: a review. Chemosphere 140, 119–128. ity for microbial bioremediation. Environ. Pollut. 251, 773–782.
Hobson, A.M., Frederickson, J., Dise, N.B., 2005. CH4 and N2O from mechanically turned Ma, J., Yang, Y., Dai, X., Chen, Y., Deng, H., Zhou, H., Guo, S., Yan, G., 2016. Effects of adding
windrow and vermincomposting systems following in-vessel pre-treatment. Waste bulking agent, inorganic nutrient and microbial inocula on biopile treatment for oil-field
Manag. 25, 345–352. drilling waste. Chemosphere 150, 17–23.
Hohener, P., Ponsin, V., 2014. In-situ vadose zone bioremediation. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 27, Ma, X.K., Ding, N., Peterson, E.C., Daugulis, A.J., 2016. Heavy metals species affect fungal-
1–7. bacterial synergism during the bioremediation of fluoranthene. Appl. Microbiol.
Hom-Diaz, A., Jaén-Gil, A., Bello-Laserna, I., Rodríguez-Mozaz, S., Vicent, T., Barceló, D., Biotechnol. 100 (17), 7741–7750.
Blánquez, P., 2017. Performance of a microalgal photobioreactor treating toilet wastewa- Mahmood, K.A., Wilkinson, S.J., Zimmerman, W.B., 2015. Airlift bioreactor for biological ap-
ter: pharmaceutically active compound removal and biomass harvesting. Sci. Total plications with microbubble mediated transport processes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 137,
Environ. 592, 1–11. 243–253.
Hong, M.E., Chang, W.S., Patel, A.K., Oh, M.S., Lee, J.J., Sim, S.J., 2019. Microalgae based car- Malhotra, R., Prakash, D., Shukla, S.K., Kim, T., Kumar, S., Rao, N.J., 2013. Comparative study
bon sequestration by converting LNG-fired waste CO2 into red gold astaxanthin: the po- of toxic chlorophenolic compounds generated in various bleaching sequences of wheat
tential applicability. Energies 12, 1718. straw pulp. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 15, 999–1011.
Hubbe, M., Metts, J., Hermosilla, D., Blanco, A., Yerushalmi, L., Haghighat, F., Marassi, R.J., Queiroz, L.G., Silva, D.C.V., da Silva, F.T., Silva, G.C., de Paiva, T.C.B., 2020.
LindholmLehto, P., Khodaparast, Z., Kamali, M., Elliott, A., 2016. Wastewater treatment Performance and toxicity assessment of an up-flow tubular microbial fuel cell during
and reclamation: a review of pulp and paper industry practices and opportunities. long-term operation with high-strength dairy wastewater. J. Clean. Prod. 259, 120882.
Bioresources 11, 7953–8091. Marazzi, F., Bellucci, M., Fantasia, T., Ficara, E., Mezzanotte, V., 2020. Interactions between
Hultberg, M., Bodin, H., 2017. Fungi-based treatment of brewery wastewater-biomass produc- microalgae and bacteria in the treatment of wastewater from milk whey processing.
tion and nutrient reduction. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 101, 4791–4798. Water 12 (1), 297.
Ikeura, H., Kobayashi, F., Tamaki, M., 2011. Removal of residual pesticide, fenitrothion, in Martínez Álvarez, L.M., Ruberto, L.A.M., Lo Balbo, A., Mac Cormack, W.P., 2017. Bioremediation
vegetables by using ozone microbubbles generated by different methods. J. Food Eng. of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils in cold regions: development of a pre-optimized biostim-
103, 345–349. ulation biopile-scale field assay in Antarctica. Sci. Total Environ. 590–591, 194–203.
Jaikeaw, S., Chavadej, S., 2017. Separate production of hydrogen and methane from ethanol Medaura, M.C., Guivernau, M., Moreno-Ventas, X., Prenafeta-Boldú, F.X., Viñas, Marc, 2021.
wastewater using two-stage UASB: micronutrient transportation. Int. J. Chem. Mol. Eng. Bioaugmentation of native fungi, an efficient strategy for the bioremediation of an aged
11, 1. industrially polluted soil with heavy hydrocarbons. Front. Microbiol. 12, 713.
Jia, H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, G., Zou, L., Zhang, B., 2021. The effects of electrical heating and ad- Megharaj, M., Venkateswarlu, K., Naidu, R., 2014. Bioremediation. Encyclopedia of Toxicology.
ditives on the microbial remediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. J. For. Res. 32, 1. Elsevier Inc, pp. 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386454-3.01001-0485.
2609–2618. Mehariya, S., Patel, A.K., Obulisamy, P.K., Punniyakotti, E., Wong, J.W.C., 2018. Co-digestion
Jing, R., Fusi, S., Chan, A., Capozzi, S., Kjellerup, B., 2019. Distribution of polychlorinated bi- of food waste and sewage sludge for methane production: current status and perspective.
phenyls in effluent from a large municipal wastewater treatment plant: potential for bio- Bioresour. Technol. 265, 519–531.
remediation? J. Environ. Sci. 78, 42–52. Miguel, A.S., Ravanel, P., Raveton, M., 2013. A comparative study on the uptake and translo-
Kantifedaki, A., Kachimanidou, V., Mallouchos, A., Papanikoloou, S., Koutinas, A.A., 2018. cation of organochlorines by Phragmites australis. J. Hazard. Mater. 244, 60–69.
Orange processing waste valorisation for the production of bio-based pigments using Mustafa, Y.A., Abdul-Hameed, H.M., Razak, Z.A., 2015. Biodegradation of 2,4-
the fungal strains Monascus purpureus and penicillium purpurogenum. J. Clean. Prod. dichlorophenoxyacetic acid contaminated soil in a roller slurry bioreactor. Clean-Soil
185, 882–890. Air Water 43, 1115–1266.
15
Nagi, M., He, M., Li, D., Gebreluel, T., Cheng, B., Wang, C., 2020. Utilization of tannery waste- Safdari, M.S., Kariminia, H.R., Rahmati, M., Fazlollahi, F., Polasko, A., Mahendra, S., Wilding,
water for biofuel production: new insights on microalgae growth and biomass produc- W.V., Fletcher, T.H., 2018. Development of bioreactors for comparative study of natural
tion. Sci. Rep. 10, 1530. attenuation, biostimulation, and bioaugmentation of petroleum-hydrocarbon contami-
Naina Mohamed, S., Ajit Hiraman, P., Muthukumar, K., Jayabalan, T., 2020. Bioelectricity nated soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 342, 270–278.
production from kitchen wastewater using microbial fuel cell with photosynthetic algal Samer, M., 2015. Biological and chemical wastewater treatment processes. IntechOpen
cathode. Bioresour. Technol. 295, 122226. https://doi.org/10.5772/61250.
Nguyen, T.D.P., Le, T.V.A., Show, P.L., Nguyen, T.T., Tran, M.H., Ngoc, T., Tran, T., Lee, S.Y., Sanscartier, D., Zeeb, B., Koch, I., Reimer, K., 2009. Bioremediation of diesel contaminated
2019. Bioflocculation formation of microalgae-bacteria in enhancing microalgae harvest- soil by heated and humidified biopile system in cold climates. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.
ing and nutrient removal from wastewater effluent. Bioresour. Technol. 272, 34–39. 55, 167–173.
Nikolopoulou, M., Pasadakis, N., Norf, H., Kalogerakis, N., 2013. Enhanced ex-situ bioremedi- Saravanan, V., Rajasimman, M., Rajamohan, N., 2015. Performance of packed bed biofilter
ation of crude oil contaminated beach sand by supplementation with nutrients and during transient operating conditions on removal of xylene vapour. Int. J. Environ. Sci.
rhamnolipids. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77, 37–44. Technol. 12, 1625–1634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-014-0521-3.
Ning, C., Qingyun, L., Aixing, T., et al., 2018. Decolorization of a variety of dyes by aspergillus Schmidt, T., Anderson, W.A., 2017. Biotrickling filtration of air contaminated with 1-butanol.
flavus A5p1. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 41, 511–518. Environments 4 (3), 57.
Obiri-Nyarko, F., Grajales-Mesa, S.J., Malina, G., 2014. An overview of permeable reactive Silva, M.I., Gonçalves, A.L., Vilar, V.J.P., Pires, J.C.M., 2021. Experimental and techno-
barriers for in-situ sustainable groundwater remediation. Chemosphere 111, 243–259. economic study on the use of microalgae for paper industry effluents remediation. Sus-
Oliveira, F.R., Patel, A.K., Jaisi, D.P., Adhikari, S., Lu, H., Khanal, S.K., 2017. Environmental tainability 13, 1314.
applications of biochar: current status and perspective. Bioresour. Technol. 246, 110–122. Silva-Castro, G.A., Uad, I., Rodrıguez-Calvo, A., Gonzalez-Lopez, J., Calvo, C., 2015. Response
Oualha, M., Al-Kaabi, N., Al-Ghouti, M., Zouari, N., 2019. Identification and overcome of lim- of autochthonous microbiota of diesel polluted soils to land- farming treatments. Environ.
itations of weathered oil hydrocarbons bioremediation by an adapted bacillus sorensis Res. 137, 49–58.
strain. J. Environ. Manag. 250, 109455. Sim, S.J., Joun, J., Hong, M.E., Patel, A.K., 2019. Split mixotrophy: a novel mixotrophic culti-
Parihar, R.K., Upadhyay, K., 2016. Production of biohydrogen gas from dairy industry waste- vation strategy to improve mixotrophic effects in microalgae cultivation. Bioresour.
water by anaerobic fermentation process. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2, 512–515. Technol. 291, 121820.
Patel, A.K., Debroy, A., Sharma, S., Saini, R., Mathur, A., Gupta, R., Tuli, D., 2014. Singh, D., Fulekar, M.H., 2010. Benzene bioremediation using cow dung microflora in two
Biohydrogen production from a novel alkalophilic isolate of Clostridium sp. IODB-O3. phase partitioning bioreactor. J. Hazard. Mater. 175 (1–3), 336–343.
Bioresour. Technol. 175, 191–197. Singh, T., Bhatiya, A.K., Mishra, P.K., Srivastava, N., 2020. An effective approach for the deg-
Patel, A.K., Vaisnav, N., Mathur, A., Gupta, R., Tuli, D., 2016. Whey waste as potential feed- radation of phenolic waste: phenols and cresols. Abat. Environ. Pollut.Elsevier Inc,
stock for biohydrogen production. Renew. Energ. 98, 221–225. pp. 203–243 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818095-2.00011-4
Patel, A.K., Joun, J.M., Hong, M.E., Sim, S.J., 2019. Effect of light conditions on mixo trophic Singhania, R.R., Patel, A.K., Christophe, G., Fontanille, P., Larroche, C., 2013. Biological
cultivation of green microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 282, 245–253. upgrading of volatile fatty acids, key intermediates for the valorization of biowaste
Patel, A.K., Joun, J., Hong, M.E., Sim, S.J., 2020a. A sustainable mixotrophic microalgae cul- through dark anaerobic fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 145, 166–174.
tivation from dairy wastes for carbon credit, bioremediation and lucrative biofuels. Singhania, R.R., Patel, A.K., Raj, T., Chen, C.W., Ponnusamy, V.K., Tahir, N., Kim, S.H., Dong,
Bioresour. Technol. 313, 123681. C.D., 2022. Lignin valorisation via enzymes: a sustainable approach. Fuel 311, 122608.
Patel, A.K., Choi, Yoon Young, Sim, S.J., 2020b. Emerging prospects of mixotrophic Singhania, R.R., Patel, A.K., Sukumaran, R.K., Larroche, C., Pandey, A., 2013. Role and signif-
microalgae: way forward to bioprocess sustainability, environmental remediation and icance of beta-glucosidase in the hydrolysis of cellulose for bioethanol production.
cost-effective biofuels. Bioresour. Technol. 300, 122741. Bioresour. Technol. 127, 500–507.
Patel, A.K., Singhania, R.R., Chen, C.W., Chang, J.S., Dong, C.D., 2021a. Novel application of Singhania, R.R., Ruiz, Héctor A., Awasthi, M.K., Chen, C.W., Dong, C.D., Patel, A.K., 2021.
microalgae platform for biodesalination process: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 337, Challenges in cellulase bioprocess for biofuel applications. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev.
125343. 151, 111622.
Patel, A.K., Singhania, R.R., Dong, C.D., Obulisami, P.K., Sim, S.J., 2021b. Mixotrophic Singhania, R.R., Dixit, Pooja, Patel, A.K., Kuo, C.H., Chen, C.W., Dong, C.D., 2021. Role and
biorefinery: a promising algal platform for sustainable biofuels and high value coprod- significance of lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases (LPMOs) in lignocellulose decon-
ucts. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 152, 111669. struction. Bioresour.Technol. 335, 125261.
Patel, A.K., Singhania, R.R., Pal, A., Chen, C.W., Pandey, A., Dong, C.D., 2021c. Advances on Slate, A.J., Whitehead, K.A., Brownson, D.A.C., Banks, C.E., 2019. Microbial fuel cells: an
tailored biochars for bioremediation of organic pollutants. Sci. Total Environ. 817, overview of current technology. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 101, 60–81.
153054. Smith, E., Thavamani, P., Ramadass, K., Naidu, R., Srivastava, P., Megharaj, M., 2015. Reme-
Patel, A.K., Singhania, R.R., Sim, S.J., Dong, C.D., 2021d. Recent advancements in diation trials for hydrocarbon-contaminated soils in arid environments: evaluation of
mixotrophic bioprocessing for production of high value microalgal products. Bioresour. bioslurry and biopiling techniques. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 101, 56–65.
Technol. 320, 124421. Spina, F., Anastasi, A., Prigione, V., Tigini, V., Verese, G.C., 2012. Giovanna C. Varese biolog-
Patel, A.K., Singhania, R.R., Wu, C.H., Kuo, C.H., Chen, C.W., Dong, C.D., 2021e. Advances in ical treatment of industrial wastewaters: a fungal approach. Chem. Eng. Trans. 27.
micro- and nano bubbles technology for application in biochemical processes environ. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1227030.
Technol. Innov. 23, 101729. Srivastava, A.K., Singh, R.K., Singh, D., 2021. Chapter 20 - Microbe-based bioreactor system
Philp, J.C., Atlas, R.M., 2005. Bioremediation of contaminated soils and aquifers. In: Atlas, for bioremediation of organic contaminants: present and future perspective. In: Kumar,
R.M., Philp, J.C. (Eds.), Bioremediation: Applied Microbial Solutions for Real-world Envi- A., Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Mishra, V.K. (Eds.), Microbe Mediated Remediation of Environ-
ronmental Cleanup. American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Press, Washington, mental Contaminants Presents Recent Scientific Progress in Applying Microbes for Envi-
pp. 139–236. ronmental Management. Woodhead Publishing Series, pp. 241–253.
Pino-Herrera, D.O., Pechaud, Y., Huguenot, D., Esposito, G., Van Hullebusch, E.D., Oturan, Sun, G.D., Xu, Y., Jin, J.H., Zhong, Z.P., Liu, Y., Luo, M., Liu, Z.P., 2012. Pilot scale ex-situ bio-
M.A., 2017. Removal mechanisms in aerobic slurry bioreactors for remediation of soils remediation of heavily PAHs-contaminated soil by indigenous microorganisms and bio-
and sediments polluted with hydrophobic organic compounds: an overview. J. Hazard. augmentation by a PAHs-degrading and bioemulsifier-producing strain. J. Hazard.
Mater. 339, 427–449. Mater. 233, 72–78.
Prakash, J., Sharma, R., Ray, S., Koul, S., Kalia, V.C., 2018. Wastewater: a potential bioenergy Svobodová, K., Petráčková, D., Kozická, B., Halada, P., Novotný, Č., 2016. Mutual interactions
resource. Indian J. Microbiol. 58, 127–137. of pleurotus ostreatus with bacteria of activated sludge in solid-bed bioreactors. World
Priyadharshini, S.D., Babu, P.S., Manikandan, S., Subbaiya, R., Govarthanan, M., Karmegam, J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 32 (6), 94.
Natchimuthu, K., 2021. Phycoremediation of wastewater for pollutant removal: a green Tangkathitipong, P., Intanoo, P., Butpan, J., Chavadej, S., 2017. Separate production of hydro-
approach to environmental protection and long-term remediation. Environ. Pollut. 290, gen and methane from biodiesel wastewater with added glycerin by two-stage anaerobic
117989. sequencing batch reactors (ASBR). Renew. Energ. 113, 1077–1085.
Rahimnejad, M., Adhami, A., Darvari, S., Zirepour, A., Oh, S.E., 2015. Microbial fuel cell as Taylor, E.A., 2019. Lignin enzymology- recent efforts to understand lignin monomer catabo-
new technology for bioelectricity generation: a review. Alex. Eng. J. 54, 745–756. lism. In: Begley, H.-W.B.L. (Ed.), Comprehensive Natural Products III. Elsevier,
Rajput, H., Changotra, R., Kumar Sangal, V., Dhir, A., 2021. Photoelectrocatalytic treatment of pp. 373–398.
recalcitrant compounds and bleach stage pulp and paper mill effluent using AuTiO2 Thangavelu, K., Sundararaju, P., Srinivasan, N., Muniraj, I., Uthandi, S., 2020. Simultaneous
nanotube electrode. Chem. Eng. J. 408, 127287. lipid production for biodiesel feedstock and decontamination of sago processing waste-
Ren, Y., Yuan, Q., 2015. Fungi in landfill leachate treatment process. In: Chamy, R., water using Candida tropicalis ASY2. Biotechnol. Biofuel. 13, 35.
Rosenkranz, F., Soler, L. (Eds.), Biodegradation and Bioremediation of Polluted Systems Tripathi, S., Sharma, P., Chandra, R., 2021. Degradation of organometallic pollutants of distill-
- New Advances and Technologies. IntechOpen https://doi.org/10.5772/60863. ery wastewater by autochthonous bacterial community in biostimulation and bioaug-
Rhodes, C.J., 2014. Mycoremediation (bioremediation with fungi)–growing mushrooms to mentation process. Bioresour. Technol. 338 (April), 125518.
clean the earth. Chem. Spec. Bioavailab. 26, 196–198. Verma, J.P., Jaiswal, D.K., 2016. Book review: advances in biodegradation and bioremedia-
Rizwan, M., Singh, M., Mitra, C.K., Morve, R.K., 2014. Ecofriendly application of nanomateri- tion of industrial waste. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1–2.
als: nanobioremediation. J. Nanoparticles. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/431787. Wang, X., Wang, Q., Wang, S., Li, F., Guo, G., 2012. Effect of biostimulation on community
Roslan, M.A.M., Jefri, N.Q.U.A., Ramlee, N., Rahman, N.A.A., Chong, N.H.H., Bunawan, H., level physiological profiles of microorganisms in field-scale biopiles composed of aged
Razali, H., 2021. Enhancing food waste biodegradation rate in a food waste biodigester oil sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 111, 308–315.
with the synergistic action of hydrolase-producing bacillus paralicheniformis GRA2 and Wang, X., Gao, S., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Y., Cao, W., 2017. Performance of different microalgae-
bacillus velezensis TAP5 co-culture inoculation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 28 (5), 3001–3012. based technologies in biogas slurry nutrient removal and biogas upgrading in response
Roy, M., Giri, A.K., Dutta, S., Mukherjee, P., 2015. Integrated phytobial remediation for sus- to various initial CO2 concentration and mixed light-emitting diode light wavelength
tainable management of arsenic in soil and water. Environ. Int. 75, 180–198. treatments. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 408–416.
Rudakiya, D.M., Tripathi, A., Gupte, S., Gupte, A., 2019. Fungal bioremediation: a step to- Wang, J., Chen, J., Yu, P., Yang, X., Zhang, L., Geng, Z., He, K., 2020. Oxygenation and syn-
wards cleaner environment. In: Satyanarayana, T., et al. (Eds.), Advancing Frontiers in chronous control of nitrogen and phosphorus release at the sediment-water interface
Mycology & Mycotechnology. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, pp. 229–249. using oxygen nano-bubble modified material. Sci. Total Environ. 725, 138258.
16
Wen, Z., 2020. Development of reactive nanobubble systems for efficient and scalable harmful Zangi-Kotler, M., Ben-Dov, E., Tiehm, A., Kushmaro, A., 2015. Microbial community structure
algae and cyanotoxin removal. EPA Report: Grant Number SV840019 (Phase II). and dynamics in a membrane bioreactor supplemented with the flame retardant
Whelan, M.J., Coulon, F., Hince, G., Rayner, J., McWatters, R., Spedding, T., Snape, I., 2015. dibromoneopentyl glycol. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 22, 17615–17624.
Fate and transport of petroleum hydrocarbons in engineered biopiles in polar regions. Zhang, J., Bao, Y., Jiang, Y., Liu, H.T., Xi, B.D., Wang, D.Q., 2019. Removal and dissipation
Chemosphere 131, 232–240. pathway of typical fluoroquinolones in sewage sludge during aerobic composting.
Xiao, L., He, Z., 2014. Applications and perspectives of phototrophic microorganisms for elec- Waste Manag. 95, 450–457.
tricity generation from organic compounds in microbial fuel cells. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Zhang, K., Wang, S., Guo, P., Guo, S., 2021. Characteristics of organic carbon metabolism and
Rev. 37, 550–559. bioremediation of petroleum-contaminated soil by a mesophilic aerobic biopile system.
Xiao, Z., Aftab, T.B., Li, D., 2019. Applications of micro–nano bubble technology in environ- Chemosphere 264, 128521.
mental pollution control. Micro Nano Lett. 14 (7), 782–787. Zhao, J., Chi, Y., Xu, Y., Jia, D., Yao, K., 2016. Co-metabolic degradation of β-cypermethrin
Xiong, J.Q., Kurade, M.B., Kim, J.R., Roh, H.S., Jeon, B.H., 2017. Ciprofloxacin toxicity and its and 3-phenoxybenzoic acid by co-culture of Bacillus licheniformis B-1 and Aspergillus
co-metabolic removal by a freshwater microalga Chlamydomonas mexicana. J. Hazard. oryzae M-4. PLos One 11 (11), e0166796 29.
Mat. 323, 212–219. Zheng, Y.M., Xi, B.D., Shan, G.C., Yu, M.D., Cui, J., Wei, K.H., Liu, H.B., He, X.S., 2021. High
Yang, D.M., Wang, B., Ren, H.Y., Yuan, J.M., 2012. Effects and mechanism of ozonation for proportions of petroleum loss ascribed to volatilization rather than to microbial degrada-
degradation of sodium acetate in aqueous solution. Water Sci. Eng. 5 (2), 155–163. tion in greenhouse-enhanced biopile. J. Clean. Prod. 303, 127084.
Yang, Y., Wang, Y., Hristovski, K., Westerhoff, P., 2015. Simultaneous removal of nanosilver Zhou, M., Chen, J., Freguia, S., Rabaey, K., Keller, J., 2013. Carbon and electron fluxes during
and fullerene in sequencing batch reactors for biological wastewater treatment. the electricity driven 1,3-propanediol biosynthesis from glycerol. Environ. Sci. Technol.
Chemosphere 125, 115–121. 47, 11199–11205.
Yang, L., Li, H., Wang, Q., 2019. A novel one-step method for oil-rich biomass production and Zhuo, R., Fan, F., 2021. A comprehensive insight into the application of white rot fungi and
harvesting by co-cultivating microalgae with filamentous fungi in molasses wastewater. their lignocellulolytic enzymes in the removal of organic pollutants. Sci. Total Environ.
Bioresour. Technol. 275, 35–43. 778, 146132.
17

Organic Wastes Bioremediation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organic Wastes Bioremediation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organic Wastes Bioremediation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science of the Total Environment 824 (2022) 153889

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

Organic wastes bioremediation and its changing prospects

• Bioremediation preferred over non-

Fungi and fungal co-cultures

PCE-perchloroethene; THAB-total heterotrophic aerobic bacteria; HDB-hydrocarbon degrading bacteria.

Biodiesel & bioethanol

You might also like