Department of Biotechnology, Institute for Excellence in Higher
Education, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, 462016, India

Corresponding author email: npdchitranshi07@gmail.com

Article Publishing History

INTRODUCTION

Due to industrialization and urban growth, a huge amount of chemicals are released into the air, water, and soil. According to reports by Third World Network, more than 400 million kilograms of toxins are released globally. These pollutants, ranging from heavy metals to synthetic chemicals, pose severe threats to ecosystems and human health. And to clean up these toxic pollutants using traditional methods needs a lot of money; the cost of removal of 1 meter cube soil from a 1-acre contaminated site is estimated as US$0.6–2.5 million (Chen et al., 2018 Singh  et al 2024).

Also, the traditional techniques such as excavation, soil washing, and thermal desorption only transfer the contaminants rather than cleaning, thus creating new contaminated sites, which are not only cost-intensive but also unsustainable. But the bioremediation is sustainable; it has emerged cost cost-effective and eco-friendly technologies. It utilizes biological systems, microorganisms, plants, or enzymes to detoxify or remove environmental pollutants. It has the potential to remove or make the toxic substance harmless. The basic principles of bioremediation were established in early 2000s research. For instance, Dua et al. (2002) emphasized key factors influencing successful bioremediation:

1. The nature of pollutants (organic or inorganic)
2. The soil structure, pH, Moisture contents, and hydrogeology,
3. The nutritional state, microbial diversity of the site. Temperature and oxidation-reduction (redox Potential).

Bioremediation activity through microorganisms is stimulated by supplementing nutrients, electron acceptors, and substrates, or by introducing microorganisms with desired catalytic capabilities (Ma et al., 2007; Baldwin et al., 2008). Cell surface expression of specific proteins allows the engineered microorganisms to transport, bioaccumulate, and/or detoxify heavy metals as well as to degrade xenobiotics (Muhammad et al., 2007 Singh et al, 2024 ).

Another problem comes with the underground storage tanks, which contaminate the groundwater, the most important source of drinking water. In addition to this, the plastics that are thrown in soil also get leached deep underground, causing contamination of the underground water. A study published in Environmental International in 2022 revealed the presence of microplastics in human breast milk. The researchers found that 75% of breast milk samples tested contained microplastics, particularly polyethylene (used in plastic bottles and food packaging) and polypropylene (used in bottle caps). Bioremediation can be done using several methods involving microbes, plants, and enzymes. Microbial bioremediation uses bacteria, fungi, and algae to degrade or transform pollutants. Phytoremediation employs plants to absorb or degrade contaminants, particularly heavy metals and organic pollutants, through processes like phytoextraction and phytodegradation. Enzyme-mediated bioremediation utilizes specific enzymes to break down pollutants more directly. Bioaugmentation introduces specialized microorganisms to accelerate pollutant degradation.

BIOREMEDIATION

According to van Dillewijn et al. (2009), Bioremediation is defined as the process by which various biological agents, primarily microorganisms, degrade environmental Contaminants into less toxic forms. Types of Bioremediations:

1. In Situ Bioremediation: This type of bioremediation occurs on-site, meaning it takes place at the location of contamination without moving the contaminated material. The goal is to treat pollutants directly where they are found, thereby minimizing the disruption to the surrounding environment: Biosparging, Bioventing, and Bioaugmentation.
2. Ex Situ Bioremediation: Ex situ Bioremediation is the type of Bioremediation where the process of decontamination occurs off-site, often in specialized treatment systems such as bioreactors or land farms. But soil or water contamination cannot be done off-site, as we cannot take all the soil and all the water from nature to the laboratory and process it. Thus, there comes the In situ Bioremediation, where the treatment occurs on site, meaning on the site of contamination, for e.g., soil and groundwater.

Land farming (Solid-phase Treatment system), Composting (Anaerobic, converts solid organic wastes into humus-like material), Biopiles.

Phytoremediation: The use of plants to remove toxicants is becoming an interesting topic for research, as it has great potential for cleaning up the environment with high sustainability. One of the major advantages of phytoremediation is the low cost. In addition to this, it preserves the environment by not altering the natural state. Plant roots and shoots can be used to absorb and concentrate hazardous compounds, particularly heavy metals, from aqueous solutions, known as rhizofiltration. It has been accepted and utilized widely as an effective and environmentally friendly green technology for the permanent removal of pollutants (Chen et al., 2018).

Advantages of Phytoremediation (Huang et al., 2004):

1. Preserve the natural properties of soil
2. Energy efficient, as sunlight is the source of energy for plants
3. Maintains microbial diversity in soil

In addition to these, Plants also act as accumulators of metals like Se, Co, Cu, Cd/Zn and Ni, which can also be toxic for the soil health. These include crops like Astragalus racemosus, Haumaniastrum robertii, Ipomea alpina, Thlaspi caerulescens, and Sebertia (Lasat, 2002) (Wuana and Okieimen, 2010).

Table 1. Plants and the pollutants they remove:

Plants	Pollutants	References
Ambrosia artemisifolia, Apocynum cannabinum	Pb	(Wang et al., 2002)
Brassica juncea	Pb, Se, Cu	(Wang et al., 2002) (de Souza et al., 1999) (Watanabe et al., 1998)
Helianthus annus, Pteridium esculentum	As	(Wang et al., 2002) (Brown et al., 1995)
Medicago sativa	Benzopyrene, PAE, PAH	(Brown et al., 1995)
Melastoma malabathricum	Al	(Watanabe et al., 1998)
Nephrolepis exaltata	Hg	(Chen et al., 2009)
Pteris vitata	As, Hg, Cs, Sr	(Wang et al., 2002) (Chen et al., 2009)
Salix viminlais	Cd, Zn, Cu	(Salt et al., 1995)
Raphanus sativus	Cu	(Choudhary et al., 2009)
Silene vulgaris, Thlaspi caerulescens	Zn, Cd	(Robinson et al., 2006) (McCutcheon et al., 2003)

IN SITU Bioremediation Of Oil Spills In The Antarctic: Ever since the beginning of Industrial Revolution, toxic substances, including anthropogenically generated hydrocarbons, have been released into the environment without the proper treatment. Successive oil spills in the ocean and its coast is becoming a major issue since the use of fossil fuels. However, the Antarctic ecosystem is one of the few last spots to remain uncontaminated by the anthropogenic hydrocarbons but the probability of its contamination is increasing due to human intervention (Berkman, 1992) (Platt and Mackie, 1980) (Reinhardt and Van, 1986). Biological degradation by natural occurring microorganism to remove pollutants from the environment is the major mechanism to remove the petroleum products from the surroundings but very little is known about the same in the coldest regions. (Atlas, 1981), (Leahy and Colwell, 1990) (Bragg et al., 1994). Bioremediation can be defined as the procedure to enhance the rate of natural degradation through human intervention. For doing so, procedures like biostimulation (the addition of chemicals such as nutrients or surfactants to stimulate the natural flora) and bioaugmentation (the addition of an exogenous organism) can be referred to make an impact. However, the effectiveness of bioaugmentation is very low due to extreme conditions.

Sea water: Several studies were carried out at Morbihan Bay, Kerguelen archipelago, between different timelines to evaluate the benefit of a slow-release fertilizer (Inipol EAP 22, Elf Atochem) addition in sub-Antarctic seawater. In situ studies were conducted in a small sheltered bay using psychrophilic saprophytic and hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria in which the changes in bacterial community were studied during a particular time period after the addition of the contaminant. A decrease in the ratios of C17/pristane and C18/phytane over time was reported to reveal the bacterial degradation of oil (Blumer et al., 1973; Berkman, 1992). All results revealed a clear response of microbial seawater communities to hydrocarbon contamination. The percentage of hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria ranged from 0.001% of the total community before contamination to more than 80% after 2 weeks of contamination. However, a two orders of magnitude increase in total bacterial abundance was observed after contamination with crude oil with added fertilizer. In these surveys, it was observed that the bacterial population was enhanced by the addition of minerals and nutrients released by INIPOL EAP 22. Thus, this increase in the bacterial population clearly indicates the possibility of degradation after the contamination.

Sea-ice: Similar studies were conducted in the northern hemisphere (“Geologie Archipelago”) (Delille et al., 1997) using a similar protocol to observe the population growth of bacteria after contamination. A concomitant enrichment in oil-degrading bacteria was generally observed: from less to 0.001% of the community in uncontaminated samples to up to 10% after 30 weeks of contamination. It was also observed that the addition of Inipol EAP 22 (fertilizer) enhanced the both saprophytic and hydrocarbon-utilizing microflora. Also, bacterial population was larger in sea-ice as compared to the population tin the sea water which may be reflection of generally higher nutrient concentrations in the ice (Marra et al., 1982) (Sullivan, 1985), lower temperature or lower grazing pressure (Turley et al., 1986) (Gonzales, et al., 1990) (Grossmann and Dieckmann, 1994).

Soils: In antarctica, a study was conducted from February to December in 1985 in the Geologie Archipelago. Four study stations were chosen on Petrel Island and were studied in four different time periods: winter, snowmelt, summer, and freeze-up.  An initial increase in the order of magnitude of total bacterial Abundance was observed in all contaminated soils, but they were always limited in time. However, these differences between the contaminated and uncontaminated soils completely disappeared after July. A very low level of degradation of the contaminant was suggested by the chemical analysis of the soil residues at the end of the study. The rate of microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in soil is affected by several physiochemical and biological factors such as concentration of pH, nutrients, oxygen, quality, quantity, etc. (Margesin and Schinner, 1997).

This observation can indicate the presence of hydrocarbon-utilizing microbes in the Antarctic soils and their potential for bioremediation. However, their sudden low level was surprising which can indicate that petroleum contaminants can exert toxic effects on the active microbial community as reported by Long et al 1995. Although it has been demonstrated that microbes can affect chemical pollutants, the presence of chemical pollutants can also affect the microbial community by altering their structure or through acute toxicity (Delille and Siron, 1993). In the studied areas, temperatures close to 0 ℃ have been shown to allow the biodegradation in seawater and sea-ice, whereas Antarctic soils are thermally unstable, experiencing large temperature fluctuations with temperatures dropping well below 0℃ at night and reaching much more than 20℃ during sunny afternoons (Harris and Tibbles, 1997). Thus, they suffer freeze freeze-thaw cycles. Antarctic soils also experience other extreme environmental stress (Wynn-Williams, 1990). All these fluctuations may seriously affect bacterial activity, so they must acclimate continuously and be able to switch on and off rapidly.

Microbial Bioremediation: Hazardous subs. such as nuclear waste, heavy metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons, etc. pose a serious risk to both nature and human wellbeing. Microbial bioremediation offers a sustainable and affordable solution to mitigate their harmful effects. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recognizes bioremediation as a safe and effective method for restoring polluted environments. Many pollutants come from Industries, such as effluents from the paper and pulp industry and heavy metals from their iron and steel and many related industries, which contribute to pollution. Xenobiotic components are also among them. Human activities like using chemicals, fertilizers in agriculture, paint, and plastic also produce these components. The persistence of these pollutants in the environment poses serious ecological and health risks. Traditional treatment methods are often expensive and may generate secondary pollutants. In contrast, bioremediation harnesses the natural ability of microorganisms to degrade these toxic compounds efficiently and sustainably.

Table 2. Microorganisms and the pollutants they remove</strong >

Microorganism	Pollutant	Reference
Citrobacter sp.	U	(Renninger et al., 2001)
Cupriavidus Metallidurans, Escherichia coli	Zn and Cu Zn and V	(Grass et al., 2002)
Escherichia hermannii, Enterobacter cloacae	V and Zn Pb, Cu, V, Cr	(Hernandez et al., 1998)
Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb, Fe, Ni, Ag, Th, Ra, U, Hg	(Machado et al., 2008) (Ghosh et al., 2006)

Bioremediation: a natural way to remove heavy metals: Heavy metals are metals with higher densities that are released into the environment primarily through human activities like mining, industrial processes, and agricultural practices. They caused soil, air, and water pollution that hurts humans, plants, and even growing microorganisms. Traditional methods cannot permanently detoxify heavy metals. Additionally, they are costly and may produce 2° pollutants (Hazardous byproducts). Bioremediation, on the other hand, uses microbes that can tolerate high levels of heavy metals for effective treatment. Bioremediation of heavy metals can be done ex-situ by removing the contaminated material for treatment elsewhere or in-situ by applying biological agents directly to the polluted site. Some technologies include (either metabolism-dependent or metabolism-independent) oxidation-reduction mechanisms, bio transformation, methylation, and plant microbial remediation.

From Waste to Worth:   Bioremediation of Rubber : Rubber waste is a growing environmental concern due to its non-biodegradable nature wide spread use in various Industries (rubber effluent). Each year, vast quantities of used rubber waste, primarily from discarded tires, accumulate and are thrown away.  Bioremediation offers a sustainable alternative by utilising microorganisms capable of breaking down sulphur bonds (rubber compounds) into harmless byproducts. Some bacteria break the rubber’s polyisoprene structure into simpler compounds. According to some experiments, the rubber waste is first mixed with organic matter and inoculated with rubber-degrading microbes, promoting biodegradation in controlled composting conditions. Introducing specialized rubber-degrading microbial strains into contaminated sites enhances the natural breakdown process.

Protozoa: Nature’s Tiny Purifiers in Industrial Wastewater Treatment: Protozoa are single-celled microorganisms found abundantly in aquatic environments with unique physiological adaptations that allow them to survive in contaminated conditions. Protozoa, once considered a hindrance in activated sludge systems, are now recognised for their vital role in wastewater management by breaking down pollutants like copper, hydrocarbons, and even uranium. The increasing concentration of wastewater, driven by industrial effluents, excessive pesticide use, and other human activities, has made effective treatment essential. Protozoa improve effluent quality by consuming dispersed bacterial pollution and maintaining microbial balance. Beyond contaminated removal, Protozoa like ciliates, flagellates, amoebae, etc. play a key role in maintaining ecological balance by regulating bacterial populations through predation. They enhance bacterial carbon mineralisation, improving effluent quality and microbial balance. Protozoa also contribute to heavy metal bioremediation, particularly in removing excess copper from industrial effluents and contaminated water. Additionally, they aid in hydrocarbon degradation, where free-living ciliates like Paramecium play a key role in the breakdown of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). In Uranium bioremediation, protozoa influence the bacterial community involved in uranium reduction, facilitating detoxification in contaminated groundwater. Overall, Protozoa contribute significantly to environmental restoration by improving wastewater treatment efficiency, reducing pollutants and supporting microbial ecosystems. (Rehman et al., 2007)

Bioremediation of Xenobiotics: harnessing microbes to combat xenobiotic pollution in petroleum: Xenobiotics are chemical substances that are foreign to animal and plant life. The extensive use of Petroleum (a fossil fuel formed over millions of years) and industrial activities has introduced xenobiotic pollutants like PAHs into the environment. Factors like rapid industrialisation, urban expansion, and increased chemical usage in agriculture, medicine and personal care have intensified contamination. Bioremediation offers a sustainable approach to degrading these pollutants by harnessing microorganisms capable of breaking down xenobiotics. Methods like biostimulation enhance native microbial activity, while bioaugmentation introduces specialized microbes for effective degradation. Bacteria such as Pseudomonas bacillus and alcaligenes play a crucial role in utilising these compounds as energy sources. Advanced techniques like Bio leaching are also being explored to improve efficiency.

Enzyme based Bioremediation: Nature’s catalysts for a cleaner Planet: Microbial enzymes (oxidoreductases, hydrogenases, deoxygenases and dehalogenases) produced by various microbes such as bacteria and fungi, play a crucial role in accelerating biochemical reactions by lowering activation energy. They are highly stable and versatile and essential for breaking down environmental pollutants into non- toxic forms making them vital for bioremediation. The effectiveness of degradation depends on enzyme -substrate interaction where enzymes bind to specific substrates through their active site, initiating the catalytic process. These enzymes offer advantages over traditional methods due to their specificity and Eco friendliness. Various microbial products including biofilms, surfactants, pigments and extracellular compounds have shown significant effectiveness in bioremediation. However, because of enzyme production downstream processing and microbial strain selection poses changes. To address this researcher are using enzyme immobilization technologies for efficient production. Additionally genetic engineering is being employed to develop modified microorganisms offering a cost-effective alternative to traditional enzyme production methods.

Xenobiotics: water and soil bioremediation: Cyanobacteria, also known as blue green algae, are the first oxygen producing organisms. They play a vital role in bioremediation due to their ability to degrade complex organic substances and thrive in polluted environments without external nutrients. In wastewater remediation, they are widely used for removing phosphorus and inorganic pollutants. Their ability to degrade toxic substances improves water quality. In soil remediation, cyanobacteria improve fertility and reduce salinity and alkalinity caused by excessive pesticide and fertilizer use making them valuable for restoring degraded agricultural lands.

Microalgae: Nature’s tiny Warriors for pollution clean up: Microalgae are microscopic photosynthetic organisms belonging to the diverse group of cyanobacteria (blue green algae), diatoms, green algae and dinoflagellates. Microalgae have ability to remove pollutants such as heavy metals pesticides pharmaceuticals and excess nutrients making them a promising tool for wastewater treatment and soil the contamination. They contribute to carbon sequestration offering a dual benefit of pollution reduction and greenhouse gas mitigation. Microalgae employ several strategies to remove contaminants, including biosorption, biodegradation, and phytoremediation. Strains like Chlorella and Spirulina show high affinity for metals like lead, cadmium, and mercury. They can absorb nitrates, phosphates and organic matter, reducing eutrophication risks. Some species like Ulva, Chlorella, and Scenedesmus can break down antibiotics, endocrine disruptors, and herbicides preventing their accumulation in the ecosystems.

One of the most promising aspects of microalgae bioremediation is its potential for biofuel generation. After pollutant removal, the algal biomass can be processed into bioethanol, biodiesel and biogas, creating a circular economy approach that links environmental clean-up with sustainable energy production. Despite its potential, microalgae-based bioremediation face challenges like high operational cost and in strain selection and optimisation (to enhance pollutant uptake). There are also problems in harvesting and the recovery of the biomass. Future research focuses on designing and improving bio-reactors for the growth of microalgae and also of genetic engineering.

Bioremediation Of Pesticides Using Actinobacteria: Pesticides are compounds that are used to protect the plant from unwanted organisms called pests. They can be both natural and synthetic. They are of different kinds depending upon the target organisms- fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, etc. Even after its harmful effects on humans and the environment, the usage of pesticides becomes necessary due to the increasing demand of agricultural produce, due to the growing population and overconsumption. Chemicals present in pesticides can be very toxic and are prone to bioaccumulate in the environment. Therefore, it becomes a necessity to remove these toxins from the environment. One of the ways through which it can be done is through the process of bioremediation, in which microbes can break down the toxic substances into their less toxic forms. Various microbes have been found to be effective in degrading pesticides into their less toxic metabolites using their metabolic activities (Gupta et al., 2017) (Hussaini et al., 2013).

Due to advancements in the agricultural sector, huge amounts of chemical pesticides are easily available in the market, which are eventually released in the environment through different sources (Briceno et al., 2007). There are two types of sources- point sources, i.e., distinguishable sources, and non-point sources i.e., from a widespread area. The washing of spraying containers is one of the main reasons of the point source contamination of the soil (Neumann et al., 2002) (Spanoghe et al., 2004). Upon being released from the source, they eventually spread in the water, soil, air, and even in the food we eat, which leads to neuropsychiatric defects such as depression and anxiety in humans and can also be lethal for many organisms.

Bioremediation is known as an environment friendly method to remove pollutants from the environment. The microbial biomass can metabolize various chlorinated and non-chlorinated pesticides. The microbes – bacteria, fungi, algae, and actinobacteria can be used to remove toxic compounds from the soil (Megharaj & Naidu, 2017). They can completely metabolize toxic compounds effectively and thus, eliminate pollutants from the environment (Abatenh et al., 2017) (Gupta et al., 2019) (Rathour et al., 2018). The on-site removal of pollutants is considered as in situ remediation, whereas off-site management of pollutants is considered ex-situ remediation.

Role of actinobacteria : Actinobacteria are Gram-positive saprophytes having higher Guanine + Cytosine (>55%) content in their DNA. They have the ability to grow in harsh environments and are known for actively participating in the biodegradation process. They consume pesticide residues for energy requirements, and their degradation is usually accomplished through a synergistic group activity. In a mixed microbial population, they remove hazardous compounds either directly or accelerate the biotransformation efficiency of other organisms. The synergistic activity between actinobacterial species and Pleurotus ostreatus was observed during bioremediation (Byss et al., 2008). Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum chlorinated organophosphorus insecticide used to increase crop productivity. It was found to cause disruption in biogeochemical cycles (Chishti et al., 2013).

Highly efficient actinobacteria, Streptomyces strains, were isolated, which can degrade up to 90% of chlorpyrifos within 24 hours and convert it to 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP) (Kao et al., 2004). But TCP had greater solubility than its parental compound, creating another problem. Its antimicrobial activity also inhibited the multiplication of chlorpyrifos-degrading microbes (Singh & Walker, 2006).

An actinobacterium, Gordonia sp. JAASI, isolated from rice field, actively degrade chlorpyrifos and its intermediates such as TCP into diethylthiophosphoric acid (DETP) (Abraham et al., 2013). Diazinon is effectively degraded by Arthrobacter species, but requires co-metabolism process by Streptomyces species to initiate degradation (Gunner & Zuckerman, 1968). Other species of Actinobacteria have also been observed to degrade toxic chemical compounds. The mono-, di-, and trichlorinated pesticides are readily degraded by several species of actinobacteria, but polychlorinated pesticides, such as pentachlorophenol (PCP), have higher stability, extensively utilized as biocides, wood, and leather preservatives (Briceno et al., 2006). The actinobacteria species are also able to metabolize other synthetic pyrethroids i.e., cypermethrin, fenvalerate, fenpropathrin and permethrin.

Pesticide degradation includes several metabolic pathways, which depend on the pesticide properties, environmental conditions and on the microbe’s nature. This comprises of: (a) transformation facilitated by oxidative enzymes; (b) hydrolysis mediated by hydrolases; (c) Reduction by reductive enzymes; (d) Conjugation reaction includes xyloxylation, alkylation, acylation and nitrosylation; (e) Reductive dehalogenation facilitated by dehydrohalogenase enzyme. Various enzymes such as carboxylesterases, laccases, phosphotriesterases, peroxidases, haloalkane dehalogenases, lipases, oxygenases, cellulases, etc., are involved in the degradation pathways of different compounds (Sharma et al., 2018). The application of enzymes is preferred as compared to microbial degradation as they do have need to be acclimatized and can be easily used in harsh environmental conditions (Choi et al., 2015).

The mechanism involves degrading organic compounds into inorganic components and the usage of energy obtained from degraded metabolites to detoxify the pollutants and also for their growth and development. In a natural environment, biodegradation comprises transfer of substrates in well-coordinated microbial biomass, called metabolic cooperation (Abraham et al., 2002). Microbes act together physically or chemically with the compounds and provide structural alterations for complete degradation. In this approach, the microbes such as actinobacteria play as a main converters and pesticide degradation agents (Morillo & Villaverde, 2017).

Factors such as microbial species, chemical composition and concentration of pesticides, environmental conditions, etc. are known to affect the biodegradation process. Despite all the conditions, actinobacterial-assisted pesticide degradation is found as an ideal, efficient and sustainable approach for bioremediation of pesticides. They have great potential in the decomposition of pesticides, nutrient cycling, and biodegradation to repair polluted environments.

CONCLUSION

Bioremediation is not solely the responsibility of nature or a select group of environmental stewards, it is a collective duty of everyone to protect it by not misusing the resources, least use of harmful substances, use of sustainable alternatives to harmful daily life items. The alarming presence of microplastics in human breast milk (Environmental International, 2022) and the bioaccumulation of harmful chemicals from pesticides in food chains highlights the urgent need for sustainable actions, can you imagine the life of a baby who started its life by drinking plastic indirectly.  Traditional remediation methods are often expensive and inefficient, as noted by Chen et al. (2018), transferring rather than resolving contaminants. In contrast, bioremediation presents an eco-friendly and cost-effective solution, utilizing microbes, plants, and enzymes to detoxify pollutants. Key factors such as soil pH, pollutant type, and microbial diversity (Dua et al., 2002) must be optimized to enhance effectiveness. Techniques such as bioaugmentation and genetic engineering (Ma et al., 2007; Muhammad et al., 2007) further extend the scope of remediation, offering novel approaches like recombinant DNA technology to enhance the pollutant-degrading capabilities of organisms. Molecular tools such as PCR and FISH enable precise identification of functional microbes, aiding targeted cleanup strategies.

Future research should focus on developing genetically engineered organisms tailored to specific pollutants and scalable application systems. Public awareness, policy support, and interdisciplinary collaboration are essential to integrate bioremediation into mainstream environmental management. Sustainable living practices and reduced chemical use must complement technological approaches to ensure long-term ecological balance.

Conflict of Interest:  The authors declare no conflict of interest

Funding: Nil

Data Availability: Data are available with the corresponding author.

REFERENCES

Abatenh, E., Gizaw, B., Tsegaye, Z., & Wassie, M., (2017). Application of microorganisms in bioremediation: Review. J. Environ. Microbiol., 1, 02-09.

Abo Elsoud MM, Abo-Alkasem MI (2022) Environmental sulfate-reducing microorganisms. In: Ahamed MI, Prasad R (eds) Application of Microbes in Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology. Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–981–16–2225–0_23 

Abraham, J., Shanker, A., & Silambarasan, S., (2013). Role of Gordonio sp. JAASI in biodegradation of chlorpyrifos and its hydrolysis metabolite 3,5,6-trichloro2-pyridinol. Lett. Appl. Microbiol., 57, 510-516.

Abraham, W. R., Nogales, B., Golyshin, P. N., Pieper, D. H., & Timmis, K. N., (2002). Polychlorinated biphenyl-degrading microbial communities and sediments. Curr. Biol 14 66 75

Ahuti S (2015) Industrial growth and environmental degradation. Int Educ Res J 1(5):5–7

AK Singh (2018), Distribution of cyanobacteria and their interactions with pesticides in paddy field: A comprehensive review, J Environ Manag 34 56-65

Akar T, Tunali S, Çabuk A (2007) Study on the characterization of lead (II) biosorption by fungus Aspergillus parasiticus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 136(3):389–405

Ashokkumar P, Loashini VM, Bhavya V (2017) Effect of pH, Temperature and biomass on biosorption of heavy metals by Sphaerotilus natans. Int J Microbiol Mycol 6(1):32–38

Atlas, R.M. (1981): Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: an environmental perspective. Microbial. Rev., 45, 180-209.

Aziz SS. Bioremediation of environmental waste: A review. Univ Wah J Sci Technol 2018;2:35-42.

Bae W, Chen W, Mulchandani A, Mehra RK (2000) Enhanced bioaccumulation of heavy metals by bacterial cells displaying synthetic phytochelatins. Biotechnol Bioeng 70(5):518–524

Baldwin BR, Peacock AD, Park M, Ogles DM, Istok JD, McKinley JP, Resch CT, White DC, 2008. Multilevel samplers as microcosms to assess microbial response to biostimulation. Ground Water, 46: 295-304.

Berhanu A, Ishmael Mutanda , Ji Taolin et al (2023)  A review of microbial degradation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): biotransformation routes and enzymes
Science of the Total Environment Volume 859, Part 1, 10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160010

Berkman, P.A. (1992) : The Antarctic marine ecosystem and humankind. Rev Aquatic Sci., 6, 295-333.

Bestawy EE, Helmy S, Hussien H, Fahmy M, Amer R. Bioremediation of heavy metal-contaminated effluent using optimized activated sludge bacteria. Appl Water Sci 2013;3:181-92.

Bhakta JN, Munekage Y, Ohnishi K, Jana BB, Balcazar JL. Isolation and characterization of cadmium-and arsenic-absorbing bacteria for bioremediation. Water Air Soil Pollut 2014;225:2151

Bharadwaj A. Bioremediation of xenobiotics: An eco-friendly cleanup approach. In: Virinder SP, Malhotra P, Mathur D, editors. Green Chemistry in Environmental Sustainability and Chemical Education. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2018. p. 1-13

Blumer, M., Ehrhardt, M. and Jones, J.H. (1973): The environmental fate of stranded crude oil. Deep sea Res., 20, 239-259.

Boldrin, F., Santovito, G., Formigari, A., Bisharyan, Y., Cassidy-Hanley, D., Clark, T. G., & Piccinni, E. (2007). MTT2, a copper-inducible metallothionein gene from Tetrahymena thermophila. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C Toxicology & Pharmacology, 147(2), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2007.10.002

Bondarenko O, Rõlova T, Kahru A, Ivask A (2008) Bioavailability of Cd, Zn and Hg in soil to nine recombinant luminescent metal sensor bacteria. Sensors 8(11):6899–6923

Bornali Bora, Heena Kauser, Sachin Rameshrao Geed ( Bioremediation Strategies for degradation in petroleum-impacted industrial ecosystems:  Practical challenges and future directions) Journal of Water Process Engineering, Volume 70  334 -356

Bragg, J.R., Prince, R.C., Harner, E.J. and Atlas, R.M. (1994) : Effectiveness of bioremediation for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Nature, 368, 413-418.

Brar SK, Verma M, Surampalli RY, Misra K, Tyagi RD, Meunier N, Blais JF (2006). Bioremediation of hazardous wastes—a review. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manag 10(2):59–72

Briceno, G., Fuentes, M. S., Palma, G., Jorquera, M. A., Amoroso, M. J., & Diez, M. C., (2006). Chlorpyrifos biodegradation and 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol production by actinobacteria isolated from soil. Int. Biodeter. Biodegr., 73, 1-7.

Briceno, G., Palma, G., & Duran, N., (2007). Influence of organic amendment on the biodegradation and movement of pesticides. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 233-271. doi: 10.1080/10643380600987406.

Brown SL, Chaney RL, Angle JS, Baker AJM. Zinc and cadmium uptake by hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens and metal tolerant Silene vulgaris grown on sludge amended soils. Environ Sci Technol. 1995;29:1581.

Byss, M., Elhottova, D., Tliska, J., & Baldrian, P., (2008). Fungal bioremediation of the creosote contaminated soil: Influence of Pleurotus ostreatus and Irpex lacteus on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons removal and soil microbial community composition in the laboratory- scale study. Chemosphere, 73, 1518-1523.

Chen J, Shiyab S, Han FX, Monts DL, Waggoner CA. Bioaccumulation and physiological effects of mercury in Pteris vittata and Nephrolepis exaltata. Ecotoxicol. 2009;18:110-121

Chen, Wanying & Li, Haixiao. (2018). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Soil Heavy Metal Contamination Treatments. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 229. 126. 10.1007/s11270-018-3784-3.

Chishti, Z., Hussain, S., Arshad, K. R., Khalid, & Arshad, M. (2013). Microbial degradation of chlorpyrifos in liquid media and soil. J. Environ. Manage, 114, 372-380.

Choi, J., Han, S., & Kim, H., (2015). Industrial applications of enzyme biocatalysis: Current status and future aspects. Biotechnology Advances, 33: 1443-1454.

Choudhary SP, Bhardwaj R, Gupta BD, Dutt P, Kanwar M, Arora M. Epibrassinolide-regulated synthesis of polyamines and auxins in Raphanus sativus L. seedlings under Cu metal stress. Braz J Plant Physiol..  2009;21:25-32.

Choudhary, S., & Sar, P. (2010). Uranium biomineralization by a metal-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain isolated from contaminated mine waste. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 186(1), 336–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.11.004

Davey, M.C. and Clarke, K.J. (1991): The spatial distribution of micro-algae on Antarctic fellfield soils. Antarctic Sci., 3, 257-263.

de Souza MP, Chu D, Zhao M, Zayed AM, Ruzin SE, Schichnes D, Terry N. Rhizosphere bacteria enhance selenium accumulation and volatilization by Indian mustard. Plant Physiol. 1999;119(2):565-573.

Delille, D. and Siron, R. (1993): Effect of dispersed oil on heterotrophic bacterial communities in cold marine waters. Microb. Ecol., 25, 263-273.

Delille, D., Basseres, A. and Dessommes, A. (1997) Seasonal variation of bacteria in sea-ice contaminated by diesel fuel and crude oil. Microb. Ecol., 33, 97-105.

Divjot Kaur, Sofia Shareif Khan, Harpreet Kaur et al (2022)  Micro Medicate (bioremediation: Current Research and Future Challenges), Journal of Applied Biology and Biotechnology Vol.l 10 (supply 2), PP. 6-24, J

Dua M, Sethunathan N, and Johri AK, 2002. Biotechnology bioremediation success and limitations. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 59:143-152.

Dwivedi, A., Singh, A. N., Kumar, A., Nath, G., & Sharma, R. K. (2024). Cadmium content, metabolite profile, biological properties of Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk plant exposed to elevated cadmium in soil. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 225, 105865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2024.105865

Geon-Soo Ha, Min-Gu Sim, Byong-Hun Jeon, Ga-Hyun Baek ( bioremediation of perfluoroctanoic acid using micro algae with a transcryptomatic approach), Journal of hazardous materials, Volume 48 28 -36

Ghosh SK, Chaudhuri R, Gachhui R, Mandal A, Ghosh S. Effect of mercury and organo mercurials on cellular glucose utilization: a study using resting mercury resistant yeast cells. J Appl Microbiol. 2006;102:375-383

Gonzales, J.M., Sherr, E.B. and Sherr, B.F. (1990) : Size- selective grazing on bacteria by natural assemblages of estuarine flagellates and ciliates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 56, 583-589.

Grass G, Wong MD, Rosen BP, Smith RL, Rensing C. ZupT is a Zn(II) uptake system in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 2002;184:864-866.

Grossmann, S. and Dieckmann, G.S. (1994): Bacterial standing stock, activity, and carbon production during formation and growth of sea ice in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 60, 2743-2753.

Gunner, H. B., & Zuckerman, B. M., (1968). Degradation of ‘diazinon’ by synergistic microbial action. Nature, 217, 1183-1184.

Gupta A, Joia J, Sood A, Sood R, Sidhu C, Kaur G. Microbes as potential tool for remediation of heavy metals: A review. J Microb Biochem Technol 2016;8:364-72.

Gupta, J., Rathour, R., Kumar, M., & Thakur, I. S., (2017). Metagenomic analysis of microbial diversity in landfill lysimeter soil of Ghazipur Landfill site, New Delhi, India. Genomic Announc., 5, 01104-01117.

Gupta, J., Rathour, R., Singh, R., & Thakur, I. S., (2019). Production and characterization of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) generated by a carbofuran degrading strain Cupriavidus sp. ISTL7. Bioresour. Technol., 282, 417-424.

Ha, G., El-Dalatony, M. M., Kurade, M. B., Salama, E., Basak, B., Kang, D., Roh, H., Lim, H., & Jeon, B. (2020). Energy-efficient pretreatments for the enhanced conversion of microalgal biomass to biofuels. Bioresource Technology, 309, 123333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123333

Haq I, Kumar S, Kumari V, Singh SK, Raj A. Evaluation of bioremediation potentiality of ligninolytic Serratia liquefaciens for detoxification of pulp and paper mill effluent. J Hazard Mater 2016;305:190-9.

Harris, J.M. and Tibbles, B.J. (1997): Factors affecting bacterial productivity in soils on isolated inland nunataks in continental antarctica. Microb. Ecol., 33, 106123.

Hazarika, A., Saikia, S., Devi, B., Yadav, M., & Yadav, H. S. (2022). Oxidoreductase metalloenzymes as green catalyst for phytoremediation of environmental pollutants. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 141–172). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-85763-5.00021-0

Hernandez A, Mellado RP, Martinez JL. Metal accumulation and vanadium-induced multidrug resistance by environmental isolates of Escherichia hermannii and Enterobacter cloacae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64(11):4317-4320.

Hossain K, Ismail N. Bioremediation and detoxification of pulp and paper mill effluent: A review. Res J Environ Toxicol 2015;9:113.

Huang XD, El-Alawi Y, Penrose DM, Glick BR, Greenberg BM. A multiprocess phytoremediation system for removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from contaminated soils. Environ Pollut. 2004;130:465-476.

Hussaini, S. Z., Shaker, M., & Iqbal, M. A., (2013). Isolation of bacterial for degradation of selected pesticides. Adv. Biores., 4, 82-85.

Jalilvand N, Akhgar A, Alikhani HA, Rahmani HA, Rejali F. Removal of heavy metals zinc, lead, and cadmium by biomineralization of urease-producing bacteria isolated from Iranian mine calcareous soils. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 2020;20:206-19.

Kang CH, Oh SJ, Shin Y, Han SH, Nam IH, So JS. Bioremediation of lead by ureolytic bacteria isolated from soil at abandoned metal mines in South Korea. Ecol Eng 2015;74:402-7

Kao, M., Chai, C. T., Liu, J. K., Yeh, T, Y., Chen, K. F., & Chen, S. C., (2004). Evaluation of natural and enhanced PCP biodegradation at a former pesticides manufacturing plant. Water Res., 38, 663-672.

Karn SK, Chakrabarty SK, Reddy MS. Pentachlorophenol degradation by Pseudomonas stutzeri CL7 in the secondary sludge of pulp and paper mill. J Environ Sci 2010;22:1608-12.

Kumar A, Chaturvedi AK, Yadav K, Arunkumar KP, Malyan SK, Raja P, et al. Fungal phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated resources: Current scenario and future prospects. In: Yadav AN, Singh S, Mishra S, Gupta A, editors. Recent Advancement in white Biotechnology Through Fungi: Perspective for Sustainable Environments. Vol. 3. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 437-61.

Lasat MM. Phytoextraction of toxic metals: a review of biological mechanisms. J. Environ Qual. 2002;31:109-120.

Leahy, J.G. And Colwell, R.R. (1990) : Microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the environment. Microbiol. Rev., 54, 305-315.

Long, S.C., Aelion, C.M., Dobbins, D.C. And Pfaender, F.K. (1995) : A comparison of microbial community characteristics among petroleum- contaminated and uncontaminated subsurface soil samples. Microb. Ecol., 30, 297-307.

Ma X, Novak PJ, Ferguson J, Sadowsky M, LaPara TM, Semmens MJ, Hozalski RM, 2007. The impact of H2 addition on dechorinating microbial communities. Bioremediation Journal, 11: 45-55.

Machado MD, Santos MSF, Gouveia C, Soares HMVM, Soares EV. Removal of heavy metal using a brewer’s yeast strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: The flocculation as a separation process. Bioresour Technol. 2008; 99: 21072115.

Margesin, R. and Schinner, F. (1997): Efficiency of indigenous and inoculated cold- adapted soil microorganisms for biodegradation of diesel oil in alpine soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 63, 2660-2664.

Marra, J., Burckle, L.H. and Ducklow, H.W. (1982) : Sea ice and water column plankton distributions in the Weddell Sea in late winter. Antarct, J. U.S., 27, 111112.

McCutcheon SC, Schnoor JL. Phytoremediation transformation and control of contaminants, pp. 987, Wiley-Interscience, New Jersey, USA; 2003.

Megharaj, M., & Naidu, R., (2017). Soil and brownfield bioremediation. Microbial Biotechnology, 10, 1244-1249.

Mohammed Abo – Alkasem, Ne’mat H. Hassan and Mostafa Mostafa Abo Elsoud (Microbial bioremediation as a tool for the removal of heavy metals), Bulletin of National Research Centre 47, Article no. 31 (2023).

Morillo, E., & Villaverde, J., (2017). Advanced technologies for the remediation of pesticide contaminated soils. Sci. Total Environ., 586, 576-597.

Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Saleem, Sarfraz Hussain, 2007. Perspectives of bacterial ACC deaminase in Phytoremediation. Trends in Biotechnology, 25: 356-362.

Mukesh Kumar Malviya, Aamil Soni, Rewa Shahid, Rachna Singh, Navneet Chaturvedi, Rajiv Roychouwdhary, Manoj Kumar Solanki, Hariom Verma ,Ajay Kumar (microbial enzymes in the bioremediation of environment pollutants) Advances in chemical pollution, environmental management and protection.

Narayanan M, Sameh Samir Ali  Mostafa El-Sheekh   et al. (2023)      A comprehensive review on the potential of microbial enzymes in multipollutant bioremediation: mechanisms, challenges, and future prospects, J Environ Manage Volume 334, 15 May 2023, 117532

Neumann, M., Schulz, R., Schafer, K., Muller, W., & Liess, M., (2002). The significance of entry routes as point and non-point sources of pesticides in small streams. Water Res., 36(4), 835-842.

Platt, H.M. and Mackie, P.R. (1980) : Distribution and fate of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons in Antarctic fauna and environment. Helgolander Meeresunter, 33, 236-245.

Rathour, R., Gupta, J., Tyagi, B., Kumari, T., & Thakur, I. S., (2018). Biodegradation of pyrene in soil microcosm by sp. ISTPL2, A psychrophilic, alkalophilic and halophilic bacterium. Bioresour. Technol. Rep., 4, 129-136.

Rehman, A., Shakoori, F. R., & Shakoori, A. R. (2007). Heavy metal-resistant freshwater ciliate, Euplotes mutabilis, isolated from industrial effluents, has the potential to decontaminate wastewater of toxic metals. Bioresource Technology, 99(9), 3890–3895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.007

Reinhardt, S.B. and Van Vleet  E.S. (1986): Hydrocarbons of Antarctic midwater organisms, Polar Biol, 6, 47-51.

Renninger N, McMahon KD, Knop R, Nitsche H, Clark DS, Keasling JD. Uranyl precipitation by biomass from an enhanced biological phosphorus removal reactor. Biodegrad. 2001;12:401-410.

Robinson B, Kimb N, Marchetti M, Monid C, Schroeter L, Dijssel C, Milne G, Clothier B. Arsenic hyperaccumulation by aquatic macrophytes in the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. Environ Exp Bot. 2006;58:206-215.

Salt DE, Blaylock M, Nanda Kumar PBA, Dushenkov V, Ensly BD, Chet I, Raskin I. Phytroremediation: A novel strategy for the removal of toxic elements from environment using plants. Biotechnol. 1995;13:468-475.

Sánchez-Baracaldo  Giorgio Bianchini  Jamie D Wilson , Andrew H Knoll( 2022)    Cyanobacteria and biogeochemical cycles through Earth history Trends Microbiol   Feb;30(2):143-157.

Sandeep Kumar Singh, Nisha Yadav,Priya Yadav, Livleen Shukla, Twinkle Pradhan, Manish Kumar, Rachna Singh, Ajay Kumar (cyanobacterium-based bioremediation of xenobiotic compounds);advancement in chemical pollution, environmental management and protection

Sh Lee, Xiong, J., Ru, S., Patil, S. M., Kurade, M. B., Govindwar, S. P., Oh, S., & Jeon, B. (2020). Toxicity of benzophenone-3 and its biodegradation in a freshwater microalga Scenedesmus obliquus.

Journal of Hazardous Materials, 389, 122149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122149

Sharma, B., Dangi, A. K., & Shukla, P., (2018). Contemporary enzyme-based technologies for bioremediation: A review. Environmental Management, 210, 10-22.

Singh S, Tiwari G. Application of bioremediation on solid waste management: A review. J Bioremed Biodegr 2014;5:19424.

Singh V  Harsh Sable, Vaishali D  (2024) Bioremediation of emerging pollutants: a sustainable remediation approach. Emerging Contaminants Pages 335-361https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-18985-2.00013-4

Singh YP, Dhall P, Mathur RM, Jain RK, vadde Thakur V, Kumar V, et al.(2011)  Bioremediation of pulp and paper mill effluent by tannic acid degrading Enterobacter sp. Water Air Soil Pollut ;218:693-701.

Singh, B. K., & Walker, A., (2006), Microbial degradation of organophosphorus compounds. FEMS Microbiol . Rev., 30, 428-471.

Singh, P. K. (2021). Cyanobacterial availability for CRISPR-based genome editing: Current and future challenges. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 231–252). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-90634-0.00009-3

Singh, S. K., Shukla, L., Singh, R. P., Yadav, P., & Kumar, A. (2022). Microalgae mediated wastewater treatment and its production for biofuels and bioproducts. In Advances in chemical pollution, environmental management and protection (pp. 153–165). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apmp.2022.10.007

Sinha S, Chattopadhyay P, Pan I, Chatterjee S, Chanda P, Bandyopadhyay D, et al. Microbial transformation of xenobiotics for environmental bioremediation. Afr J Biotechnol 2009;8:6016-27

Spanoghe, P., Maes, A., & Steurbaut, W., (2004). Limitations of point source pesticide pollution: Results of bioremediation system. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci., 69(4), 719-732.

Sullivan, C.W. (1985): Sea ice bacteria : reciprocal interactions of the organisms and their environment. Sea Ice Biota, ed. By RA, Horner. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 159-171.

Syla Shahid, Shahid, R., Anza, N., Singh, R., Chaturvedi, N., Singh, A. V., & Kumar, A. (2025). Role of protozoa in the bioremediation of industrial wastewater. In Advances in chemical pollution, environmental management and protection. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apmp.2024.11.005 

Thandapani Gomati, M. Saranya, E. Radha, K. Vijayalakshmi, P.S. Supriya Prasad and P.N. Sudha  2024 ( In bioremediation)  PG and Research of Department of Chemistry, D.K.M. college for women, Vellore, T.N.  Intl Conf 2025 Proceedings Oct  2024 112-118

Torres MA ,Moacir Marcelo P Barros, Sara C G Campos, Ernani Pinto,  (2023) Biochemical biomarkers in algae and marine pollution: a review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf  Sep;71(1):1-15.

Turley, C.M., Newell, R.C. and Robins, D.B. (1986) : Survival strategies of two small marine ciliates and their role in regulating bacterial community structure under experimental conditions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 33, 59-70.

Van Dillewijn P, Caballero A, Paz JA, Gonzalez-Perez, MM, Oliva JM, Ramos JL. Bioremediation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene under field conditions. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41:1378-1383.

Van Dillewijn, P., Nojiri, H., Van Der Meer, J.R. and Wood, T.K. (2009), Bioremediation, a broad perspective. Microbial Biotechnology, 2: 125-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00091.x

Verma S, Kuila A. Bioremediation of heavy metals by microbial process. Environ Technol Innov 2019;14:100369.

Wang J, Zhao Fang-Jie, Meharg AA, Raab A, Feldmann J, McGrath SP. Mechanisms of arsenic hyperaccumulation in Pteris vittata. Uptake kinetics, interactions with phosphate, and arsenic speciation. Plant Physiol. 2002;130(3):15521561.

Watanabe T, Mitsuru O, Yoshihara T, Tadano T. Distribution and chemical speciation of aluminium in the Al accumulator plant, Melastoma malabathricum L. Plant Soil. 1998; 201(2):165.

Wuana RA, Okieimen FE. Phytoremediation potential of Maize (Zea mays L.): a Review. Afr J Gen Agr. 2010;6(4):275-287.

Wynn-Williams, D.D. (1990) : Ecological aspects of Antarctic microbiology. Adv. Microb. Ecol., 11, 71-146.

Yan Hu, Meng, F., Hu, Y., Habibul, N., & Sheng, G. (2020). Concentration- and nutrient-dependent cellular responses of microalgae Chlorella pyrenoidosa to perfluorooctanoic acid. Water Research, 185, 116248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116248 .