See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313833644

CLASSIFICATION, SOURCE AND EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS

AND ITS BIODEGRADATION

Article  in  Journal of Environmental Pathology Toxicology and Oncology · January 2017

DOI: 10.1615/JEnvironPatholToxicolOncol.2017015804

CITATIONS READS
19 4,329

4 authors:

Blessy Baby Mathew Himani Singh

Dayananda Sagar Institutions Sapthagiri College of Engineering
45 PUBLICATIONS   4,223 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vinai Biju Krishnamurthy Nidaghatta Beeregowda

Christ University, Bangalore Sapthagiri College of Engineering
15 PUBLICATIONS   120 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   4,054 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design of packed bed bioreactor for waste water treatment View project

Novel design and development of a filtration unit using graphene based nanocomposites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Blessy Baby Mathew on 20 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology, 36(1):55–71 (2017)

Classification, Source, and Effect of Environmental

Pollutants and Their Biodegradation
Blessy Baby Mathew,a,* Himani Singh,a Vinai George Biju,b & N. B. Krishnamurthya

a
Department of Biotechnology, Sapthagiri College of Engineering, Bengaluru-560057, Karnataka, India; bCUFE, Christ
University, Bengaluru-560060, Karnataka, India

*Address all correspondence to: Blessy Baby Mathew, Department of Biotechnology, Sapthagiri College of Engineering, 14/5, Chikkasandra,
Hesarghatta Main Road, Bengaluru-560057, Karnataka, India; Tel.: 080 2837 2800; Fax: 080-28 372797, E-mail: blessym21@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Any foreign chemical substance that is unusually present within an organism or is
unexpectedly found in the environment at a higher concentration than the permissible limits can be termed
a xenobiotic or a pollutant. Such substances include carcinogens, drugs, food additives, hydrocarbons,
dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides or even some natural compounds. Pollutants are known
for their higher persistence and pervasiveness, and along with their transformed products, they can remain
in and interact with the environment for prolonged periods. In this article, the classification of such
substances based on their nature, use, physical state, pathophysiological effects, and sources is discussed.
The effects of pollutants on the environment, their biotransformation in terms of bioaccumulation,
and the different types of remediation such as in situ and ex situ remediation, are also presented.

KEY WORDS: bioremediation, xenobiotic biotransformation, environmental pollutants, photoremediation

I. INTRODUCTION isms higher in the food chain.3

Xenobiotic substances are considered toxins in daily II. CLASSIFICATION OF XENOBIOTIC

life, but they can also be unknown components in liv-
ing organisms that are generally not expected to be
present. The word xenobiotic is derived from Greek
words xenos (foreign), and bios (living), together
meaning strange things in life forms. In toxicology,
the nature of the substance and its concentration play
important roles.1,2 Bioaccumulation is an example of
a xenobiotic process in which increasing concentra-
tions of the compound starts accumulating inside
the organism due to poor metabolism. This process
occurs either by continuous accumulation due to ex-
posure to the substance in small quantities or when
the exposure time is less but the exposure quantity
is very high. Bioaccumulation can be further stud-
ied via bioconcentration, in which the intake of the
chemical compound from the surrounding environ-
ment takes place and via biomagnification, in which
more accumulation occurs in the tissues of organ-
SUBSTANCES
Xenobiotic substances can be classified based on the
following characteristics.
A. Nature
Xenobiotics act as foreign components in the living
organism; at the same time, however, a xenobiotic
can be a usual substance for another organism, de-
pending on the metabolic capability of the organism
to transform or degrade it. Natural xenobiotics are
the chemicals produced by a living organism mainly
for defense purposes, such as bacteriotoxins, zoot-
oxins, or phytotoxins. They can also be biologically
active amines such as serotonin. Synthetic xenobi-
otics are manmade substances that are toxic to the
living organism or become toxic due to their trans-

0731-9989/17/$35.00 © 2017 Begell House, Inc. www.begellhouse.com 55

56
formation or accumulation.4
B. Uses
Active xenobiotics are compounds such as pes-
ticides, paints, and dyes. Passive xenobiotics are
compounds that act as additives or carrier mole-
cules used to facilitate the working of the active
components present in the substances even if they
possess their own characteristics.5
C. Physical State
Gaseous xenobiotics occur in vapor form (e.g.,
benzene) or aerosol form (e.g., pesticides) and can
easily spread in the environment. Dust-form xeno-
biotics are generally in a solid state but are very
minute and light weight; thus, they are easily car-
ried away with air or water (e.g., asbestos powder).
Liquid xenobiotics are chemicals dissolved in wa-
ter. These are generally effluents directly released
to bodies of water.
D. Pathophysiological Effects
Tissue or organs targeted by the xenobiotic or the
affected biochemical mechanism can be used as a
means of classifying xenobiotics, such as kidney
toxins affecting the kidneys and some methemo-
globin producing toxins.6
III. CLASSIFICATION OF XENOBIOTIC
SOURCES
These substances are everywhere, but it is important
to understand from where and how they are released
or emitted in the environment. By understanding
their sources better, we can develop new methods
to minimize their release or emission. The various
sources of xenobiotics are classified as follows.
A. Direct and Indirect Sources
1. Direct Sources
Here, pollutants are directly released in the sur-
rounding environment. Chemicals such as phenols7
Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology
Mathew et al.
(mostly from pharma industries) and hydrocarbons
(from petroleum effluent) are considered direct
sources.8 Plastics that are durable but degrade very
slowly,9 paint containing emulsifiers and texturiz-
ers,10 and dyes that are persistent in the environ-
ment affect the photosynthesis activity of aquatic
life.11 Pesticides and insecticides like organophos-
phorous compounds, benzimidazoles, methyl para-
thion, and morpholine, along with paper and pulp
effluent, also degrade very slowly12,13 and directly
affect the environment.
2. Indirect Sources
Indirect sources generally include hospital dis-
charge such as pharmaceutical compounds, non-
steroidal or anti-inflammatory drugs, pesticides,
and herbicide residues that are release into the soil
or environment. These substances are indirect pol-
lutants either in their original or fragmented state.
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification plays an
important role in their incorporation in the food
chain.14–17
B. Product and Processes as a Source
1. Product
The final outcome of a reaction or any process has
enormous value because xenobiotics do not de-
grade easily (e.g., pesticides, dyes, etc.).
2. Processes
The activities of day-to-day life at domestic scale
or industrial scale result in the release of xenobiot-
ics. They can include the steps involved in the pro-
duction of final goods or they can be components
involved from initial stages such as pretreatment
stages to final stages such as packaging and trans-
portation.5
C. Deliberate and Accidental Causes
1. Deliberate
Chemical compounds, such as chemicals used in
Environmental Pollutants and Their Biodegradation
paper and pulp industries, used in different steps
and processes are released into the environment
consciously.
2. Accidental
Xenobiotics are also released unintentionally into
the environment due to a sudden accident or any
technical problem.
D. Moving and Stationary Sources
1. Moving Sources
Sources that release effluent in moving state come
under this category, which includes automobiles
emitting large quantity of pollutants such as carbon
monoxide, lead, etc.
2. Stationary Sources
Stationary sources are situated at one place and
emit or release harmful pollutants, as in industries.
E. Regulated and Unregulated Sources
1. Regulated Sources
The effluent released can be regulated by setting
some norms and fixing strict laws and rules. This
regulation is generally applicable to large indus-
tries and automobiles.
2. Unregulated Sources
In household activity, it is very difficult to regulate
domestic waste generation.18
IV. EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
In plants and animals, certain metals may have es-
sential biological functions, but occasionally their
chemical synchronization and redox properties
enable them to skip control mechanisms such as
homeostasis, transport, compartmentalization and
binding. They become fixed to undefined or non-
specific protein positions by dislodging original
Volume 36, Issue 1, 2017
57
metals from their natural binding sites, causing
cell malfunctioning leading to toxicity.19 Free-rad-
ical chain reaction is a constant phenomenon due
to sunlight exposure, emotional stress, harmful
eating habits, etc. This process leads to cell mal-
functioning by disturbing the cell structure and by
altering the lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids.20
Surveys of DNA interactions with transition metal
complexes have provoked considerable interest
due to their applications as new healing agents.
They probe DNA structure and conformation, such
as binding of peptides and small organic and inor-
ganic molecules to DNA, which restricts transcrip-
tion and replication.21 Natural antioxidants such as
vitamins, polyphenols, flavones, and ginsenosides
can be identified via peroxidation of lipids where
large quantities of harmful byproducts are formed.
This process can help in assessing their function
in human red cells, human low density lipopro-
tein, etc.22 Accepted constituents of the Earth’s
crust are stable, but uncritical human actions have
drastically altered Earth’s geochemical cycle and
biochemical balance, which has resulted in metal
accumulation.23 Certain environmental toxins are
chief constituents of several key enzymes and play
a vital role in various oxidation–reduction reac-
tions. Some have been reported to affect cell or-
ganelles such as membranes, mitochondria, lyso-
some, endoplasmic reticulum, nuclei, etc., whereas
some other enzymes are involved in metabolism,
detoxification, and impairment reparation.24 Endo-
crine-disrupting chemicals are another sort of ma-
jor threat to the environment because it has been
associated with abnormal thyroid function in birds,
fish, etc. These chemicals have also been associ-
ated with reduced fertility and decreased hatching
in birds, fishes, and mammals.25
A. Soil
Soil is adversely affected by human activities. Mi-
crobes present in the soil have the ability to de-
grade chemical compounds, but sometimes (due
to environmental factors), the rate of degradation
process decreases or sometimes does not take place
at all.26–28 These chemicals can be the chlorinated
58
aromatic herbicides (triazine) and pesticides used
in the agricultural field or for gardening. They have
ability to persist in the soil for very long time, and
many of them have half-life in years and vary ac-
cording to the environmental conditions.29–35 Fig-
ure 1 presents the persistence time of some chemi-
cal compounds used on soil.
B. Bodies of Water
Many xenobiotics such as industrial chemicals,
pesticides, organic solvents that are released in the
environment are very toxic. Among them, many
are hydrophobic in nature and are mainly stored
in sediments. They are mostly nonpolar and have
the ability to dissolve in the lipids inside the ani-
mal rather than water; thus, their exposure to lower
trophic levels causes severe toxic effects at higher
trophic levels through biomagnification.36–39
V. BIOTRANSFORMATION OF XENOBIOTIC
Biotransformation is also known as bioconversion.
It is a process in which the compounds are convert-
ed from one form to another so they can be easily
FIG. 1: Summary of the relative persistence levels of xenobiotic in soil (adapted from Rhine et al., 2003)33
Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology
Mathew et al.
excreted from the body. Here, lipophilic compounds
are converted into hydrophilic compounds that are
then excreted in hepatic bile and urine. These xeno-
biotic compounds are not soluble in water and are
nonpolar; hence, it is very important to make them
water soluble before their excretion.40
Biotransformation is mainly divided into three
phases. In phase I, the functional group is added
or exposed (such as –OH, -SH, -NH2 or –COOH)
for the further transformation process. In phase II,
the parent molecule or the product of the phase I
is conjugated with water-soluble and polar bio-
molecules. In phase III, the elimination of these
compounds from the body of the organism takes
place.41 They are transformed in phase I, transport-
ed in phase II, and eliminated by the process of
phase III reaction (Fig. 2).
A. Phase I (Functionalization)
1. Oxidation Reaction
Oxidation is a chemical reaction that occurs
when electrons are lost; thereby, elements be-
come oxidized. However, there are numerous
Environmental Pollutants and Their Biodegradation 59

FIG. 2: General mechanism of biotransformation (adapted from Klaassen and Amdur, 1996)42

reactions where oxygen is not involved such as
in the removal of hydrogen or during the loss
of electron by the substrate. On the other hand,
dehydrogenation is the chemical reaction that
involves removal of hydrogen from a molecule,
which is the reverse process of hydrogenation.43
Examples of simple oxidation reaction are given
in Fig. 3.
2. Reduction Reaction
A reduction reaction is generally referred to as the
removal of oxygen or the addition of hydrogen; it
can also be termed as the gain of electrons by the
substrate (Fig. 4).43 Numerous functional groups
undergo reduction reaction such as nitro (catalyzed
by CYP and inhibited by oxygen), azo (inhibited
by oxygen and carbon monoxide), sulfoxide (in
mammalian tissue), aldehyde, and ketone (in liver,
brain, kidney, and other tissue).
3. Hydrolysis Reaction
In this reaction, water molecules are consumed for
the breakdown of the substrate into smaller ones
and addition of hydroxyl (-OH) to one of the prod-
ucts and hydrogen (H) to the other takes place.43
Enzyme such as esterases (carboxylesterase, cho-
linesterase, etc.) are involved in the hydrolysis re-
action (Fig. 5).

FIG. 3: Oxidation reactions.

Volume 36, Issue 1, 2017

60 Mathew et al.

FIG. 4: Reduction reactions.

FIG. 5: Hydrolysis reactions.

4. Monooxygenation Reaction

Monooxygenation of xenobiotics are catalyzed six isoforms (Table 1).

either by the cytochrome P450 (CYP)-dependent
monooxygenase system or by flavin-containing
monooxygenases (FMOs). Cytochrome P450 is
used for the pigment with a heme Fe2+, a carbon
monoxide complex that has an absorption spectral
band at 450 nm.44 These are present in almost all
the organisms, from Archaebacteria to humans,
but with the evident exclusion of enterobacteria
(e.g., Escherichia coli)45 P450s, which oxidize xe-
nobiotic chemicals and are mainly localized and
expressed in the liver. They play a major role in
the oxidation of xenobiotic compounds such as the
clearance of drugs and the oxidation of the endog-
enous chemicals.46,47 On the other hand, flavin-con-
taining monooxygenase (FMO) initially known as
the microsomal amine oxidase, has been used to
metabolize tertiary amines to N-oxides, which is
dependent on NADPH and O2.48 These FMOs have
B. Phase II (Conjugation)
The phase II reaction occurs in the parent molecule
or the product of phase I to increase its hydrophi-
licity (water solubility); it is achieved by the addi-
tion of the glucuronides, sulfates, and gluthione.
Conjugation reactions usually involve metabolite
activation by some high-energy intermediate and
have been classified into two general types: type I,
in which an activated conjugating agent combines
with the substrate to yield the conjugated product,
and type II, in which the substrate is activated and
then combines with an amino acid to yield a con-
jugated product (Fig. 6). The formation of sulfates
and glycosides are examples of type I, whereas
type II consists primarily of amino acid conjuga-
tion.50,51

TABLE 1: Isoform of FMO and its function

Isoform of FMO Functions
FMO1 Expressed in the embryo initially that disappears relatively
quickly after birth
FMO2 Mostly premature stop codon in Caucasians and Asians, which
prevent the expression of functional protein
FMO3 Responsible for the disease trimethylamineuria
FMO4 Inability of some individuals to convert the malodorous
trimethylamine, either from the diet or from metabolism to its
odorless N-oxide
FMO5 Poor catalytic activity hence minimal participation in xenobiotic
oxidation
FMO6 Not yet known
Xenobiotic compounds contains nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, or other nucleophiles are oxidized by
FMO such as dimethylaniline, cimetidine, promethazine, etc.49

Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology

Environmental Pollutants and Their Biodegradation
FIG. 6: Types of conjugation.
1. Glucuronidation Reaction
The glucuronidation reaction is carried out by the
enzyme glucuronosyl transferase when glucuron-
ic acid is added (Fig. 7). They are mostly found
in endoplasmic reticulum of liver, kidney, lungs,
etc.52,53 Uridine-5-diphospho-α-d-glucuronic acid
(UDPGA) acts as a cofactor in these reactions.
Glucuronidated products are transported from lu-
men to cytoplasm by the transporters situated in
the endoplasmic reticulum.43,54
2. Sulfonation Reaction
Sulfonation reaction is the reaction that is catalyzed
by sulfotransferase where a sulfate group is added
at –C-OH, -N-OH and –NH, giving rise to O-sul-
fates and N-sulfates. Here, 3′-phosphoadenosine-
5′-phosphosulfate (PAPS) act as cofactors. There
are two types of sulfotransferases: membrane
bound (in Golgi apparati)55,56 and soluble (in the
cytoplasm).57 Drugs are often converted to sulfo-
nate conjugates for their proper pharmacological
activity.58,59
FIG. 7: Glucuronidation reaction.
Volume 36, Issue 1, 2017
61
3. Glutathione Reaction
A glutathione reaction is carried out by the enzyme
glutathione-S-transferase (GST) along with gluta-
thione. These enzymes are found in cytoplasms of
cells in liver, brain, kidney, testes, intestine, etc. Glu-
tathione adducts are excreted unchanged in the bile
and in feces. Some chemicals do not require GSH
transferase, and itself forms the glutathione adduct.60
C. Phase III (Elimination)
Phase III biotransformation is a new concept that
started in 1976 by the discovery of a 170-kDa
carbohydrate complex in the extracellular mem-
branes,61 which is termed as P glycoprotein (per-
meability glycoprotein). P-glycoprotein was the
initial member of what are currently referred to
as the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) family of drug
transporters.62
VI. XENOBIOTIC DEGRADATION
Currently, biological methods are used in the deg-
radation and removal of xenobiotic compounds be-
62
FIG. 8: Classification of different xenobiotic techniques (adapted from Varsha et al., 2011)64
cause the physiochemical methods initially used were
expensive and often resulted in products that were
toxic in nature and thus required further treatment.63
Hence, the xenobiotic degradation technique can be
further classified as bioremediation and photoreme-
diation (Fig. 8). Bioremediation is also referred as
biotreatment, bioreclamation, and biorestoration. It
is generally defined as a treatability technology that
uses biological activity to reduce the concentration or
toxicity of a pollutant in the environment.64,65 It is not
only for the degradation of pollutants but also can re-
move the pollutant from the environment without de-
grading it.66 In this process, microorganisms or their
enzymes are used for transforming or degrading the
xenobiotic compound, mainly into methane, water,
and carbon dioxide.67,68 Bacteria in particular take up
large quantities of metals and minerals to ensure ad-
equate resources for binary fission. Algae and plants
are very good at absorbing nitrogen, phosphorus,
sulfur, and many minerals and metals from the envi-
ronment. For example, plants like locoweed remove
large amounts of the toxic element selenium.69 Many
factors such as the population of the microorganism
and their ability to degrade xenobiotic compounds
along with the concentration of pollutant available to
Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology
Mathew et al.
them play important roles in bioremediation. Envi-
ronmental factors like soil (absorption), temperature,
and pH (activity of enzyme) affect the degradation
of xenobiotic,70 which needs to be controlled and
optimized.71 The management of xenobiotics can be
effectively done by bioremediation, which is carried
out in two ways: in situ and ex situ bioremediation.
A. In situ Bioremediation
In situ bioremediation, microorganisms are used
in a direct approach at the site of pollution, such
as soil and ground water. It is further divided as
intrinsic bioremediation (without changing the
current condition) and enhanced bioremediation
(including additives such as nutrients, oxygen
etc.).72,73 The main advantage of in situ bioreme-
diation is that it is not expensive and the place
where it is carried out is not disturbed. However, it
is time consuming, and the ability of the microbes
changes according to the season.
B. Ex situ Bioremediation
Waste and toxic substances are collected and trans-
Environmental Pollutants and Their Biodegradation 63

ferred to a designated place to carry out the bio-
remediation process. These methods are generally
applied on soil via excavation and in ground wa-
ter via pumping. Ex situ bioremediation is a better
controlled, high-yielding process and is time effi-
cient, but these can be an expensive process and
sites of pollution are greatly disturbed.74
C. Microbial Bioremediation
Microbial biodegradation is carried out by different
organisms like bacteria, fungus, and algae. Nearly
50 microbial strains of microorganisms capable of
degrading xenobiotics have been isolated, such as
Pseudomonas, Mycobacterium, Alcaligenes, and
Nocardia. Microbial degradation of xenobiotics
assumes significance because it provides an effec-
tive and economic means of disposing toxic chem-
icals, particularly the environmental pollutants. A
selected list of microorganisms and the xenobiotics
degraded is given in Table 2.4
1. Bacteria in Bioremediation
A wide range of bacteria participate in the bioreme-
diation of xenobiotic compounds, and their degra-
dation mechanisms also vary; Pseudomonas, Esch-
erichia, etc., are aerobic bacteria that require oxygen
for their function, whereas Syntrophobacter, Syn-
trophus, and Desulphovibrio are anaerobic bacteria
that do not require oxygen.75 Methanogenic bacteria
produce methane gas along with carbon dioxide after
the degradation of the xenobiotic compound76 via the
methanogenesis process. Due to their plasmid borne
mechanism, they are sometimes specifically used for
the degradation of oil derivatives (cyanobacteria)77
and for the degradation of synthetic polymers such
as sphingomonads.78 Due to recombinant technology,
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are being
developed that carry the specific genes responsible
for the degradation of specific compounds. The best
example of these GMOs is the “super bugs” of Pseu-
domonas spp.; they are able to degrade large quanti-
ties of hydrocarbons present in oil spills.79
2. Fungi in Bioremediation
Bioremediation with fungi is referred to as mycore-
mediation because fungi are used for the remedia-
tion process of several xenobiotic compounds. They
play a very significant role in the degradation of xe-
nobiotics such as heavy metals, hydrocarbon in oils,

TABLE 2: List of microorganisms that degrade the xenobiotic (adapted from Gadzała-Kopciuch et al.,
2004)4
Microorganism Xenobiotic
Pseudomonas spp. Aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons: alkylaminoxides, alkylammonium benzene,
naphthalene, anthracene xylene, toluene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mala-
thion, parathion, organophosphates.
Mycobacterium spp. Benzene, branched hydrocarbons, cycloparaffins.
Alcaligenes spp. Polychlorinated biphenyls, alkyl benzene, halogenated hydrocarbons.
Nocardia spp. Naphthalene, alkyl benzenes, phenoxyacetate.
Arthrobacter spp. Benzene, polycyclic aromatics, phenoxyacetate, pentachlorophenol.
Corynebacterium spp. Halogenated hydrocarbons, phenoxyacetate.
Bacillus spp. Long chain alkanes, phenylurea.
Candida spp. Polychlorinated biphenyls
Aspergillus spp. Phenols
Xanthomonas spp. Polycyclic hydrocarbons
Streptomyces spp. Halogenated hydrocarbons, phenoxyacetate.
Fusarium spp. Propanil
Cunninghamella spp. Polycyclic aromatics, polychlorinated biphenyls

Volume 36, Issue 1, 2017

64
polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, etc. This sort
of degradation can be further classified as fungal
biosorption, mycorrhizal fungal degradation, and
ligninolytical fungal degradation. Biosorption by
fungi is different from the bioaccumulation because
the structure of biosorbents is not affected; hence,
it is better than bioaccumulation.80 Fungal biore-
mediation is generally observed in waste industrial
effluents and biomass such as seaweed where the
xenobiotic compounds are attached to the cellular
structure.81 Cell walls and their components partici-
pate in biosorption. If there is no such physiologi-
cal activity, they can absorb significant amount of
organic xenobiotic compounds.82 Saccharomyces
cerevisiae, Botrytis cinerea, Mucor spp., Aspergil-
lus carbonaruius, Aspergillus niger, and Rhizopus
spp. are widely used for the absorption of heavy
metals.83 Mycorrhizal fungal degradation is an-
other kind of symbiotic association of fungi and
actinomycetes with the root zone of vascular plant,
which increases the amount of soil organic carbon.
Morchella conica and Tylospcno fibrilnsa are fungi
that grow as symbionts and improve degradation of
organic xenobiotic compound present in the soil.84
Ligninolytic fungal degradation occurs when the
fungi are able to degrade lignocellulose present in
paper and pulp effluents by producing the lignolytic
enzymes. Fungi such as Trichoderma harzianum,
Basidiomycetes, Ascomycetes, etc., can be used to
degrade synthetic dyes.85,86
3. Algae in Bioremediation
Algae bioremediation is also known as phycoreme-
diation. Many algae have the ability to resist heavy
metals and thus are used for their degradation.
Algal species of Stigeoclonium lenue, Anabaena
inacqualis, Chlorella, Westiellopsis prolifica, Syn-
echoccus spp. and certain other fresh algae like
Chlorella vulgaris,  Scenedesmus platydiscus,  S.
quadricauda, and S. capricornutum are capable
of uptaking and degrading polyaromatic hydrocar-
bons.87 Operational conditions often act as a limit-
ing factor for the practical application of these or-
ganisms.88–90 Metals are taken up by algae through
adsorption and are then chelated by some of the
Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology
Mathew et al.
unicellular algae.91 Research in this field has been
ongoing for many years, and it has been observed
that algae are capable of oxidizing many hydro-
carbons into less harmful metabolites, which sug-
gest their capability to degrade crude oil.92–99 The
metabolism of algae to degrade xenobiotic com-
pounds is represented in the Fig. 9, where algae
becomes degraded and produce water, carbon di-
oxide, and less harmful metabolites, which in turn
can be utilized as nutrient source by the algae.100
4. Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is the direct use of living plants
for in situ remediation of contaminated soil, sludge,
sediments, and ground water through contaminant
removal, degradation or containment.101 It is also
called green remediation or agroremediation when
higher land plants are used.102 Some plants have
the ability to degrade organic pollutants or to sta-
bilize metal contaminants by acting as filters by re-
sisting the lethal effects of some xenobiotics.103,104
Phytoremediation has been studied extensively in
research and small-scale demonstrations; it is eco-
friendly and cost effective, but full-scale applica-
tions are currently limited because they are time
consuming.105,106 Phytoremediation can be further
classified as follows.
a. Phytoextraction
Phytoextraction, also called phytoaccumulation,
refers to the uptake and translocation of metal con-
taminants in the soil by plant roots into the aboveg-
round portions of the plants.107 Certain plants like
Brassica juncea, Berkeya coddii, Allysum bertolo-
nii, Thlaspi caerulescens, and Thlaspi goesingense
are called hyperaccumulators because they absorb
unusually large amounts of metals.108 Many com-
bination of plants are used, but according to the
type of metal present, specific combinations can be
planted at a site. After the plants have been allowed
to grow for several weeks or months, they are har-
vested and are either incinerated or composted to
recycle the metals.
Environmental Pollutants and Their Biodegradation
FIG. 9: Algae bioremediation metabolism of the con-
taminants through algae produces CO2, H2O and less-
harmful components (adapted from Cao et al., 2013)100
b. Phytostabilization
Phytostabilization is the use of certain plant spe-
cies to immobilize contaminants in the soil and
ground water through absorption and accumula-
tion by roots; it is also known as phytoimmobiliza-
tion.109
c. Rhizofiltration
Rhizofiltration or phytofiltration is the adsorption
or precipitation of xenobiotic in a solution sur-
rounding the plant root zone. The plants used for
cleanup are raised in greenhouses with their roots
in water rather than in soil.
d. Rhizodegradation
Rhizodegradation occurs when naturally occurring
biodegradation in soil is enhanced by plant roots
and preferably leads to destruction or detoxifica-
tion of an organic contaminant. Rhizodegradation,
also called enhanced rhizosphere biodegrada-
Volume 36, Issue 1, 2017
65
tion, phytostimulation, or plant-assisted bioreme-
diation/degradation, consists of the breakdown of
contaminants in the soil through microbial activity
that is enhanced by the presence of rhizosphere. It
is a much slower process than phytodegradation.
e. Phytodegradation
Phytodegradation or phytotransformation is the
breakdown of contaminants taken up by plants
through metabolic processes within the plant or the
breakdown of contaminants external to the plant
through the effect of compounds such as enzymes
produced by the plants.107
f. Phytovolatilization
Phytovolatilization is the uptake of soluble con-
taminants or transpiration of a contaminant by a
plant with release of volatile compounds into the
atmosphere.110 A genetic engineering approach is
used to enhance the scope of phytoremediation by
increasing the productivity of enzymes with great-
er potential and understanding its activity,111–114
e.g., transgenic plants that overexpresses mercury-
resistance genes.115 Further examples of phytore-
mediation are given in Table 3.
5. Photoremediation
The word photo means light; hence, in the light
(i.e. UV, IR and visible radiation from the sun) are
used to degrade xenobiotic compounds that have
the ability to absorb photons. Photoremediation is
also used for pesticides, heavy metals (e.g., Pb, Cr,
Fe, etc.), and dyes.121 The dyes used in the paper-
pulp and textile industries have greater potential
to cause toxicity to the organism,122,123 and these
dyes are degraded by visible light using hierarchi-
cal CuO/ZnO materials for electron transfer as de-
picted (Fig. 10).
VII. CONCLUSION
We are all surrounded by chemical or natural com-
pounds with the potential to become xenobiotics or
66
TABLE 3: Plants and their phytoremediation process116–120
Plant name
Azolla filiculoides
Bacopa monnieri
Canna flaccida
Carex pedula
Miscanthus floridulus
Miscanthus sacchariflorus
Chara,
Nitella,
Mougeotia,
Ulothrix
Cladium Jamaicense
Eichhornia crassipes
Elodea canadensis
Eriophorum angustifolium
Eriophorum scheuchzeri
Glyceria fluitans
Juncus articulatus
Hydrilla verticillata
Hydrocotyle umbellata
Ipomea aquatics
Lemna minor
Lemna, Spirodela and
Wolffia
Nymphaea violacea
Pistia stratiotes
Polygonum punctatum
Sagittaria latifolia
Potamogeton natans
Salvinia molesta
Scirpus spp
Scirpus validus
Spartina alterniflora
Spirodela oligorrhiza
Sporobolus virginicus
Tamarix spp.
Vallisneria spiralis
Zizania aquatica
pollutants when produced in large quantities. They
can start accumulating in the environment, causing
harm in the long run. These substances can be clas-
Mathew et al.
Common name Phytormediation function
Water fern Metals hyperaccumulation
Water hyssop Metals accumulation
Golden canna Heavy metals removal in constructed wetland
Drooping sedge
Giant miscanthus
Amur silver-grass
Algae If they could be induced to grow mining ef-
fluents, they would provide a simple, long-term
solution to remove radionuclides
Sawgrass Brine concentration
Water hyacinth Metals accumulation and biosorption
Phytofiltration of storm water and removal of
zinc
Cottongrass Phytostabilization of metal rich mine tailings,
Cottongrass treatment of acid mine drainage
Floating Sweet-grass
Jointleaf Rush
Hydrilla TNT transformation and metals accumulation
Pennywort Biosorption of toxic metals
Water spinach Metals accumulation
Duckweed Concentrates technetium-99
Duckweed Biosorbents of inorganic and organic pollutants
and metals accumulation
Waterlily Uranium and thorium series radionuclides
Water lettuce Metals accumulation
Dotted smartweed radiocesium (137 Cs)
Broadleaf arrowhead/
Duck-potato
Floating pondweed Phytofiltration of storm water and removal of
zinc, Metals uptake
Kariba weed Metals accumulation
Bulrush Used in constructed wetland
Great Bulrush Brine concentration
Cordgrass Saltwater, brine concentration
Giant duckweed Metals accumulation
Coastal dropseed Brine concentration
Salt cedar Hydraulic control of arsenic
Eel grass Metals hyperaccumulation
Wild rice Uptake of 129 I.
sified by their nature, constituents and the target
organ or tissue that they eventually affect. Other
than the subtypes discussed here, further classifi-
Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology
Environmental Pollutants and Their Biodegradation
FIG. 10: Schematic diagram of the electron transfer and the energy band positions of ZnO and CuO in the hier-
archical CuO/ZnO materials for the photodegradation of dye contaminants under the irradiation of visible light
(adapted from Liu et al., 2012)124
cation can include the sources from where they are
released and the specific function these pollutants
carry out. In recent years, the field of xenobiotic
degradation has been of great importance. It is vital
to study how they are transformed by living organ-
isms and what they eventually form. Their degra-
dation by living organisms and photodegradation
has shown much potential, but these processes
have limitations that can be overcome using ge-
netically modified organisms (GMOs) to produce
more efficient biodegradation processes. This vast
research area has numerous opportunities for ex-
ploration and development.
REFERENCES
1. Murray RK, Granner DK, Mayes PA, Rodwell VW.
Harper’s illustrated biochemistry. New York: McGraw-
Hill; 2014 Jun 8.
2. Heeren J, Grewal T, Laatsch A, Rottke D, Rinninger F,
Murray RK, Granner DK, Mayes PA, Rodwell VW. Po-
rous nanoparticles in drug delivery systems. Pak J Pharm
Sci. 2006;19(2):155–8.
Volume 36, Issue 1, 2017
67
3. Satyanarayana T, Johri BN, Prakash A, editors. Micro-
organisms in sustainable agriculture and biotechnology.
New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012
Jan 3.
4. Gadzała-Kopciuch R, Berecka B, Bartoszewicz J,
Buszewski B. Some considerations about bioindicators
in environmental monitoring. Polish J Environ Stud.
2004;13(5):453–62.
5. Donner E, Eriksson E, Holten-Lützhøft HC, Scholes L,
Revitt M, Ledin A. Identifying and classifying the sourc-
es and uses of xenobiotics in urban environments. In:
Xenobiotics in the Urban Water Cycle 2010 (pp. 27–50).
Springer Netherlands.
6. Altug T. Introduction to toxicology and food. CRC; 2002
Jul 30.
7. Gayathri KV, Vasudevan N. Enrichment of phenol de-
grading moderately halophilic bacterial consortium from
saline environment. J Bioremed Biodegrad. 2010;1:104.
8. Whyte LG, Bourbonniere L, Greer CW. Biodegradation
of petroleum hydrocarbons by psychrotrophic Pseudo-
monas strains possessing both alkane (alk) and naphtha-
lene (nah) catabolic pathways. Appl Environ Microbiol.
1997 Sep 1;63(9):3719–23.
9. Lazarevic D, Aoustin E, Buclet N, Brandt N. Plastic
waste management in the context of a European recy-
68
cling society: comparing results and uncertainties in a
life cycle perspective. Resources, Conservation and Re-
cycling. 2010 Dec 31;55(2):246–59.
10. Abdelkader E, Nadjia L, Ahmed B. Degradation study of
phenazin neutral red from aqueous suspension by paper
sludge. J Chem Engin Proc Technol. 2011;169:231–38.
11. Elaziouti A, Laouedj N, Ahmed B. Effect of pH solution
on the optical properties of cationic dyes in dye/maghnia
montmorillonite suspensions. J Chem Engin Proc Tech-
nol. 2011;2:113.
12. Lalithakumari D. Microbes: a tribute to clean environ-
ment, 2011. Available from: <http://www.envismadra-
suniv.org/newsletter1.htm> Accessed October 10, 2016.
13. Hashmi MZ, Kumar V, Varma A, editors. Xenobiotics in
the soil environment: monitoring, toxicity and manage-
ment. Vol. 49. Berlin: Springer; 2017.
14. Heberer T. Occurrence, fate, and removal of pharmaceu-
tical residues in the aquatic environment: a review of re-
cent research data. Toxicol Lett. 2002 May 10;131(1):5–
17.
15. Fayidh MA, Babuskin S, Sabina K, Sukumar M, Sivara-
jan M. Integrated approach to the problems of dye waste-
water by sonolysis and biological treatment. J Microbial
Biochem Technol. 2011;3:60–6.
16. Monadjem A, Anderson MD, Piper SE, Boshoff AF.
The vultures of southern Africa–quo vadis. In Proceed-
ings of a Workshop on Vulture Research and Conserva-
tion in Southern Africa. Birds of Prey Working Group.
Endangered Wildlife Trust. Johannesburg, South Africa,
December 4, 2004.
17. Oaks JL, Gilbert M, Virani MZ, Watson RT, Meteyer CU,
Rideout BA, Shivaprasad HL, Ahmed S, Chaudhry MJ,
Arshad M, Mahmood S. Diclofenac residues as the cause
of vulture population decline in Pakistan. Nature. 2004
Feb 12;427(6975):630–3.
18. Techniques BA. Reference document for iron and steel
production industrial emissions directive 2010/75/EU
(Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). Europe-
an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau
(EIPPCB). 2010.
19. Jaishankar M, Tseten T, Anbalagan N, Mathew BB, Beer-
egowda KN. Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of
some heavy metals. Interdisciplinary Toxicol. 2014 Jun
1;7(2):60–72.
20. Mathew BB, Tiwari A, Jatawa SK. Free radicals and anti-
oxidants: a review. J Pharm Res. 2011 Dec;4(12):4340–3.
21. KR SG, Mathew BB, Sudhamani CN, Naik HB. Mecha-
nism of DNA binding and cleavage. Biomed Biotechnol.
2014 Jan 23;2(1):1–9.
22. Wadhwa N, Mathew BB, Jatawa S, Tiwari A. Lipid per-
oxidation: mechanism, models and significance. Int J
Curr Sci. 2012;3:29–38.
23. Singh R, Gautam N, Mishra A, Gupta R. Heavy metals
and living systems: an overview. Indian J Pharmacol.
Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology
Mathew et al.
2011 May 1;43(3):246.
24. Tchounwou PB, Yedjou CG, Patlolla AK, Sutton DJ.
Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. In: Molecu-
lar, clinical and environmental toxicology; (pp. 133–64).
Basel, Switzerland: Springer Basel; 2012.
25. Colborn T, vom Saal FS, Soto AM. Developmental ef-
fects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in wildlife and
humans. Environ Health Perspect. 1993 Oct;101(5):378.
26. Boussu K, Kindts C, Vandecasteele C, Van der Bruggen
B. Applicability of nanofiltration in the carwash industry.
Separation Purification Technol. 2007 Apr 1;54(2):139–
46.
27. Armstrong DE, Chesters G, Harris RF. Atrazine hydroly-
sis in soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1967;31(1):61–6.
28. Häggblom MM. Microbial breakdown of halogenated
aromatic pesticides and related compounds. FEMS Mi-
crobiol Rev. 1992 Sep 1;9(1):29–71.
29. Yadav JS, Loper JC. Cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase
gene and its differentially terminated cDNAs from the
white rot fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Curr
Genet. 2000 Jan 1;37(1):65–73.
30. Gavrilescu M. Fate of pesticides in the environment and
its bioremediation. Engin Life Sci. 2005 Dec 1;5(6):497.
31. Jackson MM, Hou LH, Banerjee HN, Sridhar R, Dutta
SK. Disappearance of 2, 4-dinitrotoluene and 2-amino, 4,
6-dinitrotoluene by Phanerochaete chrysosporium under
non-ligninolytic conditions. Bull Environ Contam Toxi-
col. 1999 Apr 24;62(4):390–6.
32. Reddy CA, Mathew ZA. Bioremediation potential of
white rot fungi. Brit Mycol Soc Sympos Ser. 2001 Nov
15; 23:52–78.
33. Rhine ED, Fuhrmann JJ, Radosevich M. Microbial com-
munity responses to atrazine exposure and nutrient avail-
ability: linking degradation capacity to community struc-
ture. Microb Ecol. 2003 Aug 1;46(2):145–60.
34. Radtke CW, Cook WS, Anderson A. Factors affecting an-
tagonism of the growth of Phanerochaete chrysosporium
by bacteria isolated from soils. Appl Microbiol Biotech-
nol. 1994 Apr 1;41(2):274–80.
35. Couto SR, Herrera JL. Industrial and biotechnological
applications of laccases: a review. Biotechnol Adv. 2006
Oct 31;24(5):500–13.
36. Streit B. Bioaccumulation processes in ecosystems. Ex-
perientia. 1992 Oct 1;48(10):955–70.
37. Landrum PF, Robbins JA. Bioavailability of sediment-
associated contaminants to benthic invertebrates. Sedi-
ments: chemistry and toxicity of in-place pollutants;
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1990. Pp. 237–63.
38. Lee H. Models, muddles, and mud: predicting bioaccu-
mulation of sediment-associated pollutants. In: Sediment
toxicity assessment. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis; 1992. Pp.
267–93.
39. Newman MC. Fundamentals of ecotoxicology. Boca Ra-
ton, FL: CRC Press; 2009.
Environmental Pollutants and Their Biodegradation
40. Oesch F, Arand M. Xenobiotic metabolism. Toxicology.
1999:83–109.
41. Vasiliou V, Pappa A, Petersen DR. Role of aldehyde de-
hydrogenases in endogenous and xenobiotic metabolism.
Chem-Biol Interact. 2000 Dec 1;129(1):1–9.
42. Klaassen CD, Amdur MO, eds. Casarett and Doull’s
toxicology: the basic science of poisons. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill; 1996.
43. Levich VG. Present state of the theory of oxidation-re-
duction in solution (bulk and electrode reactions). Adv
Electrochem Electrochem Engin. 1966;4:249–371.
44. Omura T, Sato R. A new cytochrome in liver micro-
somes. J Biol Chem. 1962 Apr 1;237(4):1375–6.
45. Omura T, Sato R. The carbon monoxide-binding pigment
of liver microsomes I. Evidence for its hemoprotein na-
ture. J Biol Chem. 1964 Jul 1;239(7):2370–8.
46. Singer MI, Shapiro LE, Shear NH. Cytochrome P-450
3A: interactions with dermatologic therapies. J Am Acad
Dermatol. 1997 Nov 30;37(5):765–71.
47. de Montellano PO. Cytochrome P450: structure,
mechanism, and biochemistry. Free Rad Biol Med.
1996;2(21):251.
48. Koukouritaki SB, Simpson P, Yeung CK, Rettie AE,
Hines RN. Human hepatic flavin-containing monooxy-
genases 1 (FMO1) and 3 (FMO3) developmental expres-
sion. Pediatr Res. 2002 Feb 1;51(2):236–43.
49. Lawton MP, Cashman JR, Cresteil T, Dolphin CT, Elf-
arra AA, Hines RN, Hodgson E, Kimura T, Ozols J, Phil-
lips IR, Philpot RM. A nomenclature for the mammalian
flavin-containing monooxygenase gene family based on
amino acid sequence identities. Arch Biochem Biophys.
1994 Jan 31;308(1):254–7.
50. Ritter JK. Roles of glucuronidation and UDP-glucuro-
nosyltransferases in xenobiotic bioactivation reactions.
Chem-Biol Interact. 2000 Dec 1;129(1):171–93.
51. Tukey RH, Strassburg CP. Human UDP-glucuronosyl-
transferases: metabolism, expression, and disease. Ann
Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2000 Apr;40(1):581–616.
52. Bossuyt X, Blanckaert N. Carrier-mediated transport of
intact UDP-glucuronic acid into the lumen of endoplas-
mic-reticulum-derived vesicles from rat liver. Biochem J.
1994 Aug 15;302(1):261–9.
53. Bossuyt X, Blanckaert N. Functional characterization
of carrier-mediated transport of uridine diphosphate N-
acetylglucosamine across the endoplasmic reticulum
membrane. Eur J Biochem. 1994 Aug 1;223(3):981–8.
54. Csala M, Staines AG, Bánhegyi G, Mandl J, Coughtrie
MW, Burchell B. Evidence for multiple glucuronide
transporters in rat liver microsomes. Biochem Pharma-
col. 2004 Oct 1;68(7):1353–62.
55. Grunwell JR, Bertozzi CR. Carbohydrate sulfotransfer-
ases of the GalNAc/Gal/GlcNAc6ST family. Biochemis-
try. 2002 Nov 5;41(44):13117–26.
56. Grunwell JR, Rath VL, Rasmussen J, Cabrilo Z, Ber-
Volume 36, Issue 1, 2017
69
tozzi CR. Characterization and mutagenesis of Gal/
GlcNAc-6-O-sulfotransferases. Biochemistry. 2002 Dec
31;41(52):15590–600.
57. Gamage N, Barnett A, Hempel N, Duggleby RG, Wind-
mill KF, Martin JL, McManus ME. Human sulfotransfer-
ases and their role in chemical metabolism. Toxicol Sci.
2006 Mar 1;90(1):5–22.
58. Wang LQ, James MO. Inhibition of sulfotransferases by
xenobiotics. Curr Drug Metab. 2006 Jan 1;7(1):83–104.
59. Coughtrie MW, Sharp S, Maxwell K, Innes NP. Biology
and function of the reversible sulfation pathway cata-
lysed by human sulfotransferases and sulfatases. Chem-
Biol Interact. 1998 Feb 20;109(1):3–27.
60. Hayes JD, Pulford DJ. The glutathione S-transferase su-
pergene family: regulation of GST and the contribution
of the isoenzymes to cancer chemoprotection and drug
resistance part II. Crit Rev Biochem Molec Biol. 1995
Jan 1;30(6):521–600.
61. Juliano RL, Ling V. A surface glycoprotein modulat-
ing drug permeability in Chinese hamster ovary cell
mutants. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr. 1976 Nov
11;455(1):152–62.
62. Hagenbuch B. Drug uptake systems in liver and kidney:
a historic perspective. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut. 2010
Jan 1;87(1):39–47.
63. Sethy NK, Jha VN, Shukla AK, Sahoo SK, Tripathi RM,
Puranik VD. Natural radionuclide (U and 226Ra) in wa-
ter, sediment, fish and plant species in the aquatic envi-
ronment around uranium mining and ore processing site
at Jaduguda, India. J Ecosys Ecography. 2011;1(1).
64. Varsha YM, CH ND, Chenna S. An emphasis on xenobi-
otic degradation in environmental clean up. J Bioremed
Biodegrad. 2011;11:1–10.
65. King RB, Sheldon JK, Long GM. Practical environmen-
tal bioremediation: the field guide. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press; 1997.
66. Broda P. Using microorganisms for bioremediation: the
barriers to implementation. Trends Biotechnol. 1992 Jan
1;10:303–4.
67. Boopathy R. Factors limiting bioremediation technolo-
gies. Biores Technol. 2000 Aug 31;74(1):63–7.
68. Das N, Chandran P. Microbial degradation of petroleum
hydrocarbon contaminants: an overview. Biotechnology
research international. 2011: 941810.
69. Caplan JA. The worldwide bioremediation indus-
try: prospects for profit. Trends Biotechnol. 1993 Aug
1;11(8):320–3.
70. Vidali M. Bioremediation. an overview. Pure Appl Chem.
2001 Jan 1;73(7):1163–72.
71. Cunningham SD, Anderson TA, Schwab AP, Hsu FC.
Phytoremediation of soils contaminated with organic
pollutants. Advances in agronomy. 1996 Jan 1;56(1):55–
114.
72. Farhadian M, Vachelard C, Duchez D, Larroche C.
70
In situ bioremediation of monoaromatic pollutants in
groundwater: a review. Bioresource Technology. 2008
Sep 30;99(13):5296-308.
73. Saldana MD, Nagpal V, Guigard SE. Remediation of
contaminated soils using supercritical fluid extraction:
A review (1994-2004). Environmental technology. 2005
Sep 1;26(9):1013-32.
74. Atlas RM. Microbial degradation of petroleum hydro-
carbons: an environmental perspective. Microbiol Rev.
1981 Mar;45(1):180.
75. Chowdhury S, Mishra M, Adarsh VK, Mukherjee A,
Thakur AR, Chaudhuri SR. Novel metal accumulator and
protease secretor microbes from East Calcutta Wetland.
Am J Biochem Biotechnol. 2008;4(3):255–64.
76. Jha AK, Singh K, Sharma C, Singh SK, Gupta PK. As-
sessment of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from
livestock in India. J Earth Sci Clim Change. 2011 Jan
1;1:107.
77. Genovese M, Crisafi F, Denaro R, Cappello S, Russo D,
Calogero R, Santisi S, Catalfamo M, Modica A, Smedile
F, Genovese L. Effective bioremediation strategy for rap-
id in situ cleanup of anoxic marine sediments in meso-
cosm oil spill simulation. Front. Microbiol. 2014;(5):162.
78. Kawai F. Sphingomonads involved in the biodegradation
of xenobiotic polymers. J Indust Microbiol Biotechnol.
1999 Oct 1;23(4–5):400–7.
79. Furukawa K. ‘Super bugs’ for bioremediation. Trends
Biotechnol. 2003 May 31;21(5):187–90.
80. Gurel L. senturk I, Bahadir T, Buyukgungor H. Treat-
ment of nickel plating industrial wastewater by fungus
immobilized onto rice bran. J Microbial Biochem Tech-
nol. 2010;2:34–7.
81. Volesky B. Biosorption of heavy metals. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC press; 1990.
82. Kurnaz SU, Buyukgungor H. Assessment of various bio-
masses in the removal of phenol from aqueous solutions.
J Microb Biochem Technol. 2009;1(1):47–50.
83. Kumar KK, Prasad MK, Sarma GV, Murthy CV. Re-
moval of Cd (II) from aqueous solution using immobi-
lized Rhizomucor tauricus. J Microb Biochem Technol.
2009;1(1):15–21.
84. Kumar NK, Reddy DS, Venkateswarlu P. Application
of response surface methodology for optimization of
chromium biosorption from an aqueous solution onto
Syzigium cumini (java) Seed Powder. J Microb Biochem
Technol. 2010;1(2):1–8.
85. Hammel KE. Extracellular free radical biochemistry of
ligninolytic fungi. New J Chem. 1996 Feb 1;20(2):195–8.
86. El-Bondkly AM, Aboshosha AA, Radwan NH, Dora SA.
Successive construction of β-glucosidase hyperproducers
of Trichoderma harzianum using microbial biotechnol-
ogy techniques. J Microbial Biochem Technol 2: 70–3.
87. Cerniglia CE, Gibson DT. Metabolism of naphthalene by
Cunninghamella elegans. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1977
Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology
Mathew et al.
Oct 1;34(4):363–70.
88. Wang XC, Zhao HM. Uptake and biodegradation of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by marine seaweed. J
Coastal Res. 2007. 1056–61.
89. Jinqi L, Houtian L. Degradation of azo dyes by algae.
Environ Pollut. 1992 Jan 1;75(3):273–8.
90. Dwivedi S. Bioremediation of heavy metal by algae:
current and future perspective. J Adv Lab Res Biol.
2012;3(3):229–33.
91. Davis TA, Volesky B, Mucci A. A review of the biochem-
istry of heavy metal biosorption by brown algae. Water
Res. 2003 Nov 30;37(18):4311–30.
92. Semple KT, Cain RB, Schmidt S. Biodegradation of aro-
matic compounds by microalgae. FEMS Microbiol Lett.
1999 Jan 1;170(2):291–300.
93. Gamila HA, Ibrahim MB, El-Ghafar HA. The role of
cyanobacterial isolated strains in the biodegradation of
crude oil. Int J Environ Stud. 2003 Oct 1;60(5):435–44.
94. Leahy JG, Colwell RR. Microbial degradation of hydro-
carbons in the environment. Microbiol Rev. 1990 Sep
1;54(3):305–15.
95. Cerniglia CE, Gibson DT, Van Baalen C. Oxidation of
naphthalene by cyanobacteria and microalgae. Microbi-
ology. 1980 Feb 1;116(2):495–500.
96. Cerniglia CE, Van Baalen C, Gibson DT. Metabolism
of naphthalene by the cyanobacterium Oscillatoria sp.,
strain JCM. Microbiology. 1980 Feb 1;116(2):485–94.
97. Lindquist B, Warshawsky D. Stereospecificity in algal
oxidation of the carcinogen benzo (a) pyrene. Experien-
tia. 1985 Jun 1;41(6):767–9.
98. Klekner V, Kosaric N. Degradation of phenols by algae.
Environ Technol. 1992 May 1;13(5):493–501.
99. Ibraheem IB. Biodegradability of hydrocarbons by cya-
nobacteria1. J Phycol. 2010 Aug 1;46(4):818–24.
100. Cao X, Xiong Y, Lund J. The effects of micro-algae char-
acteristics on the bioremediation rate of Deepwater Hori-
zon crude oil. J Emerg Invest. 2013:1–7.
101. Utmazian MN, Wenzel WW. Phytoextraction of metal
polluted soils in Latin America. Environ Appl Poplar and
Willow Working Party. May 16–20, 2006. Northern Ire-
land.
102. Wenzel WW, Lombi E, Adriano DC. Biogeochemical
processes in the rhizosphere: role in phytoremediation
of metal-polluted soils. In: Heavy metal stress in plants.
Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 1999. Pp. 273–303.
103. Briggs GG, Bromilow RH, Evans AA. Relationships be-
tween lipophilicity and root uptake and translocation of
non-ionised chemicals by barley. Pesticide Sci. 1982 Oct
1;13(5):495–504.
104. Kolb M, Harms H. Metabolism of fluoranthene in differ-
ent plant cell cultures and intact plants. Environ Toxicol
Chem. 2000 May 1;19(5):1304–10.
105. Zhai G. Phytoremediation: Right Plants for Right Pollut-
ants. J Bioremed Biodegrad. 2011;2:102e.
Environmental Pollutants and Their Biodegradation
106. Wei SH, Zhou QX, Wang X, Cao W. Potential of weed
species applied to remediation of soils contaminated with
heavy metals. J Environ Sci. 2004 Jan 1;16(5):868–73.
107. Shukla KP, Singh NK, Sharma S. Bioremediation: devel-
opments, current practices and perspectives. Genet Engi-
neer Biotechnol J. 2010 Jan 1;3:1–20.
108. Pivetz BE. Phytoremediation of contaminated soil and
ground water at hazardous waste sites. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response: Superfund Technology Support Center for
Ground Water, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Subsurface Protection and Remediation Di-
vision, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center;
2001.
109. Saharan BS. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: a
critical review. Life Sci Med Res. 2011.
110. Pilon-Smits EA, De Souza MP, Hong G, Amini A, Bravo
RC, Payabyab ST, Terry N. Selenium volatilization and
accumulation by twenty aquatic plant species. J Environ
Qual. 1999;28(3):1011–8.
111. Vishnoi SR, Srivastava PN. Phytoremediation–green for
environmental clean. In Proceedings of Taal 2007: the
12th World Lake Conference 2008 (Vol. 1016, p. 1021).
112. Zayed A, Pilon-Smits E, De Souza M, Lin ZQ, Terry N.
Remediation of selenium-polluted soils and waters by
phytovolatilization. Phytoremediation of contaminated
soil and water. 2000:61–83.
113. Juhanson J. Impact of phytoremediation and bioaugmen-
tation on the microbial community in oil shale chemical
industry solid waste. Doctoral dissertation. 2010, Uni-
versity of Tartu, Estonia.
114. Dietz AC, Schnoor JL. Advances in phytoremediation.
Environ Health Perspect. 2001 Mar;109(Suppl 1):163–8.
Volume 36, Issue 1, 2017
71
115. Tomonori S. Effective removal of Bisphenol A from con-
taminated areas by recombinant plant producing lignin
peroxidase. J Petrol Environ Biotechnol. 2011;2:1–3.
116. Schwitzguébel JP, Page V, Martins-Dias S, Davies LC,
Vasilyeva G, Strijakova E. Using plants to remove for-
eign compounds from contaminated water and soil. In:
Organic xenobiotics and plants. Amsterdam: Springer;
2011. Pp. 149–189.
117. Schwitzguébel JP, Schröder P. Phytotechnologies to pro-
mote sustainable land use and improve food safety: out-
comes and outlook from the European COST Action 859.
Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2009 Nov 1;16(7):743–4.
118. Hattink J, de Goeij JJ, Wolterbeek HT. Uptake kinetics
of 99 Tc in common duckweed. Environ Exper Botany.
2000 Aug 31;44(1):9–22.
119. McCutcheon SC, Schnoor JL. Phytoremediation: trans-
formation and control of contaminants. New York: John
Wiley & Sons; 2004.
120. Peles JD, Smith MH, Brisbin IL. Ecological half-life of
137 Cs in plants associated with a contaminated stream. J
Environ Radioactivity. 2002 Dec 31;59(2):169–78.
121. Zhang B, Shahbazi A. Recent developments in pretreat-
ment technologies for production of lignocellulosic bio-
fuels. J Petrol Environ Biotechnol. 2011;2(2):111.
122. Elaziouti A, Ahmed B. ZnO-assisted photocatalytic deg-
radation of Congo red and benzopurpurine 4B in aqueous
solution. J Chem Eng Process Technol. 2011;2:1–9.
123. Santhoskumar AU, Palanivelu K, Sharma SK, Nayak
SK. Comparison of biological activity transition metal 12
hydroxy oleate on photodegradation of plastics. J Bio-
remed Biodegrad. 2010;1(2).
124. Liu Z, Bai H, Sun DD. Hierarchical CuO/ZnO mem-
branes for environmental applications under the irradia-
tion of visible light. Int J Photoenergy. 2012: 804840.
View publication stats