Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27638318›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2016

Bioremediation techniques-classification based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects.

Christopher Chibueze Azubuike, Chioma Blaise Chikere, Gideon Chijioke Okpokwasili

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 153 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
153citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

153 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Genomic Insights intoMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Remediation Potential ofJournal of xenobiotics · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

93 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christopher Chibueze AzubuikeDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt, East-West Road, PMB 5323, Choba, Port Harcourt, 500004, Rivers State, Nigeria. chrisbueze1@gmail.com.
Chioma Blaise ChikereDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt, East-West Road, PMB 5323, Choba, Port Harcourt, 500004, Rivers State, Nigeria.
Gideon Chijioke OkpokwasiliDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt, East-West Road, PMB 5323, Choba, Port Harcourt, 500004, Rivers State, Nigeria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental pollution has been on the rise in the past few decades owing to increased human activities on energy reservoirs, unsafe agricultural practices and rapid industrialization. Amongst the pollutants that are of environmental and public health concerns due to their toxicities are: heavy metals, nuclear wastes, pesticides, green house gases, and hydrocarbons. Remediation of polluted sites using microbial process (bioremediation) has proven effective and reliable due to its eco-friendly features. Bioremediation can either be carried out ex situ or in situ, depending on several factors, which include but not limited to cost, site characteristics, type and concentration of pollutants. Generally, ex situ techniques apparently are more expensive compared to in situ techniques as a result of additional cost attributable to excavation. However, cost of on-site installation of equipment, and inability to effectively visualize and control the subsurface of polluted sites are of major concerns when carrying out in situ bioremediation. Therefore, choosing appropriate bioremediation technique, which will effectively reduce pollutant concentrations to an innocuous state, is crucial for a successful bioremediation project. Furthermore, the two major approaches to enhance bioremediation are biostimulation and bioaugmentation provided that environmental factors, which determine the success of bioremediation, are maintained at optimal range. This review provides more insight into the two major bioremediation techniques, their principles, advantages, limitations and prospects.

Indexed as

Biodegradation, EnvironmentalEnvironmental MonitoringEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationSoil PollutantsSoil PollutantsBioremediationEnvironmentPollutantsTechniques

Identifiers

PMID27638318
PMCPMC5026719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.