ArticleEnvironmental engineering science2016
Improving Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Biodegradation in Contaminated Soil Through Low-Level Surfactant Addition After Conventional Bioremediation.
Article in Environmental engineering science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metagenomic analysis of ready biodegradability tests to ascertain the relationship between microbiota and the biodegradability of test chemicals.Journal of pesticide science · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in the Study of the Remediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Compound (PAC)-Contaminated Soils: Transformation Products, Toxicity, and Bioavailability Analyses.Environmental science & technology letters · 2020Article
- Spatial analysis of a hydrocarbon waste-remediating landfarm demonstrates influence of management practices on bacterial and fungal community structure.Microbial biotechnology · 2019Article
- Implications of Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils for Human Health and Cancer Risk.Environmental science & technology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Efficacy of bioremediation for soil contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) may be limited by the fractions of soil-bound PAHs that are less accessible to PAH-degrading microorganisms. In previous test-tube-scale work, submicellar doses of nonionic surfactants were screened for their ability to enhance the desorption and biodegradation of residual PAHs in soil after conventional bioremediation in a laboratory-scale, slurry-phase bioreactor. Polyoxyethylene sorbitol hexaoleate (POESH) was the optimum surfactant for enhancing PAH removal, especially the high-molecular weight PAHs. This work extends that concept by treating the effluent from the slurry-phase bioreactor in a second-stage batch reactor, to which POESH was added, for an additional 7 or 12 days. Surfactant amendment removed substantial amounts of the PAHs and oxy-PAHs remaining after conventional slurry-phase bioremediation, including more than 80% of residual 4-ring PAHs. Surfactant-amended treatment decreased soil cytotoxicity, but often increased the genotoxicity of the soil as measured using the DT-40 chicken lymphocyte DNA damage response assay. Potential ecotoxicity, measured using a seed germination assay, was reduced by bioreactor treatment and was reduced further after second-stage treatment with POESH. Of bacteria previously implicated as potential PAH degraders under POESH-amended conditions in a prior study, members of the
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.