ArticleScientific reports2019
Bioaugmentation failed to enhance oil bioremediation in three soil samples from three different continents.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosing soil bioremediation failure: evidence-weighted pathways from mechanism to field closure.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Bacterial Heavy Metal Resistance in Contaminated Soil.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Emerging contaminants: A One Health perspective.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2024Review
- Integrating Biochar, Bacteria, and Plants for Sustainable Remediation of Soils Contaminated with Organic Pollutants.Environmental science & technology · 2022Review
- Physiological and Genomic Characterization ofMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Indigenous oil-degrading bacteria more efficient in soil bioremediation than microbial consortium and active even in super oil-saturated soils.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Statistical modeling of methylene blue degradation by yeast-bacteria consortium; optimization via agro-industrial waste, immobilization and application in real effluents.Microbial cell factories · 2021Article
- Effect of biostimulation and bioaugmentation on hydrocarbon degradation and detoxification of diesel-contaminated soil: a microcosm study.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2021Article
- Effect of consortium bioaugmentation and biostimulation on remediation efficiency and bacterial diversity of diesel-contaminated aged soil.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2021Article
- Intensification ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Microbial Culture in Minimal Medium With Oil Favors Enrichment of Biosurfactant Producing Genes.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soil samples from Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and Germany were polluted with 3% crude oil. Series of samples were left unbioaugmented, others were bioaugmented with Kuwaiti desert soil with a long history of oil pollution and still others with Kuwaiti marine biofouling material. In the samples from Kuwait, Egypt, and Germany, bioaugmentation did not enhance oil removal, whereas it did in the sample from Lebanon. Taxa from the desert-soil bioaugmented batches, but none of those from the biofouling-material bioaugmented ones, succeeded in colonizing the four studied soils. The dynamics of the hydrocarbonoclastic communities during bioremediation were monitored. Those communities differed in composition, not only according to the type of soil, but also for the same soil; at various phases of bioremediation. Although each soil seemed to have its characteristic microflora, they all were similar in harboring lower and higher actinomycetes and pseudomonads in addition to many other taxa. None of the taxa prevailed through all phases of bioremediation. The most powerful isolate in oil-removal; was Rhodococcus erythropolis (Germany), and the weakest was Arthrobacter phenanthrenivorans (Lebanon). The pure hydrocarbonoclastic isolates tolerated unusually high oil concentrations, up to 30%.
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.