Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BioTechnologia logoLink to BioTechnologia
. 2025 Dec 8;106(4):411–420. doi: 10.5114/bta/209980

Use of biosurfactants, microorganism-destructors, and plants for eco-friendly bioremediation technologies on oil-contaminated soils

Andriy Banya 1,✉, Oleksandr Karpenko 2, Tetyana Pokynbroda 1, Olena Karpenko 1, Vira Lubenets 2
PMCID: PMC12848867  PMID: 41613855

Abstract

Background

Soil contamination by oil products is a significant problem that affects the environment, agriculture, economy, and human health, and requires effective solutions. The study aimed to develop effective methods of bioremediation of oil-contaminated soils using microbial preparation D (a mixture of Rhodococcus sp. and Gordonia sp. – a consortium of autochthonous hydrocarbon-degrading micro-organisms), a rhamnolipid biocomplex (RBC), the oxidant calcium peroxide (CaO2), and plant remediants.

Materials and methods

Bioremediation processes were carried out on oil-contaminated clay soil (initial contamination – 9.5%) over 1.5 years. First, the soil was treated with microbial preparation D and CaO2. After 14 days, field peas or sorghum were sown, with seeds treated using an RBC solution. Hydrogen peroxide content and lipid peroxidation index in plants, as well as soil dehydrogenase activity, were determined by spectrophotometry. Additionally, soil phytotoxicity was assessed using test plants, and the residual content of oil products was quantified.

Results

The best effect was achieved with the combined use of microbial preparation D, RBC, and CaO2: the degree of oil contamination in the soil decreased to 1.3%; with microbial preparation D, plants, and RBC, contamination decreased to 1.4–1.6% (compared to the initial 9.5%). The maximum value of dehydrogenase activity was recorded when sorghum, microbial preparation D, and RBC were applied, 2.7 times higher than in the control. After bioremediation, the phytotoxicity of oil-contaminated soils (in test plants) decreased on average by 3.7 times compared to the control.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of the integrated use of hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms, field peas, sorghum, RBC, and CaO2 in bioremediation of oil-contaminated soils was established.

Keywords: oil-contaminated soil, bioremediation, biosurfactants, microbial preparation, plants

Introduction

Among the promising and ecologically acceptable methods of environmental restoration, priority is given to biological approaches (bioremediation, phytoremediation), i.e., the purification of soils and water using specific natural microorganisms and plants (Koshlaf et al. 2017; Rigoletto et al. 2020; Mishra et al. 2021). In biotechnology development, an important task is the creation of active microbial and plant agents, with preference given to consortia based on autochthonous microbiota isolated from contaminated sites and tolerant plants. Currently, bioremediation methods are widely used in global practice for in situ remediation of soils contaminated with petroleum products (Koul et al. 2018; Villalba Primitz et al. 2021).

Bioremediation is considered the most cost-effective technology for restoring technologically disturbed soils (Landa-Acuña et al. 2020), with costs ranging from $5 to $300 per cubic meter, depending on the method applied. In comparison, physico-thermal treatment and incineration cost about US $600 and US $2,000 per cubic meter, respectively, which greatly exceeds the cost of bioremediation (Bianco et al. 2023). The primary cost component of bioremediation depends on the type and level of pollution, as well as transportation and storage of bottom sediments for ex situ treatment.

However, even with active plants and microorganisms, bioremediation is often limited by the hydrophobicity and toxicity of pollutants and their low bioavailability due to strong sorption on soil particles (Souza et al. 2014; Jimoh et al. 2019; Gaur et al. 2021). In this regard, a pressing task is to develop complex remediation approaches, particularly through the use of effective stimulants. Such stimulants may include surface-active substances (surfactants), with the most promising being those of natural origin (biosurfactants) (Chaprăo et al. 2015). Comparable in effectiveness to synthetic surfactants, biosurfactants are, at the same time, environmentally friendly.

Due to their physicochemical properties (desorption of hydrophobic substances from soil, solubilization, and reduction of surface and interfacial tension of solutions), as well as their biological activity, biosurfactants can significantly enhance the efficiency of contaminant degradation and removal by microorganisms and plants (Galabova et al. 2014; Liao et al. 2016). Biosurfactants are widely studied in research on the bioremediation of soils contaminated with persistent pollutants such as hydrocarbons and heavy metals (Eras-Muńoz et al. 2022).

One of the best-known biosurfactants is rhamnolipids–glycolipids composed of one or two rhamnose units acetylated with up to three long-chain hydroxy fatty acids (Esposito et al. 2023). Most rhamnolipid biosurfactants are produced by bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas (Kashif et al. 2022). Their properties enable the solubilization of hydrophobic compounds in the aqueous phase, the formation of emulsions, and the modification of cell surfaces (Varjani and Upasani 2017). The presence of rhamnolipids improves the contact between microbial cells and hydrophobic organic pollutants, which in turn enhances the metabolic activity of hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms and increases remediation efficiency (Khoshkholgh Sima et al. 2019). There are several possible mechanisms for organic pollutants biodegradation with rhamnolipids (Gaur et al. 2022). The first one is the solubilizing biosurfactant effect, which promotes the destruction of hydrophobic pollutants, increasing their bioavailability (Markande et al. 2021). The second is the promotion of microorganisms’ direct attachment to organic pollutants via modulating cellular hydrophobicity (Bao et al. 2022). Also, rhamnolipids affect growth and increase plant immunity (Crouzet et al. 2020). Such advantages of rhamnolipids can be used to improve soil remediation of various oil production objects.

Also noteworthy are chemical oxidants, in particular calcium peroxide, which can contribute to the primary oxidation of contaminants and simultaneously activate bioremediation by enhancing aeration (in soil or water), essential for hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms. In addition, CaO2 absorbs carbon dioxide released during the oxidation of petroleum products, forming calcium carbonate, which helps improve the chemical composition of soil (Pagliarani et al. 2012).

In our study, bioremediation was applied to clean soils from real sites at the Oil and Gas Producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz” (Dolyna, Ivano-Frankivsk region, Ukraine). The experiment lasted 1.5 years, with an initial petroleum contamination level of 9.5%. The main advantages of bioremediation technologies are environmental safety, ease of application, and economic accessibility. In situ bioremediation is most effective at pollution concentrations up to 10%. For optimal results, it is considered necessary to assess the contamination status of a specific site and apply a combination of bioagents and activators. Therefore, the approach presented in this article is economically feasible for use on territories of real sites contaminated with petroleum products at concentrations up to 10%.

The aim of the study was to develop effective bioremediation strategies for the recovery of oil-contaminated soils using biological agents (microorganisms and plants) and activators (biogenic surfactants, oxidants) with different mechanisms of action, and to test their efficiency on soils from oil production sites.

Materials and methods

To study the effectiveness of bioremediation, oil-contaminated clay soil from the area of the Oil and Gas Producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz” (Dolyna, Ivano-Frankivsk region) was used. The soil composition was as follows: clay – 56%, sand – 30%, silt – 10%, other – 4%; pH – 6–6.5, and oil content – 9.5%. The consortium of autochthonous hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms (microbial preparation D) was used as a remediation agent, while field pea (Pisum arvense L.) and sorghum – sudan grass (Sorghum bicolor subsp. drummondii) were applied as remediation plants. As activators, the rhamnolipid biocomplex (RBC), a microbial synthesis product of the Pseudomonas sp. PS-17 strain (Semeniuk et al. 2020), and the chemical oxidant calcium peroxide (CaO2) (PIW “Impuls,” Poland) were used.

Microbial preparation

Hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms were isolated from soils with long-term oil contamination (Oil and Gas Producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz”) using the accumulation culture method (Segi 1983). The isolates were sequentially seeded on Shishkina-Trotsenko medium with crude oil, diesel fraction, or vaseline oil as carbon sources. Stable consortia of hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms were obtained and further separated into strains. Their generic origins were determined through morphological and cytological studies. Primary identification was carried out by seeding onto selective agarized nutrient media. The resulting preparation D consists of a mixture of Rhodococcus sp. and Gordonia sp. – a consortium of autochthonous hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms (1 : 1).

Experimental design

A small-lot experiment was conducted on oil-contaminated soils of the Oil and Gas Producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz” over 1.5 years. The soil was pretreated with microbial preparation D at a ratio of 50 ml of microbial suspension (5 × 106 CFU/ml) per 1 kg of soil. In one experimental variant, soil was treated with CaO2 at 3 g/kg, which was mixed with the entire soil volume. The prepared soil was left for 14 days, after which remediation plants – field pea or sorghum – were sown. Pre-sowing treatment of plant seeds was performed with the biosurfactant RBC (0.01 g/l) for 3 h, with water used as a control.

Plant physiological and biochemical parameters

The hydrogen peroxide content was measured by a spectrophotometric method in plant homogenates after centrifugation (Chen et al. 1999). One milliliter of supernatant was mixed with 3 ml of 0.1% Ti(SO4)2, and the color intensity was assessed at 410 nm using a Shimadzu UVmini-1240 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corp., Japan). The H2O2 content was expressed in mM/g of fresh weight.

Lipid peroxidation (LPO) in plant cells was evaluated by estimating the malondialdehyde (MDA) content based on its interaction with 2-thiobarbituric acid. This reaction produced a colored compound with an absorption maximum at 532 nm, which was measured spectrophotometrically (Bagnyukova et al. 2007).

Soil analysis

Analysis of residual oil-contaminated

Soil samples after the bioremediation process were extracted with tetrachloromethane (or toluene) in a Soxhlet apparatus. The extract was purified from polar compounds using a chromatographic column with aluminum oxide, and the solvent was evaporated under vacuum. The residual oil content was determined gravimetrically (Lurie 1973).

Soil dehydrogenase activity

Dehydrogenase activity was determined by the colorimetric method with 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) (Casida et al. 1964). Soil samples (6 g) were incubated with TTC for 24 h, then extracted with acetone. Absorbance of the extracts was measured at 485 nm using a Shimadzu UVmini-1240 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corp., Japan). Dehydrogenase activity was calculated from the calibration equation according to the amount of 1,3,5-triphenylformazan (TPF) formed (µg TPF per gram of soil in 24 h).

Soil microorganisms

The number of soil microorganisms was determined using the serial dilution method according to Pasteur (Segi 1983). One gram of soil was aseptically introduced into a flask containing 50 ml of sterile water and mixed to obtain a suspension. After sedimentation, 1 ml was aseptically transferred into a test tube with 9 ml of sterile water to obtain a 1 : 1000 dilution. From the first test tube, 1 ml of the mixture was aseptically transferred into the second one, from the second one into the third one, etc., obtaining successive dilutions. From each test tube, 1 ml of suspension was aseptically added to a Petri dish (with 20 ml of nutrient medium), incubated for 5 days at 30°C, followed by the calculation of CFU (colony-forming units) based on the colony count according to dilutions.

Soil phytotoxicity

The phytotoxicity of oil-contaminated soils was assessed using the Berestecky method with germination tests of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) and garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) in Petri dishes (7 days, 23–25°C, in the dark). Substrate humidity was maintained at 70–80% of total moisture capacity, with garden soil used as a control. Seed germination capacity and seedling morphometric indices (length and mass of roots and shoots) were recorded, and the phytotoxic effect (PE, %) was calculated (Berestetskiy 1971).

Statistical analysis

All experiments were performed in triplicate, and results are presented as mean values ± standard deviations (n = 3). Experimental data were processed using Microsoft Excel 2010. Differences between experimental groups were further analyzed with the Statistica software package, version 12.0 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA). Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 (Kucherenko et al. 2001).

Results and discussion

Oil contamination of soil significantly affects plant growth, biochemical indicators, and adaptation to environmental conditions (Gospodarek et al. 2021). To counter the negative impact of pollution, plants can activate a complex of biochemical and physiological processes. These include removal, conjugation into intracellular compounds, compartmentalization of conjugates in cells, decomposition, transformation of pollutants into standard metabolites, or their mineralization (Kvesitadze 2013). For modern bioremediation technologies, the selection of effective remediation activators is an important task. To evaluate the intensity of redox processes that characterize the negative impact of environmental factors on plants, the content of hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde was determined (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The content of hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde in field pea and sorghum after 3 months bioremediation of oil-contaminated soil from the area of the Oil and Gas Producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz”; RBC – rhamnolipid biocomplex (0.01 g/l); D – microbial preparation; initial content of oil-contaminated – 9.5%

The reduction of the studied parameters was observed in field pea and sorghum plants after the treatment of seeds with RBC solution: hydrogen peroxide content by 46% and 19%, respectively, malondialdehyde by 48% and 28%, if compared to the control (Figure 1).

Hydrogen peroxide acts as a second messenger in stress signaling and serves as an indicator of cell damage (Černý et al. 2018). Its accumulation can result from salt stress, chilling, mechanical damage, nutrient deficiency, pathogen infection, or environmental pollution (Khedia et al. 2019). Sanchez et al. (2012) demonstrated that rhamnolipid biosurfactants from Pseudomonas aeruginosa trigger an immune response in Arabidopsis thaliana by inducing the accumulation of signaling molecules and activating defense genes. According to Dupuy et al. (2016), elevated malondialdehyde levels disrupt the physiology of hydrocarbonstressed plants, ultimately inhibiting root growth. Similarly, El-Sheshtawy et al. (2022) studied the effect of biosurfactants from Bacillus megaterium used for presowing seed treatment on the growth and quality of Lactuca sativa under toxic exposure to heavy metals. Their findings showed that B. megaterium biosurfactants significantly improved morphological features, proline content, and antioxidant enzyme activity, while markedly reducing H2O2 levels and lipid peroxidation (El-Sheshtawy et al. 2022).

According to the obtained results, oxidative reactions in plants growing on contaminated soil were activated, as indicated by increased levels of MDA and H2O2, which may reflect a reduction in the overall impact of pollution. After presowing seed treatment with RBC solution, these parameters significantly decreased, suggesting improved adaptive capacity of plants to contaminants. These findings are consistent with our previous laboratory studies on the effects of biosurfactants on plant growth in model oil-contaminated soils (Banya et al. 2015; Karpenko et al. 2015). Moreover, the reduction in oxidative reactions was more pronounced in field pea than in sorghum plants (Figure 1).

To evaluate the effectiveness of the developed bioremediation approaches, the influence of biological factors and stimulants on the remediation of oil-contaminated soils (initial oil content 9.5% w/w) at the facilities of the Oil and Gas Producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz” was tested in a small-lot experiment. The main parameters used to assess remediation effectiveness were residual oil content in the soils, dehydrogenase activity, and the number of soil microorganisms. These indicators were measured three months after the first treatment of contaminated soil (Table 1).

Table 1.

Results of complex bioremediation of oil-contaminated soil at the facility of the Oil and Gas producing department “Dolynanaftogaz”

Experimental variants Oil-contaminated content in soil (% w) Soil dehydrogenase activity (μ g TPF/g of soil) Number of hydrocarbondegrading microorganisms (CFU/g of soil) Number of eterotrophic microorganisms (CFU/g of soil)
Control 8.9 80.2 ± 2.9 3 × 104 6 × 107
Field pea 7.5 126.6 ± 4.7 2 × 105 12 × 108
Field pea + D 6.9 188.3 ± 5.1 2 × 106 5 × 108
Field pea + RBC 6.5 99.9 ± 2.3 8 × 105 8 × 107
Field pea + D + RBC 6.5 192.9 ± 3.7 5 × 106 4 × 108
Sorghum 8.1 87.8 ± 1.5 6 × 104 4 × 106
Sorghum + D 7.7 119.3 ± 2.5 9 × 105 2 × 108
Sorghum + RBC 7.9 127.4 ± 3.2 3 × 105 8 × 107
Sorghum + D + RBC 7.8 233.8 ± 6.8 2 × 106 4 × 108
D + RBC + CaO2 5.9 199.1 ± 3.7 7 × 106 7 × 108
Open in a new tab

RBC – rhamnolipid biocomplex (0.01 g/l), D – microbial preparation, initial content of oil-contaminated – 9.5%.

According to the data (Table 1), after 3 months of bioremediation, all experimental variants showed a reduction in oil content compared with the control. The greatest effect was achieved with the combined use of microbial preparation, biosurfactants, and CaO2, where the residual oil content decreased by 50.8% compared with the control. This effect of surfactants can be attributed to the solubilization of hydrophobic contaminants and their ability to increase microbial cell membrane permeability and enzyme activity (Eras-Muńoz et al. 2022).

Soil oil contamination is associated with water deficits in plants grown under such conditions (da Silva Correa et al. 2022). Changes in soil water–air properties lead to the formation of an impermeable oily film that surrounds seeds and prevents germination (Zió³kowska et al. 2010; da Silva Correa et al. 2022). The degradation of oil contaminants is further enhanced by CaO2, which, according to the literature, promotes partial oxidation of pollutants, improves soil aeration, and thereby stimulates microbial remediation (López et al. 2009; Karpenko et al. 2009).

In field experiments, Gargouri et al. (2013) and Bello-Akinosho et al. (2017) reported that consortia of different microorganisms exhibited significant hydrocarbon removal efficiency in contaminated soils. In our study, a significant improvement effect was also achieved through the gradual application of microbial preparation in combination with the sowing of field pea, whose seeds were pretreated with RBC solution.

Another important indicator characterizing the intensity of the remediation process and the “health of the soil” is soil dehydrogenase activity. In all experimental variants, dehydrogenase activity showed a significant increase: field pea + D + RBC – 2.2 times higher, sorghum + D + RBC – 2.7 times higher, and D + RBC + CaO2 – 2.3 times higher compared with the control. This reflects an increase in the functional activity of the soil biota, particularly hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms.

Another key parameter of the remediation process is the total number of microorganisms, including hydrocarbon degraders (Table 1, Figure 2). The best results were obtained in the variants with microbial preparation combined with plants (5 × 106 CFU/g) and with microorganisms + biosurfactants + CaO2 (7 × 106 CFU/g) (Sihag et al. 2014). Literature indicates that for effective hydrocarbon biodegradation, the population of soil bacteria typically ranges from 104 to 107 CFU/g, while levels below 103 CFU/g correspond to lower biodegradation potential. An increase in the hydrocarbon-degrading microbial population significantly enhances both the rate and efficiency of biodegradation (Roy et al. 2018; Varjani et al. 2019). Based on the obtained results, field pea proved to be the most tolerant and promising remediation plant and was therefore used in subsequent stages of soil purification.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Relationship between oil-contaminated content and the number of soil microorganisms after 3 months bioremediation of oil-contaminated soil. RBC – rhamnolipid biocomplex (0.01 g/l), D – microbial preparation, initial content of oil-contaminated – 9.5%

A linear relationship was established between the change in oil pollutant content and the number of soil microorganisms (Figure 2) in the variants with microbial preparation, plants, and biosurfactant. This effect can be attributed to the stimulation of plant root system growth by rhamnolipid biosurfactants under oil-contaminated conditions (Banya et al. 2015; Karpenko et al. 2015). As the root system develops, it releases exudates (sugars, amino acids) into the soil, which are metabolized by soil microorganisms. This, in turn, influences both the abundance and taxonomic diversity of microorganisms in the rhizosphere (Correa-García et al. 2018; Vives-Peris et al. 2020). Such interactions may also indicate enhanced hydrocarbon degradation and improved soil microbiota activity, serving as markers of improved soil quality. Monitoring of oil-contaminated soils over 17 months of remediation showed that all applied combinations of biological agents and activators were effective (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

The dynamics of the oil-contaminated content in soil of Oil and Gas Producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz” in the complex bioremediation. RBC – rhamnolipid biocomplex (0.01 g/l), D – microbial preparation, initial content of oil-contaminated – 9.5%

At the first stage of soil remediation, the greatest reduction in oil product content was observed in the variant with microbial preparation and field pea (seeds treated with RBC solution). After 12 months of remediation, the best results were obtained with the combination of microorganisms, biosurfactant, and CaO2, where the hydrocarbon content decreased to 4.5% (Table 2). However, after 17 months of the experiment, the residual oil content also decreased significantly in other variants with plants, microbial preparation, and biosurfactants.

Table 2.

Phytotoxicity of soil from the Oil and Gas producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz” after the complex bioremediation

Bioremediation variants
Presowing treatment of seeds Application to the soil Raphanus sativus Lepidium sativum
Control – 85 – 90 –
Oil-contaminated soils
H2O – 40 49 16.6 61.2
Field pea + H2O – 70 24 80 43.5
Field pea + RBC – 90 16.6 80 22.5
Field pea + H2O D 70 34 83 19.3
Field pea + RBC D 75 12.5 80 17.7
Oil-contaminated soil without plants
– D + RBC + CaO2 70 16.6 80 25
Open in a new tab

RBC – rhamnolipid biocomplex (0.01 g/l), D – microbial preparation, initial content of oil-contaminated – 9.5%.

After 17 months, the hydrocarbon content in soil decreased by 3–7 times compared with the initial level (Figure 3). The lowest residual oil content was recorded with the combined use of microorganisms, RBC, and CaO2, where contamination was reduced to 1.3%. A significant decrease was also achieved with microbial preparation, plants, and RBC, with oil content reduced to 1.4–1.6%, confirming the effectiveness of these components in soil remediation (Figure 3).

An important integrated ecological criterion for remediation is the reduction of soil toxicity, particularly phytotoxicity (Beshley et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2020). The toxicological assessment of oil-contaminated soils after complex remediation was conducted using radish (Raphanus sativus L.) and garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) as test plants (Table 2).

It was established that the use of plants, biosurfactants, and microbial preparations reduced soil phytotoxicity. Radish seed germination increased 1.8-fold and garden cress seed germination 4.8-fold compared with the control (Table 2). Similar results were reported by Das et al. (2018) and Tang et al. (2011), who found that biosurfactants improve seed germination rates. The phytotoxic effect of the soil also decreased: for radish by an average of 3.9 times and for garden cress by 3.5 times compared with the control (Table 2).

Thus, the developed technology for complex remediation of oil-contaminated soils employs microorganisms (a consortium of autochthonous hydrocarbon-degrading strains) and remediation plants (field pea and sorghum – sudan grass) as the main biological agents. Biosurfactant (RBC) and oxidant (CaO2) serve as stimulants to enhance remediation efficiency. In our view, biosurfactants can influence all stages of the remediation process: they increase contaminant bioavailability for microorganisms and plants, facilitate their transport into cells, and stimulate plant growth. The application of biosurfactants also increases plant tolerance to pollutants, resulting in more effective remediation. Furthermore, this approach may be applied to greening settlements negatively affected by industrial emissions. The proposed biotechnology can contribute to ecosystem restoration and, consequently, improve public health.

Conclusions

The combined use of microbial preparation D (a mixture of Rhodococcus sp. and Gordonia sp. – a consortium of autochthonous hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms), remediation plants (field pea, sorghum – sudan grass), and activators – RBC and CaO2 – proved effective for the remediation of oil-contaminated soils. The best results were achieved with the combined application of microbial preparation D, RBC, and CaO2, as well as through stepwise soil treatment with microbial preparation followed by the sowing of plants (field pea, sorghum).

Soil dehydrogenase activity increased significantly: field pea + D + RBC by 2.2 times, sorghum + D + RBC by 2.7 times, and D + RBC + CaO2 by 2.3 times compared with the control, indicating enhanced functional bioactivity of the soil biota. The degree of initial soil contamination (9.5%) decreased in variant field pea + D + RBC to 1.3%, and with microbial preparation, plants, and biosurfactant, to 1.4–1.6%. Also, after bioremediation, soil phytotoxicity indicators decreased: with field pea, microbial preparation, and biosurfactant germination improved for garden cress by 4.8 times compared to the control. The phytotoxic effect on the soil also decreased: with radishes by an average of 3.9 times, garden cress by 3.5 times, compared to the control. The developed technology was tested on the territory of the Oil and Gas Producing Department “Dolynanaftogaz,” demonstrating the prospects of this integrated approach. Thus, the biotechnological potential of biosurfactants, microbial preparations, and plants for the remediation of technogenically contaminated soils has been confirmed. The proposed complex technology may be applied for the restoration of areas impacted by oil production, processing, and transport enterprises, and may also be valuable in emergencies (e.g., military operations, terrorist attacks, accidents).

Funding Statement

Funding This study was not funded.

Author contributions

Research concept and design: Andriy Banya, Oleksandr Karpenko, Olena Karpenko. Collection and/or assembly of data: Andriy Banya, Tetyana Pokynbroda. Data analysis and interpretation: Andriy Banya, Oleksandr Karpenko, Olena Karpenko, Tetyana Pokynbroda, Vira Lubenets. Writing the article: Andriy Banya, Oleksandr Karpenko, Olena Karpenko. Critical revision of the article: Olena Karpenko, Tetyana Pokynbroda, Vira Lubenets. Final approval of the article: Andriy Banya, Oleksandr Karpenko, Olena Karpenko, Tetyana Pokynbroda, Vira Lubenets.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bagnyukova TV, Lushchak OV, Storey KB, Lushchak VI. 2007. Oxidative stress and antioxidant defense responses by goldfish tissues to acute change of temperature from 3 to 23°C. J Therm Biol. 32: 227–234. [Google Scholar]
  2. Banya A, Karpenko O, Lubenets V, Baranov V, Novikov V, Karpenko O. 2015. The influence of surface active rhamnolipid biocomplex and ethylthiosulfanilate on growth and biochemical parameters of plants in oil-polluted soils. Biotechnol Acta. 8: 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bao J, Lv Y, Liu C, Li S, Yin Z, Yu Y, Zhu L. 2022. Performance evaluation of rhamnolipids addition for the biodegradation and bioutilization of petroleum pollutants during the composting of organic wastes with waste heavy oil. iScience 25(6): 104403. 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bello-Akinosho M, Adeleke R, Thantsha MS, Maila M. 2017. Pseudomonas sp. (Strain 10-1B): A potential inoculum candidate for green and sustainable remediation. Remediation 27: 75–79. [Google Scholar]
  5. Berestetskiy OA. 1971. Methods for determination of soil toxicity. Kyiv: Harvest, p. 139–243. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beshley ZM, Beshley SV, Baranov VI, Terek OI. 2014. The use of plant test systems to assess the toxicity of man-made contaminated substrates. Bull Kharkiv Natl Agrar Univ Ser Biol. (electronic journal) 1: 97–102. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bianco F, Race M, Papirio S, Esposito G. 2023. A critical review of the remediation of PAH-polluted marine sediments: current knowledge and future perspectives. Resour Environ Sustain. 11: 100101. 10.1016/j.resenv.2022.100101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Casida L, Klein DA, Santoro T. 1964. Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci. 98: 371–376. [Google Scholar]
  9. Černý M, Habánová H, Berka M, Luklová M, Brzobohatý B. 2018. Hydrogen peroxide: its role in plant biology and crosstalk with signalling networks. Int J Mol Sci. 19: 2812. 10.3390/ijms19092812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chaprăo MJ, Ferreira INS, Correa PF, Rufino RD, Luna JM, Silva EJ, Sarubbo LA. 2015. Application of bacterial and yeast biosurfactants for enhanced removal and biodegradation of motor oil from contaminated sand. Electron J Biotechnol. 18: 471–479. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen LM, Kao CH. 1999. Effect of excess copper on rice leaves: evidence for involvement of lipid peroxidation. Bot Bull Acad Sin. 40: 283–287. [Google Scholar]
  12. Correa-García S, Pande P, Séguin A, St-Arnaud M, Yergeau E. 2018. Rhizoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons: a model system for plant microbiome manipulation. Microb Biotechnol. 11: 819–832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Crouzet J, Arguelles-Arias A, Dhondt-Cordelier S, Cordelier S, Pršiæ J, Hoff G, Mazeyrat-Gourbeyre F, Baillieul F, Clément C, Ongena M, et al. 2020. Biosurfactants in plant protection against diseases: rhamnolipids and lipopeptides case study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 8: 1014. 10.3389/fbioe.2020.01014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Das AJ, Kumar R. 2018. Bioslurry phase remediation of petroleum-contaminated soil using potato peels powder through biosurfactant producing Bacillus licheniformis J1. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 15: 525–532. [Google Scholar]
  15. da Silva Correa H, Blum CT, Galvăo F, Maranho LT. 2022. Effects of oil contamination on plant growth and development: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 29: 43501–43515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dupuy J, Leglize P, Vincent Q, Zelko I, Mustin C, Ouvrard S, Sterckeman T. 2016. Effect and localization of phenanthrene in maize roots. Chemosphere 149: 130–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. El-Sheshtawy HS, Mahdy HM, Sofy AR, Sofy MR. 2022. Production of biosurfactant by Bacillus megaterium and its correlation with lipid peroxidation of Lactuca sativa. Egypt J Pet. 31: 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  18. Eras-Muńoz E, Farre A, Sánchez A, Font X, Gea T. 2022. Microbial biosurfactants: a review of recent environmental applications. Bioengineered. 13: 12365–12391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Esposito R, Speciale I, De Castro C, D’Errico G, Russo Krauss I. 2023. Rhamnolipid self-aggregation in aqueous media: a long journey toward the definition of structure–property relationships. Int J Mol Sci. 24(6): 5395. 10.3390/ijms24065395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Galabova D, Sotirova A, Karpenko E, Karpenko O. 2014. Role of microbial surface-active compounds in environmental protection. In: Fanun M (ed.). The role of colloidal systems in environmental protection. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V., p. 41–84. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gargouri B, Karray F, Mhiri N, Aloui F, Sayadi S. 2013. Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons-contaminated soil by bacterial consortium isolated from an industrial wastewater treatment plant. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 89: 978–987. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gaur VK, Manickam N. 2021. Microbial biosurfactants: production and applications in circular bioeconomy. In: Pandey A, Tyagi RD, Varjani S (eds.). Biomass, biofuels, biochemicals: circular bioeconomy – current developments and future outlook. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc., p. 353–378. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gaur VK, Sharma P, Gupta S, Varjani S, Srivastava JK, Wong JWC, Ngo HH. 2022. Opportunities and challenges in omics approaches for biosurfactant production and feasibility of site remediation: strategies and advancements. Environ Technol Innov. 25: 102132. 10.1016/j.eti.2021.102132. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gospodarek J, Rusin M, Kandziora-Ciupa M, Nadgórska-Socha A. 2021. The subsequent effects of soil pollution by petroleum products and its bioremediation on the antioxidant response and content of elements in Vicia faba plants. Energies 14: 7748. 10.3390/en14227748. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jimoh AA, Lin J. 2019. Biosurfactant: a new frontier for greener technology and environmental sustainability. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 184: 109607. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Karpenko O, Banya A, Baranov V, Novikov V, Ko³wzan B. 2015. Influence of biopreparations on phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated soil. Pol J Environ Stud. 24: 2009–2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karpenko O, Lubenets V, Karpenko E, Novikov V. 2009. Chemical oxidants for remediation of contaminated soil and water: a review. Chem Chem Technol. 3: 41–45. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kashif A, Rehman R, Fuwad A, Shahid MK, Dayarathne HNP, Jamal A, Aftab MN, Mainali B, Choi Y. 2022. Current advances in the classification, production, properties and applications of microbial biosurfactants: a critical review. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 306: 102718. 10.1016/j.cis.2022.102718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Khoshkholgh Sima NA, Ebadi A, Reiahisamani N, Rasekh B. 2019. Bio-based remediation of petroleum-contaminated saline soils: challenges, the current state-of-the-art and future prospects. J Environ Manag. 250: 109476. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Khedia J, Agarwal P, Agarwal PK. 2019. Deciphering hydrogen peroxide-induced signalling towards stress tolerance in plants. 3 Biotech. 9: 395. 10.1007/s13205-019-1924-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Koshlaf E, Ball A. 2017. Soil bioremediation approaches for petroleum hydrocarbon-polluted environments. AIMS Microbiol. 3: 25–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Koul B, Taak P. 2018. Biotechnological strategies for effective remediation of polluted soils. Dordrecht: Springer Nature, p. 232. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kucherenko ME, Babenyuk YD, Voitsitskyi VM. 2001. Modern methods of biochemical research. Kyiv: Ukrsociocentr, p. 424. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kvesitadze G. 2013. Degradation of anthropogenic contaminants by higher plants. Biotechnol Acta. 6: 132–143. [Google Scholar]
  35. Landa-Acuña D, Acosta RAS, Hualpa Cutipa E, Vargas de la Cruz C, Luis Alaya B. 2020. Bioremediation: a low-cost and clean-green technology for environmental management. Microb Bioremed Biodegrad. p. 153–171. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee SH, Lee JH, Jung WC, Park M, Kim MS, Lee SJ, Park H. 2020. Changes in soil health with remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soils using two different remediation technologies. Sustainability. 12: 10078. 10.3390/su122310078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Liao C, Xu W, Lu G, Deng F, Liang X, Guo C, Dang Z. 2016. Biosurfactant-enhanced phytoremediation of soils contaminated by crude oil using maize (Zea mays L). Ecol Eng. 92: 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  38. López DAR, Mueller D. 2009. Use of calcium peroxide in bioremediation of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons. Cad Pesqui Ser Biol. 21: 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lurie YY. 1973. Standardized methods of water analysis. Chem. Moscow: p. 376. [Google Scholar]
  40. Markande AR, Patel D, Varjani S. 2021. A review on biosurfactants: properties, applications and current developments. Bioresour Technol. 330: 124963. 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mishra M, Singh SK, Kumar A. 2021. Environmental factors affecting the bioremediation potential of microbes. In: Kumar A, Singh VK, Singh P, Mishra VK (eds.). Microbemediated remediation of environmental contaminants. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc., p. 47–58. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pagliarani V, Paolucci M, di Nauta S. 2012. Use of oxidant chemicals and slow release oxygen compounds for the remediation of a site contaminated by organic compounds. Chem Eng Trans. 28: 253–258. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rigoletto M, Calza P, Gaggero E, Malandrino M, Fabbri D. 2020. Bioremediation methods for the recovery of lead-contaminated soils: a review. Appl Sci. 10: 3528. 10.3390/app10103528. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Roy A, Dutta A, Pal S, Gupta A, Sarkar J, Chatterjee A, Saha A, Sarkar P, Sar P, Kazy SK. 2018. Biostimulation and bioaugmentation of native microbial community accelerated bioremediation of oil refinery sludge. Bioresour Technol. 253: 22–32. 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sanchez L, Courteaux B, Hubert J, Kauffmann S, Renault JH, Clément C, Baillieul F, Dorey S. 2012. Rhamnolipids elicit defense responses and induce disease resistance against biotrophic, hemibiotrophic, and necrotrophic pathogens that require different signaling pathways in Arabidopsis and highlight a central role for salicylic acid. Plant Physiol. 160: 1630–1641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Segi Y. 1983. Methods of soil microbiology. Kolos, p. 107–109. [Google Scholar]
  47. Semeniuk I, Kochubei V, Skorokhoda V, Pokynbroda T, Midyana H, Karpenko E, Melnyk V. 2020. Biosynthesis products of Pseudomonas sp. PS-17 strain metabolites. 1. Obtaining and thermal characteristics. Chem Chem Technol. 14: 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sihag S, Pathak H, Jaroli DP. 2014. Factors affecting the rate of biodegradation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Int J Pure Appl Biosci. 2: 185–202. [Google Scholar]
  49. Souza EC, Vessoni-Penna TC, de Souza Oliveira RP. 2014. Biosurfactant-enhanced hydrocarbon bioremediation: an overview. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad. 89: 88–94. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tang J, Wang M, Wang F, Sun Q, Zhou Q. 2011. Eco-toxicity of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. J Environ Sci. 23: 845–851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Varjani SJ, Upasani VN. 2017. A new look on factors affecting microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad. 120: 71–83. 10.1016/j.ibiod.2017.02.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Varjani SJ, Upasani VN. 2019. Influence of abiotic factors, natural attenuation, bioaugmentation and nutrient supplementation on bioremediation of petroleum crude contaminated agricultural soil. J Environ Manage. 245: 358–366. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Villalba Primitz J, Vázquez S, Ruberto L, Lo Balbo A, Mac Cormack W. 2021. Bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil from Carlini Station, Antarctica: effectiveness of different nutrient sources as biostimulation agents. Polar Biol. 44: 289–303. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vives-Peris V, de Ollas C, Gómez-Cadenas A, Pérez-Clemente RM. 2020. Root exudates: from plant to rhizosphere and beyond. Plant Cell Rep. 39: 3–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ziółkowska A, Wyszkowski M. 2010. Toxicity of petroleum substances to microorganisms and plants. Ecol Chem Eng S. 17: 73–82. [Google Scholar]

Articles from BioTechnologia are provided here courtesy of Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry Polish Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES