Xenobiotic Compounds Present in Soil and Water: A Review on Remediation Strategies
Received Date: Jul 27, 2016 / Accepted Date: Aug 02, 2016 / Published Date: Aug 05, 2016
Synthetic chemicals foreign to a particular ecological system and has a biological activity can be called xenobiotic compounds. Xenobiotics include drugs, industrial chemicals, naturally occurring poisons and environmental pollutants. Some microorganisms have the ability of breaking down the xenobiotic compounds partially or entirely. But some xenobiotics are recalcitrant in nature because of various reasons. Some of them cannot be used as substrate by microbes, some cannot transport them due to absence of transporting enzymes and some are in accessible to microbes due to larger structure and insolubility. They can be divided into different groups depending on their chemical composition. Biological and non-biological remediation techniques are the most reliable techniques to degrade these compounds. Bacterial biodegradation used in land filling and composting are most economical methods which uses both the wild type and genetically modified bacterial strains. There are many non-biological techniques which have been grouped under thermal and non-thermal techniques which are suitable for xenobiotic degradation.
Keywords: Xenobiotic; Remediation; Recalcitrant; Bacterial strains
Xenobiotic compounds are chemicals which are foreign to the biosphere. Depending on their fate in water and soil xenobiotic compounds may become available to microorganisms [1-5]. Most importantly the dominant means of transformation of these compounds are microorganisms. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons, cyclic biphenyls, nitroaromatic compounds, aliphatic and aromatic halogenated compounds, triazines, azo dyes, organic sulphonic acid and many more have xenobiotic structural features [6-20].
Xenobiotics can exert adverse effects on human health by disrupting or interacting with multiple cellular communication pathways that direct growth, development and normal physiological function [21-40]. These compounds are highly toxic in nature and can affect survival of lower as well as higher eukaryotes. These compounds are persistent and remain in the environment for many years leading to bioaccumulation or biomagnification [41-60]. They also find a way into the food chains and the concentrations of such compounds was found to be high even in organisms that do not come in contact with xenobiotics directly. Certain microbes on continuous exposure to xenobiotics develop the ability to degrade the same as a result of mutations. Mutations resulted in modification of gene of microbes so that the active site of enzymes is modified to show increased affinity to xenobiotics [61-79].
This review gives a brief introduction about the technique, its types with advantages and disadvantages from a detailed list of biological and non-biological techniques.
Biological remediation strategies
There are various biological techniques to use to detoxify or degrade the xenobiotics which are listed in Table 1 and Figures 1-8. Followed by their working diagram.
• Uses natural processes to limit the flow of contaminants from chemical spills and also reduces their concentration at contaminated sites.
|• Remediation waste is least which has less impact act on the environment;
• Can be easily combined with other technologies.
|• Ethical issues remain which needs to be correctly perceived by the people.
• Costly and complex site characterization.
|Phytoremediation Uses plants in combination with microorganisms to remediate the contaminated area.||Phytoextraction
• Plants remove dangerous elements or compounds from soil or water, most usually heavy metals, metals that have a high density and may be toxic to organisms even at relatively low concentrations.
|• Least environmental disturbance.
• Solar energy driven
• Used on a large range of contaminants.
• Cost-effective for large contaminated sites
|• Two growing seasons required
• Limited to soils less than one meter from the surface and groundwater less than 3 m from the surface
• Contaminants may enter the food chain through animals which eat the plants used in these projects
•Itis the breakdown of organic contaminants sequestered by plants via: (1) metabolic processes within the plant; or (2) the effect of compounds, such as enzymes, produced by the plant.
• Contaminant is taken in by the plant tissue and then volatlalised in the environment
• Involves filtering water through a mass of roots to remove toxic substances or excess nutrients.
•Involves the stimulation of microbial degradation through the activities
of plants in the root zone
•Root released compounds enhance microbial activity in the rhizosphere
• plants are used as biosensors of subsurface contamination and is a simple, fast, noninvasive and inexpensive method.
• Air and nutrients are injected into the saturated zone to increase the biological activity of the indigenous microorganisms
|•Readily available equipment;
• Cost competitive;
• In situ technology
|• Biochemical and physiological interactions are very complex and needs to be understood
• Migration of constituents can lead to toxicity elsewhere.
process injects air into the contaminated media at a rate designed to maximize in situ biodegradation and minimize or eliminate the off-gassing of volatilized
contaminants to the atmosphere
|• Very economic and easy to install • can be combined with other technologies||• High concentrations canbe toxic
• Low soil permeability doesn’t allows proper implication.
• Good for unsaturated zones of soils.
• Uses bioreactors and selected bacteria to biodegrade the contaminants.
|• Fast degradation
• Effective use of inoculants and surfactant
|• Soil transport required
• Uses cow manure and mixed vegetable waste to remove the toxicants upto 90% from the contaminated soil.
|• Cheap with rapid reaction rate.||• Treatment time more than other techniques
• Requires nitrogen supplementation.
•Involves the piling of petroleum-contaminated soils into piles or heaps and then simulating aerobic microbial activity by aeration and the addition of minerals, nutrients, and moisture
|• Insitu technology therefore no transportation cost.||• Need to control abiotic loss
• Mass transfer problem
• Bioavailability limitation
• Bioremediation treatment process that is performed in the upper soil zone or in biotreatment cells.
|• Relative simple design and
• Short treatment times (six months totwo years under optimal conditions).
|• Required area is high.
• Dust and vapor generation may cause some air pollution.
• Combines elements of bioventing and vacuum-enhanced pumping to remediate the contaminated site.
|• Applied at shallolw as well as deep sites.
• Recovers free product, thus speeding remediation
|• Low soil permeability hampers remediation.
• Soil moisture and oxygen content limits the microbial activities.
• Low temperatures slow remediation.
Table 1: List of biological techniques used in remediation of contaminants with their advantages and disadvantages.
Non Biological remediation strategies
Thermal strategies (Table 2a and Figures 9-16)
• Consists of the following five technologies: electrical resistance heating, steam injection and extraction, conductive heating, radio-frequency heating, and vitrification. With the exception of vitrification, all of these treatment technologies rely on the addition of heat to the soil to increase the removal efficiency of volatile and semivolatile contaminants
|Electrical resistance heating (ERH)
An array of electrodes is used to pass the electrical current through moisture in the soil. As the current flows through the moisture in soil pores, the resistance of the soil produces heat
|• Contaminant toxicity as well as its concentration is checked by this technology
• Commercially available and widely used.
|• Metals are not destroyed and end up in the flue gases or in the ashes.
• Rocky soils need to be screened before use.
|Steam injection and extraction / steam enhanced extraction[SEE])
• Involves injection of steam into injection wells and theremoval of contaminants by three methods: Enhanced volatilization, Enhanced mobility and Hydrous pyrolysis oxidation.
• Uses either an array of vertical heater/vacuum wells or, when the treatment area is within about six inches of the ground surface, surface heater blankets.
|Radio-frequency heating (RFH)
• A high frequency alternating electric field for in situ heating of soils is used.
• Contaminated soil is excavated, screened, and heated to release petroleum from the soil
|In situ vitrification (ISV)
• Converts contaminated soil to stable glass and crystalline solids.
• Involves the destruction or removal of contaminants through exposure to high temperature in treatment cells,
combustion chambers, or other means used to contain
the contaminated media during the remediation
|Hot gas decontamination
The temperature of the contaminated area is raised to 260°C for a specified period of time. The gas effluent from the material is treated in an afterburner system to destroy all volatilized contaminants
|• Waste is stockpiled
Which is easily disposed offlater.
• Permit reuse or disposal of scrap as nonhazardous material
|• Costs of this method are higher than open
• Can lead to explosions from
improperly demilitarized mines or shells.•Slow rate of decontamination
Uses high temperatures from 870°C to 1200°C to volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) halogenated and other refractory organics in hazardous wastes.
|• Used to remediate soils contaminated with explosives and hazardous wastes||• Only one off-site incinerator is permitted to burn
• Specific materials and feed size required
• Bottom ash produced by heavy metals requires stabilization.
• Volatile heavy metals, including lead, cadmium,
mercury and arsenic can cause air pollution.
|Open Burn (OB) and Open Detonation (OD)
• Uses self-sustained combustionignited by an external source, such as flame, heat, or a detonation wave (that does not result in a detonation) to destroy explosives or munitions.
|• Very effective for many types of
explosives, pyrotechnics and propellants
|• Minimum distance requirements for safety purposes.
• Emissions are difficult to
capture for treatment
• Decomposition induced in organic materials by heat in the absence of oxygen.
|• Target contaminant groups for pyrolysis
are SVOCs and pesticides. • Can treat organic contaminants in soils and oily sludges.
|• Specific feed size and materials
• Drying of the soil required
• Highly abrasive feed sometimes damage the
• High moisture content increases treatment costs.
Table 2a: List of non-biological thermal techniques used in remediation of contaminants with their advantages and disadvantages.
Non thermal strategies (Table 2b and Figures 17-27)
|Soil Vapor Extraction (Soil Venting)
• Involves the installation of vertical and/or horizontal wellsin the area of soil contamination. Vacuums are then applied through the wells to evaporate the volatile constituents of the contaminated mass which are subsequently withdrawn through an extraction well.
|• Very efficient, readily available equipments and easy to install
• Requires short treatment times (6-48 months).
|• Effectiveness decreases in low soil permeability.
• Useful only for the unsaturated zone.
• Uses solvents including water in combination with mechanical processes to scrub soils.
|• Effectively reduces the volume of contaminant,
therefore, further treatment or disposal is less problematic
• Used commercially in large scale.
|• Contaminant toxicity is unchanged,
although volume is reduced.
• Less effective when soil contains a
high percentage of silt and clay
• After treatment disposal costs are generated.
• Water is passed through the contaminated soils with a solution that moves the contaminants to an area where they can be removed.
|• Useful to all types of soil contaminants and is generally used in conjunction with other remediation technologies.
• Reduces the need for excavation, handling, or transportation of hazardous substances.
|• Soils with low permeability or heterogeneity are difficult to treat
• Long remediation times.
• Requires hydraulic control to avoid the movement of contaminants off-site.
• Application of low permeability layers of synthetic textiles or clay caps on contaminated areas. Designed to limit the infiltration of precipitation and thus prevent leaching and migration of contaminants away from the site and into the groundwater
|• Comprised of the physical isolation and containment of the contaminated material.||• Lithology of soil site controls the efficacy.
• The efficiency of encapsulation decreases with time.
• Implemented only with shallow contaminated soils.
• Relies on the reaction between a binder and soil to stop/prevent or reduce the mobility of contaminants.
|• Useful and established remediation technology for contaminated soils in many countries in the world.||• Lack of expertise on technical guidance.
• Uncertainty over the durability and rate of contaminant release.
• Residual liability associated with immobilized contaminants remaining on-site
|Stable Isotope Probing
• A method to identify active microorganisms without the prerequisite of cultivation which has been widely applied in the study of microorganisms involved in the degradation of environmental pollutants.
|Polar lipid derived fatty acid-based stable isotope probing (PLFA-SIP)||• Establishes the identity of microorganisms involved in biodegradation.||• Weaknesses of molecular methods (nucleic acid recovery, PCR bias, etc.) and incubation time may result in cross-feeding.|||
|DNA-based stable isotope probing (DNA-SIP)|||
|RNA-based stable isotope probing (RNA-SIP)||[23,24]|
|Fluorescence in situ hybridization and secondary ion mass spectrometry (FISH-SIMS)||[54,55]|
|Stable isotope characterization of small-subunit rRNA|||
|Nanotech Remediation • Uses nanomaterials and nano-products without toxic ingredients to remove toxic chemicals from environment||• Used to stabilize and guard enzymes against mechanical and biotic degradation. Thus increases their half-life and permits recirculation in their use.||• Yet to be exploited commercially||[5,17,18]|
• Transferring ofvolatile components of a liquid into an air stream.
|• Can achieve better than 95% removal efficacy for a range of organic compounds which are insoluble or slightly soluble in water.||• The presence of solids in wastewaters can foul steam strippers and therefore it is generally advantageous to remove these solids before stripping||[1,6]|
• This technology involves direct chemical stripping of halogen atoms from organics in soils, sediments, and sludges..
|• Target compounds are halogenated organics, halogenated SVOCs and pesticides.
• Used for soils and sediments contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds, especially PCBs, dioxins and furans.
|• High clay and high moisture content increases treatment costs.
• Not cost-effective for large waste volumes.
• Sometimes diifficult to capture and treat the residuals.
|Electrokinetic Remediation (EKR)
• An in situ soil processing technology usingelectro-chemical and electro-kinetic processes to desorb (separate) and then remove metals and polar organic contaminants from low permeability soils.
|• Has small impact on environment (soil removal is not required).
• Metals are actually removed from soil unlike stabilization, which leaves the metals in the soil.
|• Efficiency reduced by alkaline soils. • Requires soil moisture.||[60,69]|
|Electrodialytic soil remediation (EDR)
• An electrokinetic method used for removal of heavy metals from soil (and particulate waste products) which uses exchange membranes for separating soil and processing solutions.
|• Can treat the soil as a stationary wet matrix (in-situor on-site) • Can treat the soil in asuspension (with the possibility for combining EDR with soil washing and only treat the fine fraction with EDR) (On-site).||• Yet to be exploited commercially|||
|Photo catalytic Degradation
• It is the alteration of contaminant by light. Typically, the term refers to the combined action of sunlight and air.
|• Complete Mineralization
• No waste disposal problem
• Low cost
|• Limited to surface contaminants||[9,15,72]|
• Uses an oxygen-based oxidant (e.g., ozone or hydrogen peroxide) in combination with UV light.
|• Chemicals used do not pollute the environment.
• Successful with substances such as ferricyanides which cannot be removed by other methods.
|• Low turbidity and suspended solids are necessary for good light transmission.
• Free radical scavengers may interfere with the reactions.
• Uses non-directed physico-chemical complex cation reaction between dissolved contaminants and
charged cellular components (dead biomass).
|• Cost-effective||• Yet to be exploited commercially|||
• The goal is to separate dispersed oil phase from water using porous membranes.
|• Removes dissolved solids effectively.||• Yet to be exploited commercially|||
• The biosensors rely on analysis of gene expression typically by creating transcriptional fusions between a promoter of interest and the reporter gene expression serves as a measure of the availability of specific pollutants in complex environments.
|• Used for nutrient monitoring
• Used for degradation metoblites monitoring
|• Bio elements and chemicals used in the biosensors need to be prevented from leaking out of the biosensor over time (serious issue for non-disposable ones||[39,51,52]|
• Involves reduction/ oxidation (redox) reactions that chemically convert hazardous contaminants to more stable nonhazardous or less toxic compounds.
|• Target treatment group is inorganics.
• Also used but less effective for non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons and pesticides.
|• Incomplete oxidation may occur depending upon the contaminants and oxidizing agent used
• Not cost-effective for high contaminant concentrations.
• Presence of oil and grease in the media reduces efficiency.
Table 2b: List of non-biological non thermal techniques used in remediation of contaminants with their advantages and disadvantages.
My sincere thanks to Dr. Modi DR (Associate Professor of Department of Biotechnology), Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow for his kind support, guidance and providing valuable input to improve this review paper.
- Adams JA, Reddy KR (2003) Extent of benzene biodegradation in saturated soil column during air sparging. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 23: 85-94.
- Anderson A, Mitchell P (2003) Treatment of mercury-contaminated soil, mine waste and sludge using silica micro-encapsulation. TMS Annual Meeting, Extraction and Processing Division, San Diego, CA, pp: 265-274.
- Atagana HI (2004) Co-composting of PAH-contaminated soil with poultry manure. Lett Appl Microbiol 39: 163-168.
- Baker RS, Heron G (2004) In-situ delivery of heat by thermal conduction and steam injection for improved DNAPL remediation. Proceedings of the 4th International Conf. on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio.
- Barbara K, Kuiken T, Otto M (2009) Nanotechnology and in Situ Remediation: A Review of the Benefits and Potential Risks. Environmental Health Perspectives 117: 1823-1831
- Benner ML, Mohtar RH, Lee LS (2002) Factors affecting air sparging remediation systems using field data and numerical simulations. Journal of Hazardous Materials 95: 305-329.
- Beyke G, Fleming D (2002) Enhanced removal of separate phase viscous fuel by electrical resistance heating and multi-phase extraction. 9th Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference, lbuquerque, USA.
- Block P, Brown R, Robinson D (2004) Novel activation technologies for sodium persulfate in situ chemical oxidation. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, Canada
- Boreen AL, Arnold WA, McNeill K (2003) Photodegradation of pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment: A review". Aquatic Sciences 65: 320-341.
- Boschker HTS, Nold SC, Wellsbury P, Bos D, Graaf W, et al. (1998) Direct linking of microbial populations to specific biogeochemical processes by 13C-labelling of biomarkers. Nature 392: 801-804.
- Brillas E, Calpe JC, Cabot PL (2003) Degradation of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid by ozonation catalyzed with Fe2þ and UVA light. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 46: 381-391.
- Brown R (2003) In situ chemical oxidation: performance, practice, and pitfalls. 2003 AFCEE Technology Transfer Workshop, San Antonio, Texas.
- Burken J, Vroblesky D, Balouet JC (2011) Phytoforensics, Dendrochemistry, and Phytoscreening: New Green Tools for Delineating Contaminants from Past and Present. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 6218-6226.
- Burken JG (2004) Uptake and Metabolism of Organic Compounds: Green-Liver Model. In: McCutcheon SC, Schnoor JL, Phytoremediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants. A Wiley-Interscience Series of Texts and Monographs Hoboken, John Wiley, New Jersey, USA, p: 59.
- Burrows HD, Canle LM, Santaballa JA, Steenken S (2002) Reaction pathways and mechanisms of photodegradation of pesticides". Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 67: 71-108.
- Chu W, Chan KH (2003) The mechanism of the surfactant-aided soil washing system for hydrophobic and partial hydrophobic organics. Science of the Total Environment 307: 83-92.
- Cloete TE (2010) Nanotechnology in Water Treatment Applications. Caister Academic Press, Spain, pp: 1-196.
- Cooney CM (1996) Sunflowers Remove Radionuclides From Water in Ongoing Phytoremediation Field Tests." Environmental Science and Technology 30: 194
- Danika L, Norman T (2005) Phytoremediation of toxic trace elements in soil and water. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 32: 514-520.
- Darvishzadeh T, Priezjev NV (2012) Effects of cross flow velocity and transmembrane pressure on microfiltration of oil-in-water emulsions”. Journal of Membrane Science 423: 1-31.
- Dermatas D, Meng X (2003) Utilization of fly ash for stabilization/ solidification of heavy metal contaminated soils. Engineering Geology 70: 377-394.
- Di Palma L, Ferrantelli P, Merli C, Biancifiori F (2003) Recovery of EDTA and metal precipitation from soil flushing solutions. Journal of Hazardous Materials 103: 153-168.
- Diele F, Notarnicola F, Sgura I (2002) Uniform air velocity field for a bioventing system design: some numerical results. International Journal of Engineering Science 40: 1199-1210.
- Feng D, Lorenzen L, Aldrich C, Mare PW (2001) Ex-situ diesel contaminated soil washing with mechanical methods. Minerals Engineering 14: 1093-1100.
- Filler DM, Lindstrom JE, Braddock JF, Johnson RA, Nickalaski R (2001) Cold Regions Science and Technology 32: 143-156.
- Haliburton NUS Environmental Corporation (1995) Installation Restoration Program Technical Evaluation Report for the Demonstration of Radio Frequency Soil Decontamination at Site S-1. U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, pp: 1-1298
- Halmemies S, Grondahl S, Arffman M, Nenonen K, Tuhkanen T (2003) Vacuum extraction based response equipment for recovery of fresh fuel spills from soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials 97: 127-143.
- Haselow J, Block P, Sessa F (2006) Pilot scale application of heat-activated persulfate at a former petroleum underground storage tank area. The 22nd International Conference on Soils, Sediments, and Water, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
- Hejazi RF (2002) Oily Sludge Degradation Study Under Arid Conditions Using a Combination of Landfarm and Bioreactor Technologies. PhD thesis, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Canada.
- Hrapovic L, Brent E, David J, Hood ED (2005) Laboratory study of treatment of trichloroethene by chemical oxidation followed by bioremediation. Environ Sci Technol 39: 2888-2897.
- Huling S, Pivetz B (2006) Engineering Issue: In Situ Chemical Oxidation. Environmental protection Agencey, USA, pp: 1-60.
- Hyman M, Dupont RR (2001) Groundwater and Soil Remediation Process Design and Cost Estimating of Proven Technologies. ASCE Press, USA, pp: 1-534.
- Kaslusky SF, Udell KS (2002) A theoretical model of air and steam co-injection to prevent the downward migration of DNAPLs during steam enhanced extraction. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 55: 213-232.
- Khan FI, Husain T (2002) Evaluation of Contaminated Sites Using Risk Based Monitored Natural Attenuation, Chemical Engineering Progress-AIChE, USA, pp: 34-44.
- Khan FI, Husain T (2003) Evaluation of a petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated site for natural attenuation using ‘RBMNA’ methodology. Environmental Modeling and Software 18: 179-194.
- Kvesitadze G, Khatisashvili G, Sadunishvili T, Ramsden JJ (2006) Biochemical Mechanisms of Detoxification in Higher Plants. Basis of Phytoremediation, Springer Publications, Berlin, pp: 55-207.
- Li P, Sun T, Stagnitti F, Zhang C, Zhang H, et al. (2002) Field-scale bioremediation of soil contaminated with crude oil. Environmental Engineering Science 19: 277-289.
- Liang S, Min JH, Davis MK, Green JF, Remer DS (2003) Use of pulsed-UV processes to destroy NDMA. American Water Works Association 95: 121-131.
- Liu J, Olsson G, Mattiasson B (2004) Short-term BOD (BODst) as a parameter for on-line monitoring of biological treatment process Part I. A novel design of BOD biosensor for easy renewal of bio-receptor. Biosen Bioelect 20: 562-570.
- Logsdon SD, Keller KE, Moorman TB (2002) Measured and predicted solute leaching from multiple undisturbed soil columns. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66: 686-695.
- MacGregor BJ, Bruchert V, Fleischer S, Amann R (2002) Isolation of small-subunit rRNA for stable isotopic characterization. Environmental Microbiology 4: 451-464.
- Manefield M, Whiteley AS, GriKths RI, Bailey M (2002) RNA stable isotope probing, a novel means of linking microbial community function to phylogeny. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68: 5367-5373.
- Manefield M, Whiteley AS, Ostle N, Ineson P, Bailey MJ (2002) Technical considerations for RNA-based stable isotope probing: an approach to associating microbial diversity with microbial community function. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 16: 2179-2183.
- Marchiol L, Fellet G, Perosa D, Zerbi G (2007) Removal of trace metals by Sorghum bicolor and Helianthus annuus in a site polluted by industrial wastes: A field experience. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 45: 379-387.
- Meagher RB (2000) Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 3: 153-162.
- Mendez MO, Maier RM (2008) Phytostabilization of Mine Tailings in Arid and Semiarid Environments-An Emerging Remediation Technology. Environ Health Perspect 116: 278-283
- Mihopoulos PG, Suidan MT, Sayles GD, Kaskassian S (2002) Numerical modeling of oxygen exclusion experiments of anaerobic bioventing. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 58: 209-220.
- Miller R (1996) Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediatoin Technologies Analysis Center, USA, pp: 1-26.
- Morris SA, Radajewski S, Willison TW, Murrell JC (2002) Identification of the functionally active methanotroph population in a peat soil microcosm by stable-isotope probing. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68: 1446-1453.
- Natrajan KA (2008) Microbial aspects of acid mine drainage and its bioremediation. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 18: 1352-1360.
- Nouri J, Khorasani N, Lorestani B, Karami MH, Hassani AH, et al. (2009) Accumulation of heavy metals in soil and uptake by plant species with phytoremediation potential. Environ Earth Sci 59: 315-323.
- Nouri J, Lorestani B, Yousefi N, Khorasani N, Hasani AH, et al. (2011) Phytoremediation potential of native plants grown in the vicinity of Ahangaran lead- zinc mine (Hamedan, Iran). Environ Earth Sci 62: 639-644.
- Orphan VJ, House C, Hinrichs KU, McKeegan KD, DeLong EF (2002) Multiple archaeal groups mediate methane oxidation in anoxic cold seep sediments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 99: 7663-7668.
- Orphan VJ, House CH, Hinrichs KU, McKeegan KD, DeLong EF (2001) Methane-consuming Archaea revealed by directly coupled isotopic and phylogenetic analysis. Science 293: 484-486.
- Otterpohl R (2002) Options for alternative types of sewerage and treatment systems directed to improvement of the overall performance. Water Science and Technology 45: 149-158.
- Ottosen LM, Pedersen AJ, Ribeiro AB, Hansen HK (2005) Case study on the strategy and application of enhancement solutions to improve remediation of soils contaminated with Cu, Pb and Zn by means of electrodialysis. Engineering Geology 77: 317-329.
- Raag (2000) Evaluation of Risk Based Corrective Action Model. Remediation Alternative Assessment Group, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, NF, Canada.
- Robertson D, Burnley S, Barratt R (2003) The Immobilization of Flue Gas Treatment Residues through the Use of a Single Staged Wash and Crystalline Matrix Encapsulation (CME) treatment process. 11th Annual North American Waste to Energy Conferences (NAWTEC11), Tampa, FL, pp: 135-143.
- Rupassara SI, Larson RA, Sims GK, Marley KA (2002) Degradation of Atrazine by Hornwort in Aquatic Systems. Bioremediation Journal 6: 217-224.
- Saichek R, Reddy K (2005) Electrokinetically enhanced remediation of hydrophobic organic compounds in soils: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 35: 115-192.
- Schmidt R, Gudbjerg J, Sonnenborg TO, Jensen KH (2002) Removal of NAPLs from the unsaturated zone using steam: Prevention of downward migration by injecting mixtures of steam and air. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 55: 233-260.
- Soesilo JA, Wilson SR (1997) Site Remediation Planning and Management. CRC Press, New York, pp: 1-1437.
- Sorek A, Atzmon N, Dahan O, Gerstl Z, Kushisin L, et al. (2008) Phytoscreening: The Use of Trees for Discovering Subsurface Contamination by VOCs". Environmental Science & Technology 42: 536-542.
- Subramanian M, Oliver DJ, Shanks JV (2006) TNT Phytotransformation Pathway Characteristics in Arabidopsis: Role of Aromatic Hydroxylamines. Biotechnol Prog 22: 208-216.
- Swarnalatha S, Arasakumari M, Gnanamani A, Sekaran G (2006) Solidification/stabilization of thermally treated toxic tannery sludge. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 81: 1307-1315.
- Taniguchi S, Murakami A, Hosomi M, Miyamura A, Uchida R (1997) Chemical decontamination of PCB-contaminated soil." Chemosphere 34: 1631-1637.
- Teer RG, Brown RE, Sarvis HE (1993) Status of RCRA Permitting of Open Burning and Open Detonation of Explosive Wastes. Presented at Air and Waste Management Association Conference, 86th Annual Meeting and Exposition, Denver, CO.
- US EPA (1995) Geosafe Corporation In Situ Vitrification Innovative Technology Evaluation Report. EPA science Inventory. Office of Research and Development, USA, p: 148.
- US DOE (2002) Final Remedial Action Report for La sagnaTM Phase IIb In-Situ Remediation of Solid Waste Management Unit 91 at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. CDM Federal Programs Corporation, Paducah, Kentucky, USA, p: 80.
- Vroblesky D (2008) "User’s Guide to the Collection and Analysis of Tree Cores to Assess the Distribution of Subsurface Volatile Organic Compounds". U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5088, USA, pp: 1-42.
- Wait ST, Thomas D (2003) The Characterization of Base Oil Recovered From the Low Temperature Thermal Desorption of Drill Cuttings. SPE/EPA Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, San Antonio, TX, pp: 151-158.
- Walter S (2011) Air, 6. Photochemical Degradation. In: Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
- Wang J, Zhao FJ, Meharg AA, Raab A, Feldmann J, et al. (2002) Mechanisms of Arsenic Hyperaccumulation in Pteris vittata. Uptake Kinetics, Interactions with Phosphate, and Arsenic Speciation". Plant Physiology 130: 1552-1561.
- Xiaolei Q, Pedro AJJ, Qilin L (2013) Applications of nanotechnology in water and wastewater treatment. Water research 47: 3931-3946.
- Yen HK, Chang NB, Lin TF (2003) Bioslurping model for assessing light hydrocarbon recovery in contaminated unconfined aquifer. I: Simulation analysis. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 7: 114-130.
- Zhan H, Park E (2002) Vapor flow to horizontal wells in unsaturated zones. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66: 710-721.
- Zhang C, Daprato RC, Nishino SF, Spain JC, Hughes JB (2001) Remediation of dinitrotoluene contaminated soils from former ammunition plants: Soil washing efficiency and effective process monitoring in bioslurry reactors. Journal of Hazardous Materials 87: 139-154.
- Zhang Q, Davis LC, Erickson LE (1998) Effect of vegetation on transport of groundwater and nonaqueous-phase liquid contaminants. Journal of Hazardous Substance Research 1: 1-20.
- Zhang Q, Davis LC, Erickson LE (2001) Plant uptake of methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) from groundwater. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 5: 136-140.
Citation: Godheja J, Shekhar SK, Siddiqui SA, Modi DR (2016) Xenobiotic Compounds Present in Soil and Water: A Review on Remediation Strategies. J Environ Anal Toxicol 6: 392. Doi: 10.4172/2161-0525.1000392
Copyright: © 2016 Godheja J, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricteduse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Share This Article
- Total views: 19012
- [From(publication date): 9-2016 - Mar 27, 2019]
- Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views: 18183
- PDF downloads: 829