Open access

Biodegradation and Bioremediation of Organic Pesticides

Written By

Jesús Bernardino Velázquez-Fernández, Abril Bernardette Martínez-Rizo, Maricela Ramírez-Sandoval and Delia Domínguez-Ojeda

Submitted: December 9th, 2011 Published: August 1st, 2012

DOI: 10.5772/48631

Chapter metrics overview

10,002 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

1. Introduction

Pesticides can be used to control or to manage pest populations at a tolerable level. The suffix “-cide” literally means “kill”, therefore, the term pesticide refers to a chemical substance that kills pests. It is incorrect to assume that the term pesticide refers only to insecticides. Pesticides include many different types of products with different functions or target (Table 1). The pesticide designation is formed by combining the name of the pest (e.g., insect or mite) with the suffix “-cide” [1].

Pesticides could be classified according to their toxicity, chemical group, environmental persistence, target organism, or other features. According to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 9 of the 12 persistent organic chemicals are pesticides. Classes of organic pesticides (consisting of organic molecules) include organochlorine, organophosphate, organometallic, pyrethroids, and carbamates among others [2, 3].

Most pesticides cause adverse effects when reaching organisms. The intensity of the toxic effect varies with time, dose, organism characteristics, environmental presence or pesticide characteristics. Their presence in environment determines the dose and time at which an organism is exposed and could represent a hazard for worldwide life due to their mobility. Hence, the persistence in the environment leads to a risk for life: the more persistent a pesticide is, the worse its environmental impact.

Pesticide persistence in environment is caused by either their physico-chemical properties or the lack of organisms able to degrade them. Light, heat or humidity could lead to loss of some pesticides by either volatilization or degradation [4]. Contrastingly, degradation caused by organisms (biodegradation) could help decreasing considerably the pesticides persistence in environment. This information could be used to improve elimination of the undesirable effects of pollutants by using organisms; such an approach has been called bioremedation.

The ability of organisms to bioremediate pesticides is mainly based on their biodegradation activity. Though bioremediation has been firstly achieved using microorganisms (bacteria or fungi), other organisms like plants or algae can be used. The aim of the present paper is to review the metabolic features which make organisms useful for bioremediation.

Advertisement

2. Overview

At this point, it is worth to mention that there is no convention on some words used in biodegradation. Here, we propose some words to improve communication and understanding bioremediation strategies. Albeit discussion of proper words is beyond aim of the present paper, we believe that before continuing is important to set up some concepts.

“Bioremediation” refers to any strategy used to eliminate undesirable effects of pollutants from environment. It would be desirable to eliminate pollutants but this is not always possible; though, some organisms could confine or immobilize them. For instance, organisms can accumulate contaminants, and reduce their presence and their environmental effect, but do not eliminate them from the environment. Such strategy, which is actually used (v.gr. phytoextraction [5] should be included into the “bioremediation” concept. Those organisms able to bioremediate would be called bioremediators.

PesticideTarget
AlgicidesAlgae
AvicidesBirds
BactericidesBacteria
FungicidesFungi
InsecticidesInsects
Miticides or AcaricidesMites
MolluscicidesSnails
NematicidesNematodes
RodenticidesRodents
VirucidesViruses

Table 1.

Classification of pesticides according to their target.

Traditionally, bioremediation has been achieved by using microorganisms. Nevertheless, The fact that in past decades, several reports on bioremediation using plants, fungi, algae or enzymes (obtained from organisms) has broadened the scope of bioremediation. Words like phytoremediation or rhizoremediation have been used [5, 6], and perhaps it would be necessary to name properly each bioremediation strategy regarding the organism used (Table 2).

Bioremediator organismStrategy
MicroorganismMicrobioremediation or Bioremediation
BacteriaBacterial bioremediation
FungiMycoremediation
PlantsPhytoremediation
RhizosphereRhizoremediation
AlgaePhycoremediation
Biomolecules derived from organismsDerivative bioremediation

Table 2.

Classification of bioremediation strategies according to the organism involved.

The concepts of biodegradation and biotransformation overlap extensively, so that, they are synonymous in appearance. Biodegradation involves the biological reactions that modify the chemical structure of the compound, so, this implies a decrease in toxicity. In contrast, biotransformation reduces the pollutant concentration by either modification or translocation. Thus, biotransformation could end decreasing or increasing the undesirable effects. Their difference is clear in the case of pollutants translocation when biodegradation is not occurring but biotransformation does. Biotransformation concept has been developed for biological detoxification systems [7] and is a key concept in bioremediation strategies because they both are intended to eliminate undesirable effects of pollutants to organisms. Along the text, the word “Biodegrader” will be used for the organism able to biodegrade a certain compound. “Mineralization” refers to biodegradation leading to compounds like CO2 or NH3 which could be biologically assimilated [8].

In the earliest works on bioremediation, the practical purpose was to find or to isolate biodegrader microorganisms or consortia. In an admirable work, Alexander [8] reviewed several biodegrader consortia found in polluted environmental matrixes (soil, sediment or water). Among those tolerant or adapted microorganisms, there might be some proper bioremediators. A plausible explanation for this phenomenon might be that pesticides have exerted evolutionary pressure, so that, only organisms able to tolerate those doses of pesticides will survive. Even though not every tolerant organism is a biodegrader, every biodegrader should be tolerant. Thus, the evolutionary pressure exerted by the pollutant would have selected some tolerant bioremediators. In keeping with this, traditionally, bioremediation studies measured only final concentration of pollutants, but little or no attention to biochemical mechanisms responsible for biodegradation was given. Further research on factors affecting biodegradation process is required to improve selection of bioremediators and application of bioremediation technologies.

2.1. Factors affecting biodegradation process

Some metabolic features related to biodegradation efficiency have been investigated for microorganisms [8]. Any factor which can alter growth or metabolism, would also affect biodegradation. Hence, physicochemical characteristics of the environmental matrix, such as temperature, pH, water potential, oxygen and substrate availability, would influence the biodegradation efficiency (Figure 1). Two more factors are worth to mention: co-metabolism and consortia condition. Some biodegraders need other substrates to degrade pollutants [8]. This phenomenon is called co-metabolism and is especially required for organochlorine compounds. In contrast, it has been shown that the presence of other carbon sources decreases organophosphate biodegradation [9].

When pesticide degradation occurs, it usually involves more than one microorganism, i.e. each microorganism contributes to biodegradation reactions on pesticides, but no example of mineralization by a single strain has been described. It seems that the presence of different microorganisms is essential for an adequate biodegradation. Reported microbiodegraders belong to basidiomycetes or to bacterial classes: gamma-proteobacteria (v.gr.: Pseudomonas, Aerobacter, Acinetobacter, Moraxella, Plesiomonas), beta-proteobacteria (v.gr.: Burkholderia, Neisseria), alpha-proteobacteria (v.gr.: Sphingomonas), actinobacteria (Micrococcus) and flavobacteria (Flavobacterium).

Pollutants might undergo biodegradation reactions like de-chlorination, cleavage, oxidation, reduction by different enzymes. Since biodegradation ability is based on enzymes which are promiscuous and have evolved to detoxifying enzymes, the shorter the duplication time of organism, the more adequate the organism is and the easier to obtain biodegraders. Thus, bacteria with duplication time around minutes are likeable to respond to natural or artificial pollutant-induced evolutionary pressure; this response consists in selecting biotransformation enzymes able to degrade them. These promiscuous enzymes are present in organisms even before the exertion of the evolutionary pressure, which could have induced genetic recombination or mutation leading to enzymes with better biodegradation ability. Copley [10] has excellently reviewed the evolution of metabolic pathways and those factors affecting the efficiency of pollutant biodegradation.

Though bacteria have been proved to be good biodegraders and bioremediators, some fungi, plants and algae could biodegrade pesticides too. Knowing the metabolism of those biodegrader species or strain improves the selection of bioremediation strategy for each site either by biostimulating the indigenous biodegraders (biostimulation) or adding exogenous to the site (bioaugmentation). Moreover, thanks to molecular biology, the metabolic biodegradation ability could be transferred from a biodegrader to another organism, thus improving its degrading capabilities. For instance, using genetic engineering, a whole mineralization pathway for paraoxon –the oxon metabolite of the organophosphate pesticide parathion- was built in a single strain of Pseudomona putida[11]. Taking all this into account, it is clear that biodegradation enzymes play a key role in bioremediation processes and their knowledge could help in designing or choosing the most adequate strategy.

Biotransformation enzymes have been traditionally classified according to the phase they participate. There are three phases of biotransformation. Phase I consists of those enzymes catalyzing reactions which modify pollutant functional groups. In phase II, those enzymes catalyzing transfer reaction of whole groups or biomolecules to pollutants are classified. Phase III includes translocation processes rendering pollutants or their metabolites non bioavailable. For bioremediation purposes, biotransformation enzymes mainly belong to four biochemical types: oxidoreductases, hydrolases, transferases and translocases (or pumps). Among oxidoreductases, the most frequent are monooxygenases (like cytochrome P450), dioxygenases, peroxidases and oxidases. Hydrolases like A-esterases are involved in biodegradation pathways. There are many types of transferases, and they are classified according to the group they conjugate to the xenobiotic: methyl-transferases, acetyl-transferases, glutathione S-transferases among others. For bioremediation purposes, only a couple of translocases have been identified and characterized: boths are pumps that translocate herbicides or glutathione-conjugates to vacuoles.

Figure 1.

Factors affecting biodegradation and bioremediation in soil, water or air.

The biotransformation of every pollutant could be catalyzed by different enzymes depending on organism. There is no a sequence of reaction pre-determined and is independent of the classification described above. Detoxifying enzymes are promiscous and have different affinities and velocities. Their protein nature makes them susceptible to different factors like heat, pH or substrate availability. In general, biotransformation enzymes for bioremediation are present in bacteria, fungi, plants and animals. In the next section, main enzymes from bacteria, fungi and plants involved in organic pesticide degradation are briefly described. Afterwards, some examples of bacterial, plant, fungi or algae bioremediators are reviewed.

Cytochrome P450 (CYP):This consists of a superfamily of heme monooxygenases. They can catalyze reactions of oxidation, reduction or oxidative breakdown of xenobiotics (Figure 2). It seems that they are evolutively conserved since genomes from virus, bacteria, algae, plant, fungi and animals have isoforms of CYP codified [12-21]. In eukaryotic organisms, CYP is found in smooth endoplasmic reticulum, and can biotransform a wide range of pollutants. A review about the biology of CYP can be found elsewhere [22]. CYP catalyzes biodegradation of aromatic or alyciclic compounds and can activate toxics, i.e., CYP action on biomolecules might make them toxic or increase their toxicity.

Figure 2.

Scheme of reactions catalyzed by CYP: A) oxidation (monooxygenation), B) oxidative and C) reductive dehalogenation.

A-esterases:Esterases can be classified according to their interaction with organophosphates. A-esterases can catalyze the hydrolysis of organophosphate or carbamate pesticides (Figure 3), B-esterases are inhibited by organophosphates and C-esterases show no interaction with organophosphates. A-esterases include several enzymes like monophosphatases, phosphodiesterases or phosphotriesterases. They frequently use calcium and have been found in bacteria, fungi and animals [23]. Human paraoxonase is an A-esterase and is involved in susceptibility to organophosphate pesticides; a review on human PON1 could be found elsewhere [24].

Figure 3.

Scheme of reactions catalyzed by A-esterases.

Peroxidases and oxidases:They include some families of enzymes catalyzing redox reactions (Figure 4). Although they are produced by bacteria, fungi, plants and animals, reports on pesticide biodegradation exist for fungi. Peroxidases participate in cell response to oxidative damage and most of them are metalloproteins. They are extemely sensitive to the presence of azide, and inhibitor of metalloenzymes, with the exception of lignine peroxidases from fungi [25]. It is known that ligninolytic fungi secrete peroxidases and oxidases to degrade lignine [25, 26]. These enzymes are highly promiscuous.

Figure 4.

Scheme of reactions catalyzed by peroxidases.

Transferases:Among all known transferases, Glutathione S-transferase (GST) is the mainly involved in biodegradation for bioremediation purposes. GST includes a superfamily of enzymes that have been found in bacteria, fungi, algae, plants and animals [27-29]. Even though they catalyze transference of glutathione to electrophillic pesticides, they can also show hydrolytic and peroxidase activities [29]. Interestingly, GST can also catalyze the de-halogenation of rings (Figure 5, [30]).

Figure 5.

Scheme of reactions catalyzed by GST: A) dehalogenation, B) O-dealkylation.

Translocases:Translocation of molecules from a cell compartment to another is catalyzed by pumps named translocases. Some translocases are involved in the bacterial resistance to drugs, but this activity seems to lack relevance for bioremediation. Although it does not constitute a biodegradation itself, translocation is perhaps the only step of phase III biotransformation. In plants, translocation is part of secondary metabolism and herbicide-tolerance; interestingly, it has been suggested that a previous glutathionation is required for translocation to vacuoles [31, 32].

Advertisement

3. Bacterial bioremediators

Bacteria have been used extensively for bioremediation purposes. These studies have focused on the employment of bacteria, consortia or on the search for biotransformation enzymes. The fast growth, easy handling and low cost make them suitable for bioremediation. Unfortunately, there are some disadvantages such as the disposal of bacterial biomass, pathogenicity, bioactivation, among others. Bacteria can be found in soil, water or even in particles dispersed in air. Unfortunately, only a small fraction of bacteria (<10% from soil) can be cultured in laboratory conditions [33]. Because of this, the number of studies about pesticide biodegradation mechanisms is less than those about biodegraders isolation, and then, little information on biochemical mechanisms or enzymes is available. For organochlorine pesticides, only few biodegration enzymes and genes have been described.

Bacterial biodegradation could take place in anaerobic or aerobic conditions. Although different enzymes participate in each condition, it seems that both, aerobic and anaerobic degradation should happen if a mineralization is expected to occur [34]. It seems that anaerobic metabolism is more adequate for dechlorination [35, 36] and aerobic metabolism produces a cleavage in aromatic or aliphatic cyclic metabolites. The higher persistence of organochlorine in aerobic conditions [37] compared to anaerobic might be caused by the absence of enzymes or more likely by the oxidative damage following organochlorine metabolism. The removal of heteroatoms (like halogens) or heteroatom-containing groups are frequently among the first steps in biodegradation. These steps are catalyzed by monooxygenases, dioxygenases or peroxidases [37, 38], which in aerobic conditions could generate large quantities of free radicals. Thus, anaerobic conditions are more adequate for biodegradation of organochlorine pesticides, while aerobic are better for biodegrading hydrocarbon metabolites from pesticides [5]. In spite of such requirements, some examples of organochlorine pesticides bioremediation could be accomplished in situ[34, 39].

Baczynski and co-workers[36] demonstrated that anaerobic biodegradation of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroetano (DDT), metoxychlor and gamma-hexachlorociclohexane (gamma-HCH), is affected by temperature and the ratio of desorbed pesticide. Moreover, only on chlorine atom could be cleaved from DDT in those conditions. This is in agreement with that reported by Alexander [8] who pointed out that biodegradation could produce molecules with at least one chlorine atom. Bacteria related to Pseudomonas, Neisseria, Moraxellaand Acinetobacterable to degrade almost completely DDT were isolated from Yaqui valley in Sonora, Mexico [40]. However, no information on biodegradation mechanism was compiled out.

Anabaena(a cyanobacterium), Pseudomonas spinosa, Pseudomonas aeruginosaand Burkholderiawere shown to be good biodegraders of endosulfan [41, 42]. The biodegrader KS-2P strain of Pseudomonawas isolated from endosulfan polluted soil by repetitive enrichment in cultures. This strain could reduce the endosulfan concentration in days in a dose-dependent manner. As far as we know, no mineralization of endosulfan has been observed. Microorganisms from the Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Trichoderma, Aerobacter, Muchor, Micrococcusand Burkholderiagenera have been shown to biodegrade dieldrin and endrin [43].

Even when HCH is considered as a persistent organic pollutant, it has been demonstrated that it could be bioremediated in situ [34]. Murthy and Manonmani [44] identified a HCH-biodegrader consortium which contained species from Pseudomonas, Burkholderia, Flavobacteriumand Vibriogenera. The biodegradation was achieved within hours. An excellent review by Phillips and co-workers [45] describes and enlists several HCH biodegraders. Interestingly, they could be grouped in two bacteria (Sphingomonasand Pseudomonas) and one white rot fungi (Phanerochaete chrysosporium). HCH mineralization seems to need aerobic and anaerobic conditions like those provided by particles, i.e. in one hand, oxygen could be bioavailable in soil, on the other, soil particles may present niches for anaerobic metabolism. This could explain also why bacteria grown on coffee beans exhibit better biodegradation than those in medium alone [35]. Genes encoding enzymes able to degrade gamma-HCH have been named lin[37, 46], but further research on biochemical characterization is needed. Comparing biodegradation times for HCH, DDT and endosulfan, differences are observed. Listed in an increasing order of needed time for biodegradation: HCH<DDT<endosulfan. Evidently, this time varies according to the consortium or strains used.

It has been shown that some bacteria could degrade parathion [47] and fenitothrion by using A-esterases [48]. From soil, Singh et al. have isolated a strain related to Enterobacterwhich can mineralize chlorpyrifos, parathion, diazinon, coumaphos and isazofos [49]. Similarly, it has been found that a bacterial biodegrader related to Serratiacan degrade diazinon [50]. The A-esterase, can be encoded on genome or plasmid. A gene from the genome of a strain related to Plesiomonaswhich can hydrolize methylparathion was cloned to Escherichia coli[51]. In contrast, the ability to degrade fenitothrion by a Burkholderiastrain was found to be encoded on plasmids [9]. Unfortunately, the presence of other carbon or phosphorous sources reduces the efficiency of organophosphate biodegradation. This limits severely the application of these biodegraders on bioremediation. Further research about parameters influencing biodegradation efficiency is needed to improve their usefullness for bioremediation.

Advertisement

4. Phytoremediators

Phytoremediation –the use of plants for bioremediation- has been less studied than those strategies using bacteria. Nevertheless, it has been proved to be more effective at large scale for soil, water and even for air pollution than bacteria. The mechanisms involved in the phytoremediation success include several bioremediation strategies like phytoextraction, rhizodegradation, rhizofiltration, phytodegradation, phytostabilization [5, 52] (Figure 6). Several factors affect phytoremediation efficiency (Table 3). The enzymes involved in plant biotransformation are mainly CYP, carboxylesterases, GST and translocases [52]. When using a plant, some cautions have to be considered; for instance, introduction of new species should be avoided and plant should tolerate transplantation and pesticide exposition. [5]. Ramírez-Sandoval et al., [53] have showed that transplantation itself could induce oxidative stress in plant itself.

Phytodegradation and phytoextraction are the key mechanisms of plant defense [54]. Maize (Zea mays) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) can biotransform some herbicides [55]. Crop plants like brinjal (Solanum melongena), spinach (Spinacea oleracea), radish (Raphanus sativus) and rice (Oryza sativa) can bioaccumulate pesticides like DDT and benzene hexachloride [56]. Basil (Ocimum basilicum) can bioremediate endosulfan from soil [53]. Barley (Hordeum vulgare) can translocate herbicide metolachlor into vacuoles [31]. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) sequesters glyphosate in vacuoles [57]. Also, it has been suggested that genetic engineering could be used to improve phytoremediation abilities of poplars [58] and plants in general [59].

Figure 6.

Mechanisms concerning in phytoremediation.

AbsorptionElimination
PhysicalChemical
Site of the plantRoots, leavesLeaves, vacuolesRhizosphere, plant
MechanismPhytoextraction, RhizofiltrationPhytovolatilization, PhytoaccumulationRhizodegradation, phytostimulation, phytodegradation
Limiting factorsTemperature, pH, molecular weight, hydrophobicityPollutant concentration, plant defense mechanismsClass of pollutant, enzymes presence, bioavailability

Table 3.

Factors involved in phytoremediation.

Since biodegrader microorganisms can be found in rhizosphere, pairs of plant-rhizosphere are unequivocally better bioremediators than taken separately. Plants exudate carbohydrates and mucilages that stabilize and nurture microorganisms around roots, providing better conditions for microbial growth than soil alone. As a matter of fact, the amount of microorganims around the plants roots are 10- to 100-fold those found in soil alone [60]. In addition, some plants can provide co-substrates and oxygen to rhizosphere microorganisms, stimulating them to biodegrade pesticides. Phytostimulation has proved to be one of the most helpful strategies since it brings together the bioremediation capabilities of plant and its biorizhosphere -bacteria and mycorhiza [61].

The efficiency of the phytoremediation depends on several parameters like species, substrate, plant tolerance to pollution, among others. Nevertheless, phytoremediation has several advantages such as the control on bacterial biomass, the slow growth leading to few amounts of plant biomass, the large amounts of soil that could be treated. There are disadvantages or limitations such as the decrease in soil content needed for agriculture, times for accomplish bioremediation longer than microbioremediation, absence of native plants in the ecosystem, among others. Enzymes from microorganisms largely contribute to bioremediation when phytostimulation is performed. Because of this, some successful cases of phytoremediation could be explained by a combination of phyto- and rhizodegradation [53]. Rhizoremediation have been used for remediation of the insecticide parathion and the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic or 2,4-D [6]. Pea (Pisum sativum) can stimulate endophytic bacteria to also degrade 2,4-D [62].

Advertisement

5. Myco- and phycoremediators

Although less studied, there is some cases worth to mention of biodegraders fungi or algae. Ligninolytic fungi have proven to be good bioremediators. Unfortunately, the nutritional, humidity and pH requirements for some species of fungi and algae represent a big obstacle for its use. Fungi secrete peroxidases, dioxygenases and oxidases able to biodegrade pesticides more efficiently than cytochrome P450 [25]. Lignine peroxidase, laccase, and dichlorohydroquinone dioxygenase are some examples of biotransformation enzymes produced by fungi like Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ganoderma australeand Fusarium ventricosum; the three former are ligninolytic, and the latter is a saprobe. P. chrysosporiumand F. ventricosumare members of soil microbial community.

It has been shown that P. chrysosporiumcan biodegrade endosulfan [17]; a CYP and an intracellular peroxidase are likely involved. F. ventricosumhas been also proved to degrade endosulfan [63]. It has been shown that fungal peroxidases and dioxygenases are involved in biodegradation of pentachlorophenol [64, 65]. The ligninolytic fungus Ganoderma australe, isolated from the stone pine (Pinus pinea), is a good biodegrader of lindane [66]. This elegant work describes several parameters which has to considered to improve biodegradation like lag time, propagation velocity, biomass growth rate, biodegradation rate, biodegradation/biomass, biomass/propagation and biomass content.

Although in less extent, there are studies on algae ability to bioremediate pesticides in water. Bioremediation appears to occur thanks to bioaccumulation and biodegradation. As in aquatic plants, the biomass overproduction could be a serious disadvantage when using algae for bioremediation waterbodies. In some species, the physicochemical water parameters and other growing conditions might be a matter of caution on choosing these organisms. The unicellular green alga Chlorella fuscavar vacuolata is able to biotransform the herbicide Metfluorazon by a CYP [14]. Recently, it has been described that the alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtiican bioaccumulate and biodegrade herbicide prometryne [67].

Two cases of derivative bioremediation have been reported. 1] Using minced shepherd’s purse roots, herbicide 2,4-D could be successfully degraded in the presence of hydrogen or calcium peroxide. Temperature did not influence degradation and moisture increased biotransformation [68]. 2] An organophosphate hydrolase was immobilized in glass. Even when the activity was decreased in 50% respect to soluble enzymes, its half-life was 280 days and its activity was independent on pH or temperature [69]. It was not clear if these characteristics were derived from immobilization or was inherent to enzyme. Regardless, it is clear that immobilized enzymes could be a bioremediation alternative with some advantages, such as the avoidance of biomass production or issues with other growth requirements which have to be dealt with when working with whole organisms.

Advertisement

6. Advantages and disadvantages of bioremediators

Bioremediation strategies show different advantages compared to physico-chemical or thermal treatments aimed to eliminate organic pollutants from environment (Table 4). We refer to maintainable to that strategy capable of being kept from more than a year in spite of the energy, economic and human resources spent to implement it. For instance, after a pesticide release, physicochemical remediation, micro-bioremediation or phytoremediation could be used in one occasion. Nevertheless, if a continuous or an intermittent pesticide release occurs along the year, some strategies should be applied again. Microbioremediation or phytoremediation would be self-maintained through all the year, while physicochemical and some microbioremediation strategies should be implemented each time a pesticide environmental release happens.

Physico-chemical or thermal remediationMicrobio-remediationPhyto-remediation
Advantages/Disadvantages
CostHighLowLow
Benefit/cost ratioLowHighHigh
Environmental friendlyNoYesYes
AestheticalNoSome casesYes
Self-maintainableNoYesYes
Energy expenditureYesLowLow
Uses the metabolism of several organismsNoSome casesYes
Could be used to bioremediate
SoilYesYesYes
WaterYesYesYes
AirNKNKYes
Requirements
Specific infrastructureYesSome casesNo
Posterior treatments of residuesYesNoNo
Biological control or disposal of microorganismsNAYesNo
TimeShortMediumLarge
Research on bioremediator candidatesNAYesYes
Key points
Bioaugmentation should be avoidedNAYesYes
Posterior pollutant production should be avoidedYesNoNo
Substrate addition neededNASome casesNo
OxygenationSome casesSome casesNo

Table 4.

Due to the exchange of gases, water and metabolites between plants and their surroundings, plants could be used for soil, water or air bioremediation. Water bioremediation could be achieved off-site by filtration throughout soil with bioremediators or in situby aquatic plants able to bioaccumulate metals. Having the plant-rhizosphere ecology, phytoremediation encompasses the microorganism and the plant biodegradation. Moreover, plants exert biological control on rhizosphere biodiversity and quantity; in the same way, fungi and bacteria control them as a result of allelopathy and all the competitive interactions between rhizosphere microorganisms. In understanding of this, it is reasonable that phytoremediation takes more time than microbioremediation, but the former requires no substrate input and generates fewer sub-products. This suggests that phytoremediation could be a more environmental friendly technology than microbioremediation.

Few bioremediators have been found for each pesticide. Certainly, a bioremediators would not biodegrade all kind of pesticides, or even the same kind of pesticides to which they were proved to bioremediate. To illustrate, it cannot be assumed that a parathion bioremediator will also efficiently biodegrade other organophosphates, let alone other kind of pesticides like organochlorine. Therefore, for each pesticide, adequate bioremediators have to be found. Furthermore, to avoid bioagumentation, it is essential to find the most satisfactory bioremediators.

Advertisement

7. Conclusions

The choice of the bioremediation strategy should be made on the basis of type of pesticide, environmental matrix and the organisms present in the ecosystem. Since, the organism is the only eligible factor, the knowledge about features, advantages or disadvantages of organisms could be a decisive factor on bioremediation proficiency. Some parameters have to be addressed to assure bioremediation. In bacteria and fungi, pH, temperature, cell count, biomass growth rate, substrate bioavailability, and moisture are some of them. Plants require less supervision, but finding the best phytoremediator could be a hard and time-consuming task. Derivative bioremediation is a promising strategy. To get all the benefits from this strategy is necessary to carefully select the most adequate enzyme, and to have it well-characterized. Regardless, further research on biodegradation or biotransformation mechanisms in plants, bacteria, fungi or algae is imperative if bioremediation strategies are to be implemented or improved.

References

  1. 1. NorrisA.Past Alaska Master Gardener Manual.2011cited 2012 February, 10th]; Available from:www.uaf.edu/ces/districts/tanana/mg/manual.
  2. 2. GildenR. C.HufflingK.SattlerB.Pesticides and health risks. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN / NAACOG.201039110310Epub 2010/04/23.
  3. 3. Stockholm convention. Persistent organic pollutants.2011cited 2012 February 10th]; Available from:http://chm.pops.int/Convention/ThePOPs/tabid/673/default.aspx.
  4. 4. MMSibandaFocke. W. W.LabuschagneF. J.MoyoL.NhlapoN. S.MaityA.et al.Degradation of insecticides used for indoor spraying in malaria control and possible solutions. Malaria journal.2011307 EOFEpub 2011/10/20.
  5. 5. Environmental Protection Agency.In situ treatment technologies for contaminated soil. Enviromental Protection Agency,2006Contract No.: EPA 542/F-06/013.
  6. 6. KuiperI.LagendijkE. L.BloembergG. V.LugtenbergB. J.Rhizoremediationa.beneficialplant-microbe.interactionMolecular plant-microbe interactions : MPMI.2004171615Epub 2004/01/13.
  7. 7. ParkinsonA.Biotransformationof.xenobioticsIn.CurtisK.editorCasarett and Doull´s Toxicology: The basic science of poisons. 6th ed. USA: McGrow-Hill;2001133224
  8. 8. AlexanderM.Biodegradationbioremedation2nd.edEngland.AcademicPress;1999
  9. 9. HayatsuM.HiranoM.TokudaS.Involvement of two plasmids in fenitrothion degradation by Burkholderia sp. strain NF100. Applied and environmental microbiology.2000664173740Epub 2000/04/01.
  10. 10. Copley SD.Evolution of efficient pathways for degradation of anthropogenic chemicals. Nature chemical biology.20095855966Epub 2009/07/22.
  11. 11. de la PenaMattozzi. M.TeharaS. K.HongT.JDKeaslingMineralization of paraoxon and its use as a sole C and P source by a rationally designed catabolic pathway in Pseudomonas putida. Applied and environmental microbiology.200672106699706Epub 2006/10/06.
  12. 12. LambD. C.LeiL.WarrilowA. G.LepeshevaG. I.MullinsJ. G.WatermanM. R.et al.The first virally encoded cytochrome450Journal of virology. 2009;83(16):8266-9. Epub2009
  13. 13. YangW.BellS. G.WangH.ZhouW.HoskinsN.DaleA.et al.Molecular characterization of a class I450electron transfer system from Novosphingobium aromaticivorans DSM12444. The Journal of biological chemistry.2010Epub 2010/06/26.
  14. 14. ThiesF.BackhausT.BossmannB.GrimmeL. H.Xenobiotic biotransformation in unicellular green algae. Involvement of cytochrome450in the activation and selectivity of the pyridazinone pro-herbicide metflurazon. Plant physiology. 1996;112(1):361-70. Epub1996
  15. 15. Cools HJ, Mullins JG, Fraaije BA, Parker JE, Kelly DE, Lucas JA, et al.Impact of recently emerged sterol 14{alpha}-demethylase (CYP51) variants of Mycosphaerella graminicola on azole fungicide sensitivity. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2011;771138307Epub2011
  16. 16. Leitao AL.Potential of Penicillium species in the bioremediation field. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2009;641393417Epub2009
  17. 17. KullmanS. W.MatsumuraF.Metabolic pathways utilized by Phanerochaete chrysosporium for degradation of the cyclodiene pesticide endosulfan. Applied and environmental microbiology. 1996;622593600Epub1996
  18. 18. StegemanJ. J.LechJ. J.CytochromeP-4.Monooxygenasesystem.inaquatic.speciesCarcinogen.metabolismbiomarkersfor.carcinogenpollutantexposure.Environmental Health Perspectives.1991901019
  19. 19. BolwellG. P.BozakK.ZimmerlinA.Plantcytochrome.P45Phytochemistry3761491506Epub1994
  20. 20. PelkonenO.RaunioH.Metabolic activation of toxins: tissue-specific expression and metabolism in target organs. Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105 Suppl476774Epub1997
  21. 21. Gonzalez FJ, Lee YH.Constitutive expression of hepatic cytochrome450genes. FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 1996;10(10):1112-7. Epub1996
  22. 22. Sevrioukova IF, Poulos TL.Structural biology of redox partner interactions in450cammonooxygenase: a fresh look at an old system. Archives of biochemistry and biophysics. 2011;507(1):66-74. Epub2010
  23. 23. YoshidaH.OikawaS.IkedaM.ReeseE. T. A.novelacid.phosphataseexcreted.byPenicillium.funiculosumthat.hydrolyzesboth.phosphodiestersphosphomonoesterswith.arylleaving.groupsJournal of biochemistry. 1989;10557948Epub1989
  24. 24. Rojas-GarcíaA. E.Velazquez-FernándezJ. B.HumanParaoxonase. . P. O. N.In-AGuillermo. E.editorXenobiotic metabolizing enzymes and xenobiotic receptors: Pharmacological and toxicological aspects: Transworld research network;2010
  25. 25. Aust SD.Mechanisms of degradation by white rot fungi. Environmental health perspectives. 1995;103 Suppl55961Epub1995
  26. 26. YadavM.YadavP.YadavK. D.Purificationcharacterization.coaldepolymerizing.activityof.ligninperoxidase.fromGloeophyllum.sepiariumM. T. C.C-117Biochemistry Biokhimiia. 2009;7410112531Epub2009
  27. 27. HerveC.de FrancoP. O.GroisillierA.TononT.BoyenC.New members of the glutathione transferase family discovered in red and brown algae. The Biochemical journal. 2008;412353544Epub2008
  28. 28. DixonD. P.LapthornA.EdwardsR.Plantglutathione.transferasesGenome.biology2002;3(3.R. E. V. I. E. W.REVIEWS3004. Epub2002
  29. 29. ToribioF.Martinez-LaraE.PascualP.Lopez-BareaJ.Methods for purification of glutathione peroxidase and related enzymes. Journal of chromatography B, Biomedical applications. 1996;684(1-2):77 EOF97 EOFEpub1996
  30. 30. Habig WH, Pabst MJ, Jakoby WB. Glutathione S-transferases.The first enzymatic step in mercapturic acid formation. The Journal of biological chemistry. 1974;2492271309Epub1974
  31. 31. MartinoiaE. G. E.TommasiniR.KreuzK.AmrheinN. A. T.ATP-dependent glutathione S-conjugate "export" pump in the vacuolar membrane of plants. Nature.199336424749
  32. 32. MarrsK. A.AlfenitoM. R.LloydA. M.WalbotV. A.glutathioneS-transferase.involvedin.vacuolartransfer.encodedby.themaize.geneBronze-.Nature. 1995;3756530397400Epub1995
  33. 33. CyconM.Piotrowska-SegetZ.Changes in bacterial diversity and community structure following pesticides addition to soil estimated by cultivation technique. Ecotoxicology. 2009;18563242Epub2009
  34. 34. LangerhoffA.CharlesP.AlphenaarA.ZwiepG.RijnaartsH.Intrinsic and stimulated in situ biodegradation of Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH). 6th international HCl and pesticides forum. Poland2001132185
  35. 35. Barragán-HuertaB. E.Costa-PérezC.Peralta-CruzJ.Barrera-CortésJ.Esparza-GarcíaF.Rodríguez-VázquezR.Biodegradation of organochlorine pesticides by bacteria grown in microniches of the porous structure of green bean coffee. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation.20075923944
  36. 36. BaczynskiT. P.PleissnerD.GrotenhuisT.Anaerobic biodegradation of organochlorine pesticides in contaminated soil- significance of temperature and availability. Chemosphere. 2010;781228Epub2009
  37. 37. SinghB. K.KuhadR. C.SinghA.LalR.TripathiK. K.Biochemical and molecular basis of pesticide degradation by microorganisms. Critical reviews in biotechnology. 1999;193197225Epub1999
  38. 38. Wackett LP.Recruitment of co-metabolic enzymes for environmental detoxification of organohalides. Environmental health perspectives. 1995;103 Suppl5458Epub1995
  39. 39. QureshiA.MohanM.KanadeG. S.KapleyA.PurohitH. J.In situ bioremediation of organochlorine-pesticide-contaminated microcosm soil and evaluation by gene probe. Pest management science. 2009;657798804Epub2009
  40. 40. Carrillo-PérezE.Ruiz-ManriquezA.Yeomans-ReinaH.IsolationIdentification.Evaluationof. a.mixedculture.ofmicroorganisms.withcapability.todegrade. D. D. T.Rev Int Contam Ambient.20042026975
  41. 41. Lee SE, Kim JS, Kennedy IR, Park JW, Kwon GS, Koh SC, et al.Biotransformation of an organochlorine insecticide, endosulfan, by Anabaena species. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 2003;515133640Epub2003
  42. 42. HussainS.ArshadM.SaleemM.KhalidA.Biodegradationof.alphabeta-endosulfanby.soilbacteria.Biodegradation. 2007;18673140Epub2007
  43. 43. MatsumotoE.KawanakaY.YunS. J.OyaizuH.Bioremediation of the organochlorine pesticides, dieldrin and endrin, and their occurrence in the environment. Applied microbiology and biotechnology. 2009;84220516Epub2009
  44. 44. Murthy HM, Manonmani HK.Aerobic degradation of technical hexachlorocyclohexane by a defined microbial consortium. Journal of hazardous materials. 2007;14911825Epub2007
  45. 45. PhillipsT. M.SeechA. G.LeeH.TrevorsJ. T.Biodegradation of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) by microorganisms. Biodegradation. 2005;16436392Epub2005
  46. 46. KumariR.SubudhiS.SuarM.DhingraG.RainaV.DograC.et al.Cloning and characterization of lin genes responsible for the degradation of Hexachlorocyclohexane isomers by Sphingomonas paucimobilis strain B90. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2002;681260218Epub2002
  47. 47. Choi MK, Kim KD, Ahn KM, Shin DH, Hwang JH, Seong CN, et al.Genetic and phenotypic diversity of parathion-degrading bacteria isolated from rice paddy soils. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology. 2009;1912167987Epub2010
  48. 48. KimK. D.AhnJ. H.KimT.ParkS. C.SeongC. N.SongH. G.et al.Genetic and phenotypic diversity of fenitrothion-degrading bacteria isolated from soils. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology. 2009;19211320Epub2009
  49. 49. SinghB. K.WalkerA.MorganJ. A.WrightD. J.Biodegradation of chlorpyrifos by enterobacter strain B-14 and its use in bioremediation of contaminated soils. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2004;708485563Epub2004
  50. 50. Abo-AmerA.Biodegradation of diazinon by Serratia marcescens DI101 and its use in bioremediation of contaminated environment. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology. 2011;2117180Epub2011
  51. 51. ZhongliC.ShunpengL.GuopingF.Isolation of methyl parathion-degrading strain M6 and cloning of the methyl parathion hydrolase gene. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2001;671049225Epub2001
  52. 52. Dietz AC, Schnoor JL. Advances in phytoremediation. Environmental health perspectives.Suppl11638Epub2001
  53. 53. Ramirez-SandovalM.Melchor-PartidaG. N.Muniz-HernandezS.Giron-PerezM. I.Rojas-GarciaA. E.Medina-DiazI. M.et al.Phytoremediatory effect and growth of two species of Ocimum in endosulfan polluted soil. Journal of hazardous materials. 2011;192138892Epub2011
  54. 54. SchroderP.CEScheerDiekmann. F.StampflA.How plants cope with foreign compounds. Translocation of xenobiotic glutathione conjugates in roots of barley (Hordeum vulgare). Environmental science and pollution research international. 2007;14211422Epub2007
  55. 55. HattonP. A.CumminsI.ColeD. J.EdwardsR.Glutathione transferase involved in herbicide detoxification in the leaves of Setaria faberi (giant foxtail). Physiologia Plantarum.1999105916
  56. 56. Mishra VK, Upadhyay AR, Tripathi BD.Bioaccumulation of heavy metals and two organochlorine pesticides (DDT and BHC) in crops irrigated with secondary treated waste water. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 2009;156(1-4):99 EOF107 EOFEpub2008
  57. 57. GeX.d’AvignonD. A.AckermanJ. J.SammonsR. D.Rapidvacuolar.sequestrationthe.horseweedglyphosate.resistancemechanism.Pest management science. 2010;6643458Epub2010
  58. 58. YadavR.AroraP.KumarS.ChaudhuryA.Perspectives for genetic engineering of poplars for enhanced phytoremediation abilities. Ecotoxicology. 2010;198157488Epub2010
  59. 59. AbhilashP. C.JamilS.SinghN.Transgenic plants for enhanced biodegradation and phytoremediation of organic xenobiotics. Biotechnology advances. 2009;27447488Epub2009
  60. 60. WalkerT. S.BaisH. P.GrotewoldE.VivancoJ. M.Root exudation and rhizosphere biology. Plant physiology. 2003;13214451Epub2003
  61. 61. ChaudhryQ.Blom-ZandstraM.GuptaS.JonerE. J.Utilising the synergy between plants and rhizosphere microorganisms to enhance breakdown of organic pollutants in the environment. Environmental science and pollution research international. 2005;1213448Epub2005
  62. 62. GermaineK. J.LiuX.CabellosG. G.HoganJ. P.RyanD.DowlingD. N.Bacterial endophyte-enhanced phytoremediation of the organochlorine herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. FEMS microbiology ecology. 2006;57230210Epub2006
  63. 63. SiddiqueT.OkekeB. C.ArshadM.FrankenbergerW. T.JrEnrichment and isolation of endosulfan-degrading microorganisms. Journal of environmental quality. 2003;3214754Epub2003
  64. 64. Ruttimann-JohnsonC.LamarR. T.Polymerization of pentachlorophenol and ferulic acid by fungal extracellular lignin-degrading enzymes. Applied and environmental microbiology. 1996;621038903Epub1996
  65. 65. SunW.SammynaikenR.ChenL.MaleyJ.SchatteG.ZhouY.et al.Sphingobium chlorophenolicum dichlorohydroquinone dioxygenase (PcpA) is alkaline resistant and thermally stable. International journal of biological sciences. 2011;7811719Epub2011
  66. 66. RigasF.PapadopoulouK.DritsaV.DouliaD.Bioremediation of a soil contaminated by lindane utilizing the fungus Ganoderma australe via response surface methodology. Journal of hazardous materials. 2007;140(1-2):325 EOF332 EOFEpub2006
  67. 67. JinZ. P.LuoK.ZhangS.ZhengQ.YangH.Bioaccumulation and catabolism of prometryne in green algae. Chemosphere. 2012;87327884Epub2012
  68. 68. Park JW, Park BK, Kim JE.Remediation of soil contaminated with 2,4-dichlorophenol by treatment of minced shepherd’s purse roots. Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology. 2006;5021915Epub2006
  69. 69. Munnecke DM.Properties of an immobilized pesticide-hydrolyzing enzyme. Applied and environmental microbiology. 1977;3335037Epub1977

Written By

Jesús Bernardino Velázquez-Fernández, Abril Bernardette Martínez-Rizo, Maricela Ramírez-Sandoval and Delia Domínguez-Ojeda

Submitted: December 9th, 2011 Published: August 1st, 2012