ºÚÁÏÍø

Biodegradation; Bioremediation; Soil contamination; Microbial consortia; Phytoremediation; Genetically engineered microorganisms; Enzyme-based remediation; Sustainable remediation; Environmental Pollution

Introduction

Pesticide contamination in soil is a widespread environmental issue resulting from the intensive use of agricultural chemicals to control pests, diseases, and weeds. Pesticides such as herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and nematicides often persist in soil for extended periods, leading to potential risks for human health, non-target organisms, and ecosystems. The toxicity and persistence of many of these chemicals in soil can disrupt microbial communities, degrade soil quality, and contaminate water sources through leaching or runoff. Furthermore, pesticide residues can accumulate in the food chain, posing serious health risks [1]. Traditional methods of pesticide removal, such as physical extraction, chemical degradation, and soil flushing, are not only expensive but also have significant environmental drawbacks. Chemical methods can result in the production of harmful by-products, while physical methods may disturb the soil structure, leading to long-term ecological damage. As a result, biodegradation and bioremediation have gained significant attention as more sustainable, efficient, and environmentally friendly alternatives for addressing pesticide contamination in soil. Biodegradation refers to the natural breakdown of contaminants by microorganisms, plants, or their enzymes, converting harmful chemicals into less toxic or harmless compounds. Soil microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes, have evolved diverse metabolic pathways capable of degrading a wide range of pesticide compounds, even those with complex molecular structures [2]. The use of bioremediation techniques, which harness the power of these microorganisms, has become a key strategy for cleaning up pesticide-polluted soils. In recent years, advancements in genetically engineered microorganisms (GEMs) and microbial consortia have enhanced the efficiency and specificity of pesticide degradation. Additionally, phytoremediation the use of plants and their associated microbial communities for the uptake, transformation, or stabilization of pollutants has emerged as a promising approach for the removal of pesticides from soil, especially in cases of widespread contamination [3]. Furthermore, enzyme-based bioremediation strategies, which involve using enzymes to degrade pesticide residues, are gaining interest for their potential to accelerate the breakdown of pesticides under controlled conditions.

Despite the promising advancements, several challenges remain in the bioremediation of pesticide-contaminated soils. These challenges include the variability of pesticide types, environmental factors (e.g., temperature, pH, moisture), the complexity of soil matrices, and the potential risks of using genetically modified organisms. Additionally, scaling up bioremediation techniques from laboratory and pilot-scale studies to large, real-world applications remains a significant hurdle [4]. This review explores the latest innovations and concepts in biodegradation and bioremediation methods for pesticide-contaminated soils, focusing on recent research developments in microbial, plant-based, and enzyme-mediated strategies. The article aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art in pesticide bioremediation, identify key challenges, and propose future directions for improving the effectiveness and scalability of these methods.

Review of Literature

The biodegradation and bioremediation of pesticides in soil have attracted considerable attention due to the growing concern over the persistence and toxicity of pesticide residues. Various strategies and methods have been developed over the years to mitigate the adverse effects of pesticide contamination. This section reviews recent advancements in microbial, plant-based, and enzyme-mediated bioremediation techniques, highlighting key findings and challenges in the field [5].

Microbial biodegradation of pesticides: Microorganisms, particularly bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes, have shown exceptional potential for the biodegradation of various pesticide classes, including organophosphates, carbamates, organochlorines, and pyrethroids. A variety of microbial species capable of degrading pesticide contaminants through enzymatic activities has been identified. Bacteria numerous bacterial strains, such as Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Sphingomonas, and Rhodococcus, have demonstrated the ability to break down a wide range of pesticides. For example, Pseudomonas putida and Pseudomonas fluorescens have been reported to degrade herbicides like atrazine, while Bacillus subtilis and Sphingomonas species are capable of degrading organophosphates and pyrethroids [6]. These microorganisms can employ several mechanisms, such as hydrolysis, oxidation, and reduction, to detoxify pesticide residues.

Microbial consortia: The use of microbial consortia mixtures of different microbial species that work synergistically has been shown to improve the efficiency of pesticide biodegradation. Microbial consortia can utilize multiple metabolic pathways to degrade different components of complex pesticide mixtures, resulting in enhanced degradation rates [7]. Research has demonstrated that consortia containing Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Acinetobacter species are highly effective in degrading a broad spectrum of pesticides.

Genetically engineered microorganisms (gems): The development of genetically engineered microorganisms (GEMs) has further enhanced bioremediation potential. GEMs can be tailored to express specific enzymes or metabolic pathways that allow for the degradation of recalcitrant or persistent pesticide compounds. For instance, genetically engineered Pseudomonas strains expressing organophosphate hydrolases have shown improved degradation of organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos and diazinon [8]. However, concerns related to the ecological impact of releasing GMOs into the environment remain a challenge.

 Phytoremediation of pesticides: Phytoremediation, the use of plants and their associated microbial communities to remove, degrade, or stabilize pollutants, has emerged as a promising strategy for the remediation of pesticide-contaminated soils. Plants can degrade pesticides through metabolic processes, or by absorbing them into their tissues for storage or transformation.  Phytodegradation some plants, such as Brassica spp., Zea mays (corn), and Triticum aestivum (wheat), have been shown to degrade pesticides by enzymatic processes in their roots, stems, or leaves. For instance, Brassica juncea has been reported to degrade organophosphates, while Populus spp. (willow) has been used for the phytodegradation of herbicides like atrazine [9]. These plants can also stimulate microbial communities in their rhizosphere, enhancing the overall biodegradation process.

Phytoextraction: Certain plants, such as Helianthus annuus (sunflower), can accumulate pesticides from the soil into their tissues, effectively removing the contaminants. Phytoextraction is particularly useful for low-to-moderate contamination levels, though it may be limited for highly toxic pesticides due to potential toxicity to the plant itself. Rhizodegradation the roots of plants play a critical role in facilitating the biodegradation of pesticides by supporting microbial communities in the rhizosphere [10]. These microorganisms can break down pesticides through various metabolic pathways. The use of plant-microbe interactions for pesticide degradation has shown promising results in field studies, demonstrating an integrated approach to phytoremediation.

Enzyme-based bioremediation: Enzyme-based bioremediation is an emerging strategy in which enzymes either from microorganisms or plants are used to break down pesticide residues. Enzymes such as laccases, peroxidases, esterases, and organophosphorus hydrolases have shown potential in degrading a wide range of pesticide chemicals. Laccases and peroxidases these enzymes are produced by various fungal species and some bacteria, and they are particularly effective in degrading aromatic hydrocarbons and organophosphates. For instance, fungal laccases can degrade pesticides such as atrazine and methyl parathion, while peroxidases are used for breaking down organochlorine pesticides. Organophosphorus hydrolases these enzymes, produced by microorganisms such as Pseudomonas and Flavobacterium, are particularly effective in the biodegradation of organophosphate pesticides. These enzymes hydrolyze the phosphate group in organophosphates, rendering the pesticides less toxic and facilitating their complete breakdown. Enzyme Immobilization the immobilization of enzymes on solid supports or within bioreactors is a strategy that can enhance the effectiveness and stability of enzyme-based bioremediation. Immobilized enzymes can be used in situ for continuous degradation of pesticides in soil, providing a promising option for large-scale environmental cleanup. Challenges in pesticide bioremediation: despite the promising potential of biodegradation and bioremediation strategies for pesticide-contaminated soils, several challenges remain. Environmental variability soil properties such as pH, moisture content, temperature, and organic matter can significantly impact the activity of microorganisms and enzymes involved in biodegradation. The effectiveness of bioremediation strategies may vary depending on these environmental factors, leading to inconsistent results. Persistence of pesticides: some pesticides, particularly chlorinated compounds and newer classes like neonicotinoids, are highly persistent in soil and resistant to biodegradation. These chemicals can accumulate in the environment, requiring the development of more effective remediation strategies. Toxicity of breakdown products the biodegradation of certain pesticides may produce toxic intermediates or by-products that are equally harmful or even more toxic than the parent compounds. The potential for harmful metabolites underscores the need for comprehensive monitoring of biodegradation processes. Scalability while laboratory and pilot-scale studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of bioremediation strategies, scaling these methods to large, real-world applications remains a challenge. The complexity of soil matrices, the cost of microbial or plant inoculants, and the need for long-term monitoring and maintenance limit the widespread adoption of bioremediation in large-scale cleanup operations.

Conclusion

The bioremediation of pesticide-contaminated soils has made significant strides in recent years, thanks to advancements in microbial, plant-based, and enzyme-mediated techniques. Microbial degradation, particularly through the use of genetically engineered microorganisms and microbial consortia, has shown considerable potential for enhancing the removal of various pesticide classes from soils. Phytoremediation, utilizing plants and their associated microbes, offers a sustainable and eco-friendly approach to address pesticide contamination, especially for large-scale and widespread contamination. Enzyme-based bioremediation is an emerging field, with enzymes from microorganisms and plants showing promising capabilities in degrading pesticide residues. However, several challenges remain in the widespread implementation of bioremediation techniques. These include the persistence of certain pesticides, the potential toxicity of degradation products, and environmental variability, all of which affect the efficiency of bioremediation strategies. Additionally, scaling up these methods to large, field-scale applications presents logistical and economic hurdles.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Rim D, Wallace LA, Nabinger S, Persily A (2012) . Sci Total Environ. 432: 350-356.

,

2. Singer BC, Pass RZ, Delp WW, Lorenzetti DM, Maddalena RL (2017) . Build Environ. 43: 3235–3242.

, ,

3. Kim H, Kang K, Kim T (2018) .  Sustainability 10: 843.

,

4. Liu Q, Son YJ, Li L, Wood N, Senerat AM, et al. (2022) . Build Environ 207: 108448.

,

5. O’Leary C, Jones B, Hall I (2018) .

,

6. O’Leary C, De Kluizenaar Y, Jacobs P, Borsboom W, Hall I, et al. (2019) . Indoor Air 29: 423-438.

, ,

7. Jacobs P, Cornelissen E (2017) .
8. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer F, Dockery D (2006) . Am J Respir Crit Care Med 173: 667-672.

, ,

9. Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Mack W, Beckerman B, Labree L, et al. (2005) Environ. Health Perspect 113: 201-206.

, ,

10. Zhao X, Guerrero JM, Wu X (2014) . IEEE International Energy Conference. ENERGYCON proceedings.

,