The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bioremediation techniques–classification based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects
Open accessAbstract
Environmental pollution has been on the rise in the past few decades owing to increased human activities on energy reservoirs, unsafe agricultural practices and rapid industrialization. Amongst the pollutants that are of environmental and public health concerns due to their toxicities are: heavy metals, nuclear wastes, pesticides, green house gases, and hydrocarbons. Remediation of polluted sites using microbial process (bioremediation) has proven effective and reliable due to its eco-friendly features. Bioremediation can either be carried out ex situ or in situ, depending on several factors, which include but not limited to cost, site characteristics, type and concentration of pollutants. Generally, ex situ techniques apparently are more expensive compared to in situ techniques as a result of additional cost attributable to excavation. However, cost of on-site installation of equipment, and inability to effectively visualize and control the subsurface of polluted sites are of major concerns when carrying out in situ bioremediation. Therefore, choosing appropriate bioremediation technique, which will effectively reduce pollutant concentrations to an innocuous state, is crucial for a successful bioremediation project. Furthermore, the two major approaches to enhance bioremediation are biostimulation and bioaugmentation provided that environmental factors, which determine the success of bioremediation, are maintained at optimal range. This review provides more insight into the two major bioremediation techniques, their principles, advantages, limitations and prospects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vogan, J. L., Focht, R. M., Clark, D. K., & Graham, S. L. (1999) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/s0304-3894(99)00033-3 · Cited by 181
Cited by
Heavy Metal Water Pollution: A Fresh Look about Hazards, Novel and Conventional Remediation Methods
Zamora-Ledezma, C., Negrete-Bolagay, D., Figueroa, F., Zamora-Ledezma, E., Ni, M., Alexis, F., & Guerrero, V. H. (2021) · Environmental Technology & Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.eti.2021.101504 · Cited by 1,246
Kishor, R., Purchase, D., Saratale, G. D., Saratale, R. G., Ferreira, L. F. R., Bilal, M., Chandra, R., & Bharagava, R. N. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jece.2020.105012 · Cited by 1,118
Remediation of soil and water contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon: A review
Ossai, I. C., Ahmed, A., Hassan, A., & Hamid, F. S. (2020) · Environmental Technology & Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.eti.2019.100526 · Cited by 895
Bala, S., Garg, D., Thirumalesh, B. V., Sharma, M., Sridhar, K., Inbaraj, B. S., & Tripathi, M. (2022) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics10080484 · Cited by 763
Ortúzar, M., Esterhuizen, M., Olicón-Hernández, D. R., González-López, J., & Aranda, E. (2022) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.869332 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Azubuike, C. C., Chikere, C. B., & Okpokwasili, G. C.
- Venue
- World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
- Published
- 2016-09-16
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 180-180
- ISSN
- 0959-3993 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0972
- OpenAlex
- W2520370538
- Cited by
- 1,401
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 24.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bioremediation techniques–classification based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11274-016-2137-x
- The paper
- Azubuike, C. C., Chikere, C. B., & Okpokwasili, G. C. (2016). Bioremediation techniques–classification based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-016-2137-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.