Cited by 27Microbial bioremediation and biosurfactantsPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunitySteroid Chemistry and Biochemistry

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil using hydrocarbonoclastic rhizobacteria, applied through Azadirachta indica rhizosphere

Bhuyan, Bhrigu, Pandey, Piyush·2022·International Journal of Phytoremediation

Abstract

Crude oil/petroleum hydrocarbons (PHs) are major pollutants worldwide. In the present study, three bacterial isolates - Pseudomonas aeruginosa BB-BE3 , P. aeruginosa BBBJ, and Gordonia amicalis BB-DAC were selected for their efficient hydrocarbon degradation and plant growth promotion (PGP) abilities. All three isolates were positive for siderophore production, phosphate solubilization, and IAA production, even in the presence of crude oil. The rhizoremediation ability was validated through pot trials where all three isolates promoted the growth of the Azadirachta indica plant in crude oil-contaminated soils. Treatment with the combination of the plant ( A. indica ) and bacteria, i.e., Pseudomonas aeruginosa BB-BE3 ; P. aeruginosa BBBJ ; Gordonia amicalis BB-DAC showed 95.71, 93.28, and 89.88% removal of TPHs respectively, while the treatment with the plant (only) resulted in 13.44% removal of TPHs whereas, in the control (Sterile bulk soil + Crude oil), the hydrocarbon removal percentage was only 5.87%. The plant tissues were analyzed for catalase (CAT) and peroxidase (POX) activities, and the plants augmented with bacterial strains had significantly low CAT and POX activities as compared to uninoculated control. Therefore, the results suggest that the A. indica plant, in symbiotic association with these hydrocarbonoclastic rhizobacteria, could be used for bioremediation of crude oil-polluted soil.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15226514.2022.2033689

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 10.1007/s12010-015-1603-5 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.08.022 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/15226514.2011.552928 · DOI
  4. 10.19080/IJESNR.2021.28.556238 · DOI
  5. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.62-64.451 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0168-6445(03)00055-X · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1371/journal.pone.0111208 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/15226510802655880 · DOI
  9. 10.1590/S1517-838246120131354 · DOI
  10. 10.1093/aob/mcf118 · DOI
  11. 10.1264/jsme2.ME14090 · DOI
  12. Dhote M, 2017, Int J, 19, 1522
  13. 10.3390/app11083504 · DOI
  14. 10.1080/15226514.2017.1413331 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s00018-002-8459-x · DOI
  16. Hameed A, 2007, Biosci Res, 4, 21
  17. 10.1007/s11274-008-9933-x · DOI
  18. 10.1051/agro:2006011 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/s13762-018-2087-y · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.eti.2017.07.007 · DOI
  21. Kotoky R, 2019, Int J Phytoremediation, 1
  22. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127175 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.05.055 · DOI
  24. 10.1093/molbev/msy096 · DOI
  25. 10.1078/0944-5013-00081 · DOI
  26. 10.18178/ijpmbs.7.2.20-27 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/B978-0-12-821200-4.00006-6 · DOI
  28. 10.1023/A:1004714506156 · DOI
  29. Linu MS, 2009, Int J Agric Sci, 4, 79
  30. 10.1007/s11104-013-1717-x · DOI
  31. Ma B, 2009, Environ Pollut, 159, 855
  32. 10.1104/pp.103.025619 · DOI
  33. 10.4172/2157-7463.1000168 · DOI
  34. 10.1186/s42269-019-0212-9 · DOI
  35. Nigam SK, 1994, Appl Bot Abstr, 14, 35
  36. 10.1080/15226514.2021.1872484 · DOI
  37. 10.1080/02757540412331335988 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.04.005 · DOI
  39. 10.1128/AEM.68.8.3795-3801.2002 · DOI
  40. 10.1080/15287394.2015.1051200 · DOI
  41. Payne SM., 1994, Methods Enzymol, 44, 235
  42. 10.1371/journal.pone.0208325 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00119-0 · DOI
  44. Sateesh MK. 1998. Microbiological investigations on die-back disease of neem ( Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) [Ph.D. Thesis]. Mysore, India: University of Mysore.
  45. 10.1016/0098-8472(95)00001-3 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.02.061 · DOI
  47. 10.1080/07388551.2021.1888066 · DOI
  48. 10.3389/fpls.2018.01502 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.03.030 · DOI
  50. 10.1007/s11356-014-3396-4 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Bhuyan, B., & Pandey, P.
Affiliations
Assam University (IN)
Corresponding author
Pandey, Piyush
Venue
International Journal of Phytoremediation
Published
2022-02-03
Volume
24
Issue
13
Pages
1444-1454
ISSN
  • 1522-6514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-7879
OpenAlex
W4210483815
Cited by
27
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Phytoremediation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microbial bioremediation and biosurfactants
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Steroid Chemistry and Biochemistry
Keywords
petroleum contamination, rhizoremediation, Azadirachta indica, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, plant growth promotion, siderophore production, phosphate solubilization, indole-3-acetic acid, catalase activity, peroxidase activity, total petroleum hydrocarbon removal, crude oil-contaminated soil, bioaugmentation
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Biodegradation, Environmental, Catalase, Hydrocarbons, Petroleum, Phosphates, Plants, Soil, Soil Microbiology, Soil Pollutants, Siderophores, Alphaproteobacteria, Azadirachta, Actinobacteria, Rhizosphere

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