The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrative approaches for assessing the ecological sustainability of in situ bioremediation
Open accessAbstract
Application of microbial metabolic potential (bioremediation) is accepted as an environmentally benign and economical measure for decontamination of polluted environments. Bioremediation methods are generally categorized into ex situ and in situ bioremediation. Although in situ bioremediation methods have been in use for two to three decades, they have not yet yielded the expected results. Their limited success has been attributed to reduced ecological sustainability under environmental conditions. An important determinant of sustainability of in situ bioremediation is pollutant bioavailability. Microbial chemotaxis is postulated to improve pollutant bioavailability significantly; consequently, application of chemotactic microorganisms can considerably enhance the performance of in situ degradation. The environmental fate of degradative microorganisms and the ecological consequence of intervention constitute other important descriptors for the efficiency and sustainability of bioremediation processes. Integrative use of culture-dependent, culture-independent methods (e.g. amplified rDNA restriction analysis, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism, denaturing/thermal gradient gel electrophoresis, phospholipid fatty acid, etc.), computational and statistical analyses has enabled successful monitoring of the above aspects. The present review provides a detailed insight into some of the key factors that affect the efficiency of in situ bioremediation along with a comprehensive account of the integrative approaches used for assessing the ecological sustainability of processes. The review also discusses the possibility of developing suicidal genetically engineered microorganisms for optimized and controlled in situ bioremediation.
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
Bacterial Biofilms: A Common Cause of Persistent Infections
Costerton, J. W., Stewart, P. S., & Greenberg, E. P. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5418.1318 · Cited by 12,167
Mechanisms of membrane toxicity of hydrocarbons
Sikkema, J., de Bont, J. A., & Poolman, B. (1995) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mr.59.2.201-222.1995 · Cited by 2,685
The real-time polymerase chain reaction
Kubista, M., Andrade, J. M., Bengtsson, M., Forootan, A., Jonák, J., Lind, K., Sindelka, R., Sjöback, R., Sjögreen, B., Strömbom, L., et al. (2006) · Molecular Aspects of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.mam.2005.12.007 · Cited by 1,515
Farrell, A., & Quilty, B. (2002) · Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/sj.jim.7000249 · Cited by 122
Cited by
Nicolaou, S. A., Gaida, S. M., & Papoutsakis, E. T. (2010) · Metabolic Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ymben.2010.03.004 · Cited by 538
Plant–bacteria partnerships for the remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils
Khan, S., Afzal, M., Iqbal, S., & Khan, Q. M. (2013) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.09.045 · Cited by 411
Singh, A. K., Bilal, M., Iqbal, H. M. N., Meyer, A. S., & Raj, A. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145988 · Cited by 205
Metadata
- Authors
- Pandey, J., Chauhan, A., & Jain, R. K.
- Venue
- FEMS Microbiology Reviews
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 324-375
- ISSN
- 0168-6445 (ISSN-L)
- 1574-6976
- OpenAlex
- W2164455858
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Integrative approaches for assessing the ecological sustainability of in situ bioremediation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00133.x
- The paper
- Pandey, J., Chauhan, A., & Jain, R. K. (2009). Integrative approaches for assessing the ecological sustainability of in situ bioremediation. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00133.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.