The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bacterial Community Dynamics and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Degradation during Bioremediation of Heavily Creosote-Contaminated Soil
Open accessAbstract
Bacterial community dynamics and biodegradation processes were examined in a highly creosote-contaminated soil undergoing a range of laboratory-based bioremediation treatments. The dynamics of the eubacterial community, the number of heterotrophs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) degraders, and the total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) and PAH concentrations were monitored during the bioremediation process. TPH and PAHs were significantly degraded in all treatments (72 to 79% and 83 to 87%, respectively), and the biodegradation values were higher when nutrients were not added, especially for benzo( a )anthracene and chrysene. The moisture content and aeration were determined to be the key factors associated with PAH bioremediation. Neither biosurfactant addition, bioaugmentation, nor ferric octate addition led to differences in PAH or TPH biodegradation compared to biodegradation with nutrient treatment. All treatments resulted in a high first-order degradation rate during the first 45 days, which was markedly reduced after 90 days. A sharp increase in the size of the heterotrophic and PAH-degrading microbial populations was observed, which coincided with the highest rates of TPH and PAH biodegradation. At the end of the incubation period, PAH degraders were more prevalent in samples to which nutrients had not been added. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis and principal-component analysis confirmed that there was a remarkable shift in the composition of the bacterial community due to both the biodegradation process and the addition of nutrients. At early stages of biodegradation, the α- Proteobacteria group (genera Sphingomonas and Azospirillum ) was the dominant group in all treatments. At later stages, the γ- Proteobacteria group (genus Xanthomonas ), the α- Proteobacteria group (genus Sphingomonas ), and the Cytophaga-Flexibacter-Bacteroides group ( Bacteroidetes ) were the dominant groups in the nonnutrient treatment, while the γ- Proteobacteria group (genus Xathomonas ), the β- Proteobacteria group (genera Alcaligenes and Achromobacter ), and the α- Proteobacteria group (genus Sphingomonas ) were the dominant groups in the nutrient treatment. This study shows that specific bacterial phylotypes are associated both with different phases of PAH degradation and with nutrient addition in a preadapted PAH-contaminated soil. Our findings also suggest that there are complex interactions between bacterial species and medium conditions that influence the biodegradation capacity of the microbial communities involved in bioremediation processes.
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
Basic local alignment search tool
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W., & Lipman, D. J. (1990) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999 · Cited by 98,669
Hall, T. A. (1999) · Nucleic Acids Symposium Series · doi:10.14601/phytopathol_mediterr-14998u1.29 · Cited by 38,297
Muyzer, G., de Waal, E. C., & Uitterlinden, A. G. (1993) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.59.3.695-700.1993 · Cited by 11,429
Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation
Amann, R., Ludwig, W., & SCHLEIFER, K. H. (1995) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.59.1.143-169.1995 · Cited by 9,093
Gee, G. W., & Bauder, J. W. (1986) · SSSA Book Series · doi:10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c15 · Cited by 8,807
Biodegradation and bioremediation
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-1511 · Cited by 1,663
Aging, Bioavailability, and Overestimation of Risk from Environmental Pollutants
Alexander, M. (2000) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es001069+ · Cited by 1,346
Prokaryotic Diversity--Magnitude, Dynamics, and Controlling Factors
Torsvik, V., Øvreås, L., & Thingstad, T. F. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1071698 · Cited by 1,196
The RDP (Ribosomal Database Project) continues
Maidak, B. L. (2000) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.173 · Cited by 643
Microbial Population Changes during Bioremediation of an Experimental Oil Spill
MacNaughton, S. J., Stephen, J. R., Venosa, A. D., Davis, G. A., Chang, Y.-J., & White, D. C. (1999) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.65.8.3566-3574.1999 · Cited by 607
Cited by
Microbial biodegradation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons
Peng, R.-H., Xiong, A.-S., Xue, Y., Fu, X.-Y., Gao, F., Zhao, W., Tian, Y.-S., & Yao, Q.-H. (2008) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00127.x · Cited by 745
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Critical Review of Environmental Occurrence and Bioremediation
Alegbeleye, O. O., Opeolu, B. O., & Jackson, V. A. (2017) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0896-2 · Cited by 448
A comprehensive overview of elements in bioremediation
Juwarkar, A. A., Singh, S. K., & Mudhoo, A. (2010) · Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology · doi:10.1007/s11157-010-9215-6 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Viñas, M., Sabaté, J., Espuny, M. J., & Solanas, A. M.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2005-11
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 7008-7018
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2022013338
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 30
- FWCI
- 15.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Bacterial Community Dynamics and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Degradation during Bioremediation of Heavily Creosote-Contaminated Soil. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.71.11.7008-7018.2005
- The paper
- Viñas, M., Sabaté, J., Espuny, M. J., & Solanas, A. M. (2005). Bacterial Community Dynamics and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Degradation during Bioremediation of Heavily Creosote-Contaminated Soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.71.11.7008-7018.2005
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.