102 https://doi.org/10.19184/geosi.v8i1.30875 Review Article Worldwide Efficiency of Bioremediation Techniques for Organic Pollutants in Soil: A Brief Review Sana Akhtar1, Ayesha Mohsin1*, Aiman Riaz1, Farhan Mohsin2 1Department of Environmental Sciences, Kinnaird College for Women, 93- Jail road, Lahore, Pakistan 2Oslo Metropolitan University, Pilestredet Park 0890, 0176 Oslo, Norway *Corresponding Author, Email address : ayeshamohsin51@gmail.com 1. INTRODUCTION Organic compounds synthesized naturally or anthropogenically have always been stored in the soil. Soil pollution is a major human and environmental issue (Rajavel et al., 2014). Organic contaminants, in general, retain in relatively low quantities in the soil and accumulate over time (Alvarenga et al., 2018). Despite continuously growing levels, the low levels of organic pollutants in the impacted soil make a time-constrained toxicological investigation impossible (Bajaj et al., 2015). Such organic toxins are both hydrophobic and lipophilic in nature, and they can be found in soil in any geographical location of the world due to natural processes such as volcanic eruptions, forest fires, etc. as well as some anthropogenic practices (Ritter et al., 1995). These ABSTRACT Soil pollution is a major human and environmental issue. Among the several components of soil degradation, organic contaminant in soil is regarded as a significant factor that causes considerable damage to the environment along with several health dangers to humans. Polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, poly-brominated biphenyls, organic fuels particularly gasoline and diesel, herbicides, insecticides (carbamate and organophosphorus) are by far the most common forms of organic pollutants identified in soils. The employment of living organisms such as microorganisms and plants in bioremediation technology reduces/degrades, eliminates, and transforms pollutants found in soils, sediments, and water. This review examine and critically view the efficiency of bioremediation techniques for the polluted sites. The most common bioremediation technologies for the treatment of organic pollutants are bioventing, bio-sparging, bio-slurping, bio- augmentation, phytoremediation, bio-immobilization, bio-sorption, composting, land farming, aerobic degradation, co-metabolic and natural attenuation. The efficiency of these techniques depends on the pH, type of soil, level of oxygen, any other electron acceptors, temperature, and the nutrients. Selection of the treatment process depends upon the type of pollutant, concentration of the contaminant, site and source of pollution. All the treatment techniques are not good for all type of pollutants. Cost-effective techniques are mostly used worldwide as they have more public acceptance. Pump and treat methods were mostly used in Past but due to its non-reliability and excessive cost, these techniques are no longer in use. Keywords : Bioremediation Techniques; Soil Pollution; Organic Pollutants; Efficiency, Environmental Contamination ARTICLE INFO Received : 15 June 2022 Revised : 26 March 2023 Accepted : 10 March 2023 Published : 18 April 2023 . Geosfera Indonesia p-ISSN 2598-9723, e-ISSN 2614-8528 available online at : https://jurnal.unej.ac.id/index.php/GEOSI Vol. 8 No. 1, April 2023, 102-116 © 2023 by Geosfera Indonesia and Department of Geography Education, University of Jember. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) https://doi.org/10.19184/geosi.v8i1.30875 https://jurnal.unej.ac.id/index.php/GEOSI https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ 103 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 organic contaminants entered the plant system via various plant mechanisms. Although some organic waste components are biodegradable, metalloids and heavy metals pose a new concern owing to their long-term stability in the soil (Amoakwah et al.,2014). Organic pollutants' impact on the environment can be mitigated to some extent by implementing some bioremediation technologies (Fuentes et al., 2010). Because of its ability to remove numerous organic and inorganic toxins from diverse components of the environment, the technique has received increasing adoption in recent years. Natural remediation of organic and inorganic pollutants is provided by the technology through in- situ and ex-situ environments (Aparicio et al., 2015). Microbes and plants have both been used to achieve maximal disposal and remediation of inorganic and organic pollutants (Bhupinder et al., 2017). Overall, bioremediation can be a useful tool for treating soil contaminated with a wide range of organic pollutants. By using microorganisms that can break down or metabolize these compounds, bioremediation can help to reduce the environmental impact of pollution and promote the health of ecosystems. Table 1. Types of soil that are frequently exploited and can be treated by bioremediation Type of Exploited Soil Description Petroleum-contaminated soils These soils are contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, such as gasoline or diesel fuel, and can be treated by bioremediation using microorganisms that break down these compounds into non-toxic substances Heavy metal-contaminated soils These soils are contaminated with toxic heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, or cadmium, and can be treated by bioremediation using plants or microorganisms that can absorb or precipitate these metals. Pesticide-contaminated soils These soils are contaminated with chemical pesticides, such as organochlorines or organophosphates, and can be treated by bioremediation using microorganisms that break down these compounds into non-toxic substances Chlorinated solvent-contaminated soils These soils are contaminated with chlorinated solvents, such as trichloroethylene (TCE) or perchloroethylene (PCE), and can be treated by bioremediation using microorganisms that degrade these compounds into non-toxic substances. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated soils These soils are contaminated with PCBs, which are toxic and persistent organic pollutants, and can be treated by bioremediation using microorganisms that degrade these compounds into non-toxic substances. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)- contaminated soils These are organic pollutants that are formed during incomplete combustion of fossil fuels or biomass. They can accumulate in soil and can be toxic to plants and animals. Bioremediation can be used to break down PAHs using microorganisms that can metabolize these compounds. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)- contaminated soils These are organic pollutants that can evaporate into the air and can be toxic to humans and animals. Examples include benzene, toluene, and xylene. Bioremediation can be used to treat soil contaminated with VOCs using microorganisms that can metabolize these compounds. 104 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) These are organic pollutants that are commonly found in wastewater and can end up in soil. Examples include antibiotics, hormones, and fragrances. Bioremediation can be used to treat soil contaminated with PPCPs using microorganisms that can metabolize these compounds. Source: (Yoon et al. 2020), (Wang et al. 2016) and (Mukherjee & Kumar 2019) Controlling and optimising bioremediation operations seems to be a complex system with numerous variables (Babaei et al., 2020). These elements includes the incidence of a micro-flora capable of degrading pollutants, the availability of pollutants to the microbial community; and environmental factors (pH, type of soil, level of oxygen, any other kind of electron acceptors, temperature, and the nutrients) (Asiegbu et al., 2015). Depending on the saturation level and aeration in a given area, various strategies are used (Sidhu et al., 2018). In situ procedures are those that are employed to groundwater and soil, on-site with the minimal disruption (Borriss et al., 2020). Ex-situ procedures are those that are employed on groundwater and soil that has been extracted from a site through excavation (soil) (Vidali et al., 2001). 2. BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANTS 2.1 Bioventing The bioventing technique introduces air/oxygen into contaminated media/soil at a pace optimized to maximize in-situ biodegradation while minimizing/eliminating off gassing of volatilized pollutants into the air/atmosphere (Wozniak-karczewaska et al., 2019). Bioventing, as opposed to bio-sparging, that entails pumping air nutrients into the saturated zone, simply pumps air into the unsaturated or vadose zone. Bioventing also destroys less volatile organic pollutants because it requires less air, it can treat soils that are less permeable (Mihopoulos et al., 2002). 2.2 Biosparging The idea driving bio-sparging is basically that nutrients and air is inserted into the layers of soil below the water table, where they will help naturally occurring organisms degrade toxins. Microorganisms native to the area are typically used in this in situ method (Dzinonek et al., 2016). It can be used for the treatment various types of petroleum products that have been dissolved in groundwater, that have become adsorbent to the soil just below water table as well as within the capacity of capillary fringe (Zeneli et al., 2019). It is frequently employed in conjunction to SVE, particularly when volatile compounds are present (Muehlberger et al., 1997). 2.3 Bio-slurping Bio-slurping is a revolutionary in-situ remediation system that combines aspects of vacuum- enhanced pumping and bioventing, to recover free product from soil and groundwater while encouraging aerobic bioremediation of hydrocarbons pollutants (Mapeli et al., 2017). Vacuum extraction removes free product as well as some groundwater from the vadose zone; vapor extraction eliminates high volatility vapors from vadose zone; whereas bioventing improves biodegradation in both the capillary fringe as well as the vadose zone (Roy et al., 2018). The bio- slurping system comprises of one or more wells where a slurp tube of an adjustable length is inserted. The slurp tube, which is coupled to a vacuum pump, is descended into a light non- aqueous phase of liquid layer and extracts free product as well as some groundwater. When LNAPL levels drop somewhat as a result of pumping action, the slurp tube removes vapors (va por extraction) (Speight, 2018). All the liquids (solution of product and groundwater) extracted from a slurp tube are routed to the oil/water separator, while the vapors are routed to the liquid/vapor separator (Bodor et al., 2020). 105 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 2.4 Bio-augmentation Introduction of microbes with specialized catabolic capacities into a polluted environment for supplementation of the indigenous population as well as to speed up or enable pollutant breakdown is known as bio-augmentation (Zaneti et al., 2017). Efficacy of bio-augmentation process is a topic of debate, with both positive and bad findings documented. Bio-augmentation has been shown to be effective in the remediation of Poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments with low or zero intrinsic degradation capacity. Other investigations, however, found that bio-augmentation did not significantly improve biodegradation in contrast to natural attenuation (Major et al., 2006). 2.4 Phytoremediation Phytoremediation techniques are largely distinguished by the structure and functions of the plants. First, phyto-stabilization occurs when plant roots immobilize pollutants such as those deposited in the root surface along with pollutants that are precipitated in root zones (Awa et al., 2020). This method was typically used to decontaminate inorganic compounds, such as oil that included nitrogen, Sulphur, and some heavy metals. Secondly, rhizo-filtration, which occurs when plant roots precipitate contaminants in root zones or absorb polluted solutions into the roots (Cristaldi et al., 2020). This procedure was appropriate for a solution including both organic and inorganic components. Third, rhizo-degradation, which occurs when pollutants are broken down by bacteria in the root zone and is aided by fungi, yeast, and plant exudates like alcohol, sugar, and acids (Ashraf et al., 2019). The method was suitable for the detoxification of organic contaminants. In the fourth place, phyto-extraction is done, which involves the absorption of contaminants by plant roots and subsequent transport into plant organs. This method was appropriate for decontaminating inorganic compounds (Limmmer et al., 2016). Fifth, phyto-degradation, which involves the transformation of ingested contaminants via plant metabolic or enzymatic activities (Abdel Shafy et al., 2018). Sixth, phyto-volatilization, in which ingested contaminants are discharged into the atmosphere as liquid vapor (Ganjar et al., 2012). 2.6 Bio-immobilization Bio-immobilization is a bioremediation technique used for the treatment of organic pollutants in soil. In this technique, microorganisms are immobilized in a matrix such as a gel, foam, or membrane, which is then applied to the contaminated soil. The immobilized microorganisms degrade the organic pollutants in the soil, while the matrix helps to protect them from environmental stresses and maintain their activity over a longer period of time. The immobilization mechanism is a biological phenomenon that is governed by bacteria that eat inorganic nitrogen and produce organic forms of biological macromolecules and amino acids (Cristorean et al., 2016). Mineralization and immobilization occur continuously and concurrently, transforming nitrogen from an inorganic to an organic state by immobilization and back from an organic to an inorganic state by breakdown and mineralization (Battle- Aguilar et al., 2011). The use of bioimmobilization is an alternate remediation method for reducing the risk posed by pollutants that cannot be biodegraded, such as metals, metalloids, radionuclides, or persistent organic pollutants that can be biotransformed reasonably easily but not biodegraded. Overall, the efficiency of bio-immobilization for the treatment of organic pollutants in soil depends on a variety of factors, including the type and concentration of pollutants, the characteristics of the soil, and the design of the immobilization system. However, studies have shown that bio- immobilization can be an effective and sustainable bioremediation technique for the treatment of contaminated soil (Mateju et al., 2010). 2.7 Bio-sorption Heavy metal and organic compound bio-sorption occurs as a result of physicochemical reactions between functional groups and metal on the bio-sorbent's surface. Ion exchange, physical adsorption, and chemical sorption are among the mechanisms involved, which are unrelated to metabolism (Salehi et al., 2017). Microorganisms' cell walls are mostly lipids, proteins 106 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 and polysaccharides with amino, phosphate, sulphate and carboxyl groups to create interactions with metals and their complexes. This type of bio-sorption happens quickly and can be reversed (Mustapha et al., 2015). 2.8 Composting Composting is the type of aerobic process that uses microbes to breakdown organic substances, resulting in thermogenesis and the formation of inorganic and organic chemicals (Macaulay et al., 2014). Composting matrices and composts are high in xenobiotic decomposing microorganisms including actinomycetes, bacteria, and lingo-lytic fungus, which can breakdown pollutants to harmless chemicals like carbon dioxide and water (Semple et al., 2001). 2.9 Land farming Land farming is a bioremediation technique that involves spreading contaminated soil on an area of land and then promoting the growth of microorganisms in the soil to degrade the organic pollutants (Li et al., 2020). The most common type some common land farming techniques used for the treatment of organic pollutants in soilis bioaugmentation and biostimulation. Bioaugmentation, microorganisms that are known to degrade specific organic pollutants are added to the contaminated soil to accelerate the biodegradation process. The microorganisms can be added as pure cultures or as a mixed consortium of microorganisms. Bioaugmentation has been shown to be effective in treating soil contaminated with hydrocarbons, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and petroleum hydrocarbons (Haritash & Kaushik, 2016). Biostimulation, the growth of indigenous microorganisms in the contaminated soil is stimulated through the addition of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and other growth-promoting substances. Biostimulation can enhance the activity of the microorganisms already present in the soil, thereby accelerating the biodegradation of organic pollutants (Liu & Yang, 2021). It is the technique has been commonly used by mineral oil-processing industries. It is very cost effective and simple technique for the treatment of PAHs due to oil spills (Juwarkar et al., 2010). This technique was first used by US to treat industrial oil waste (Sayara et al., 2010). Land farming converts the toxic oil waste into simpler compounds such as water and carbon dioxide. However its efficiency is effected by the release of volatile organic compunds to the atmosphere, during the early stages of the remediation process (Okere et al., 2012, Wick et al., 2011). 2.10 Aerobic degradation It is the in-situ technique that is used for the treatment of hydrocarbon in the polluted soil. This technique is usually used for the treatment of hazardous material, as it is the cost effective treatment for oil spills (Hmidet et al., 2019). A crude oil contains different toxic compounds, so the single strain of bacteria is not enough for the treatment. Bio slurry is the technique used in the combination with aerobic degradation with aerobic degradation to increase the efficiency of the treatment process (Venkateswar et al., 2010, Venkata et al., 2010). 2.11 Co-metabolic Cometabolic bioremediation is a technique used for the treatment of organic pollutants in soil. In this technique, microorganisms are stimulated to degrade pollutants in the presence of a primary substrate that is not itself degraded. The primary substrate serves as a source of energy and nutrients for the microorganisms, while the degradation of the organic pollutant occurs as a side reaction (Yang et al., 2016). It is in-situ bioremediation toluene injection technique effective for the removal of TCE (Tricycloethylene) (Banerjee et al., 2010). This technique gives the efficiency between87-99% depending upon the hydrogeological characteristics of the site (Arulazhagan et al., 2011; Fukushima et al., 2011). Overall, cometabolic bioremediation is a promising technique for the treatment of organic pollutants in soil, particularly for pollutants that are difficult to degrade using other bioremediation techniques. However, the efficiency of the technique depends on a variety of factors, including the availability and suitability of the primary substrate, the characteristics of the soil, and the design of the bioremediation system (Mangwani et al., 2020). 107 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 2.12 Natural Attenuation It is the low cost soil remediation technique as it has no adverse effect on human and environment. It is used for the treatment of chemical spills (Iniguez Franco et al., 2016). It is mostly used in the groundwater aquifers where the pollution source is covered. It is non-engineered, natural and slow biodegradation process which requires long term monitoring (Gohil et al., 2014; Khodakovskaya et al., 2013). Natural Attenuation is mainly used for BTEX and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Biofilteration is used to remove VOCs and inorganic gases conventionally by incineration and chemical scrubbing. Removal of contaminant gases depends upon the soil porosity. Sufficient time is required for the complete removal of pollutants (Jin et al., 2014). 3. DISCUSSION Bioventing is used to treat the petroleum pollutants such as diesel. It is 95% effective for TPH. Bioventing is easy to install and maintain. It requires less treatment times. It requires highly permeable soil for good efficiency. It is effective for unsaturated or vadose zone. Too much concentration of pollutant may affect the process efficiency. It is also a cost-effective process. (Li, et al., 2011). Biosparging is usually applied to the site where there are homogenous soil conditions. Presence of silt and sand can affect the efficiency of the process. It is not effective for non- biodegradable compounds and only effective for VOCs treatment. Cost of the treatment process depends upon the thickness of the saturated zone (Girma et al., 2015). Bio-slurping is usually applied to the sites where there is shallow ground water below 30m. It is used to speed up the natural remediation process in the unsaturated zone of soil. Low permeability of soil may negatively affect the treatment efficiency. Too much or too little moisture content affects the microbial activity. It is the cost-effective treatment process but the low temperatures may results in decreasing the speed of the whole treatment process (Sabale et al., 2012; Dixit et al., 2015) In order to improve the efficiency of the process, bioagumentation is the process in which we usually use microbial consortium instead of pure culture. This improves the efficiency of the whole process from 60% to 75% within the time period of 42 days. The overall efficiency of the bioaugmentation depends upon the temperature. pH, moisture content, nutrient level and the type of pollutant. Bioagumentation is effective for the treatment of PAHs mostly (Kulshrshtha et al., 2014). Phytoremediation is usually applied to heavy metals, PCBs, PAHs, insecticides, surfactants, explosives, etc. This technique has minimum environmental impacts. It can be used to treat various compounds cost-effectively but it requires proper disposal of the used plants. Flooding and drought may negatively affect the efficiency of phytoremediation. Pollutants are converted into less harmful or simpler compounds such as water and carbon dioxide. Biomobilization is the treatment of the contaminated zone to avoid human and animal exposure. The process depends upon the depth of biological activity in soil and the depth of the polluted area. If the contaminated zone is out of the reach of animals and plants specie, then we leave the site to be naturally treated with the passage of time (Bell et al., 2014). Biosorption is the cost effective method for the treatment of heavy metals in the soil. It is a cost effective and easy to maintain remediation technique. It requires some optimal parameters such as temperature, organism population for the effective treatment process. Temperature should be maintained at 40-45°C. Different types of bacterial strain used in the process affect the efficiency of the treatment process. Most effective bacteria for Biosorption are Proteus Mirabilis and Bacillus Subtilis (Barruita et al., 2010). 108 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 Table 2. Comparison of efficiencies of the different treatment technologies Sr. No. Treatment technologies Pollutants to be treated Efficiency 1. Bioventing Petroleum pollutants / TPH / diesel 95% 2. Biosparging VOCs 95-99% 3. Bio-slurping PAHs 85% 4. Bioagumentation PAHs 75% 5. Phytoremediation Heavy metals / PCBs / PAHs / insecticides/ explosives, etc. 95% 6. Biomobilization PAHs 90% 7. Biosorption Heavy metals 95% 8. Composting PAHs 99% 9. Aerobic degradation Hazardous materials / TPH / PAHs 95% 10. Land Farming PAHs /Oil spills 99% 11. Co-metabolic degradation TCE 87-99% 12. Biofilteration VOCs / inorganic gases 99% 13. Natural Attenuation BTEX and chlorinated hydrocarbons 95-99% Source: (Uqab et al., 2016; Adams et al., 2015). The efficiency of composting depends upon temperature, moisture content which should be 60%, pH should be 6-7.5, aeration rate should be 5-15%, nutrient content includes C:N:P which should be 100:10:1 and porosity of the soil. All the values must be in the optimal range (Carre et al., 2017; ASTS, 2010). Biodegrading process of PAHs depends upon the biological, chemical and physical properties of the soil, environmental conditions and waste type. Soil polluted with PAHs contains low organic content and high C: N ratio, microbes are already rich in that type of soil (US- EPA, 2012). This result in increasing the moisture content of soil and affecting the efficiency of soil, thus composting integrated with land farming provides better degradation of organic waste as it provides additional carbon to the soil. The purpose of this strategy is to convert the harmful material into less toxic or harmless compounds such as carbon dioxide and water (Bolton et al., 2012). Some important parameters that must be considered while applying the land farming technique are the type of microorganisms which should be heterotrophic bacteria’s, moisture content should be between 30-85%, nutrient availability C:N:P should be 100:10:1 but 100:10:0.5 is also acceptable, pH range must be between 6-8, temperature of the soil should be between 10- 45°C. Soil must be porous for the effective efficiency of the process (Othman et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011). Some physical, biological and chemical parameters affect the efficiency of the land farming process which includes the concentration, type and level of contaminants (Hmidet et al., 2019). This process requires a very long time to achieve the efficient results. Microbial population could also act as a limiting factor, if the microbial population is less than 1000 CFU per gram, it could decrease the process efficiency. Furthermore, if heavy metals are present along with PAHs, it could negatively affect the efficiency of land farming (Cui et al., 2013). Domestic sewage is usually added to the contaminated soil as microbial base in the slurry reactors under aerobic conditions for aerobic degradation. Microbial diversity increases the biodegradability rate. Degradation process requires 10-15 days (Lukic et al., 2017). Most of the 109 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 efficiency could be achieved by using control conditions and by applying different bacteria strains. pH should be maintained at 7 during the process. DO must be kept at 4mg/L (Rocha e Silva et al., 2019). This technique is very effective on total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Oberoi et al., 2015). During the process of co-metabolic degradation, under balanced flow conditions 86% of TCE could be removed during 80 days (Jiang et al., 2018). There are some degradation in the process as toluene is difficult to be treated once added to the ground water. As long as the nutrient level is maintained in the aquifers the degradation process continues with good efficiency. But toluene is biodegradable anaerobically, so if the system fails to maintain oxygen level, the efficiency of the treatment process may not be affected (Campos et al., 2019). Low conductivity in the aquifers can clog the aquifers due to excessive biological growth; this can also reduce the efficiency of the whole process. Hydrogen peroxide is used to solve the problem which is an expensive chemical. This issue can be resolved by having larger sized materials than the fine in aquifers (Jiang et al., 2014; Megharaj et al., 2011). Natural Attenuation gives the maximum efficiency in completely destroying the contaminant. It is the most acceptable method due to its cost effectiveness. This technique has some limitations depending upon the site and characteristics of the pollutant as it requires longer time periods. Inorganic contaminants are difficult to treat by this method due to the lack of knowledge. By products can be toxic for the environment so regular monitoring is required (Wu et al., 2012). In biofilteration, moisture content must be present in soil in order to improve the efficiency of process. Soil bacteria’s like pseudomonas and nacardia are used for biofilteration technique (Invally et al., 2019). Soil bed temperature should be maintained between 10-60°C, to achieve this temperature soil may need to be heated or cooled down a bit. This process is 99%effective for gases but ineffective for halogenated compounds (Ren et al., 2015; Rajavel et al., 2014). 4. CONCLUSION Contaminants enter the soil directly or through spills, leakage, accidents or disposals. Problems related to clean up the contaminated site emphasis that there is need to develop the treatment methods which are eco-friendly and cost-effective as well. Many techniques are present to treat different type of contaminants. Selection of the treatment process depends upon the type of pollutant, concentration of the contaminant, site and source of pollution. All the treatment techniques are not good for all type of pollutants. As the biological treatment technologies are good for petroleum pollutants. Cost-effective techniques are mostly used worldwide as they have more public acceptance. Pump and treat methods were mostly used in Past but due to its non- reliability and excessive cost, these techniques are no longer in use. DECLARATIONS Conflict of Interest The authors declare that in the research and preparation of this article, there are no conflict of interests related to certain organizations, institutions, and individuals or groups. Ethical Approval On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that the paper satisfies Ethical Standards conditions, no human participants, or animals are involved in the research. Informed Consent On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that no human participants are involved in the research and, therefore, informed consent is not required by them. 110 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 DATA AVAILABILITY Data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. REFERENCES Abdel-Shafy, H. I., & Mansour, M. S. M. (2018). Phytoremediation for the elimination of metals, pesticides, PAHs, and other pollutants from wastewater and soil. In V. Kumar, M. Kumar & R. Prasad (Eds.), Phytobiont and ecosystem restitution. Springer. Adams, G. O., Fufeyin, P. T., Okoro, S. E., & Ehinomen, I. (2015). Bioremediation, bio stimulation and Bioagumentation: A review. International Journal of Environmental Bioremediation and Biodegradation, 3, 28–39. Alvarenga, P., Ferreira, C., Mourinha, C., Palma, P., & de Varennes, A. (2018). Chemical and ecotoxicological effects of the use of drinking-water treatment residuals for the remediation of soils degraded by mining activities. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 161, 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.05.094. American Society of Transplant Surgeons Incorporated. (2010). POL contaminated soil land farm. Amoakwah, E., Van Slycken, S., & Essumang, D. K. (2014). Comparison of the solubilizing efficiencies of some pH lowering (sulphur and (NH4)2SO4) amendments on Cd and Zn mobility in soils. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 93(2), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-014-1319-1. Aparicio, J. D., Simon Sola, M. Z., Benimeli, C. S., Julia Amoroso, M., & Polti, M. A. (2015). Versatility of Streptomyces sp. M7 to bioremediate soils co-contaminated with Cr(VI) and lindane. Ecotoxicology and Environment Safety, 116, 34–39. Arulazhagan, P., & Vasudevan, N. (2011). Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by a halo tolerant bacterial strain Ochrobactrum sp. VA1. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(2), 388– 394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.020. Ashraf, S., Ali, Q., Zahir, Z. A., Ashraf, S., & Asghar, H. N. (2019). Phytoremediation: Environmentally sustainable way for reclamation of heavy metal polluted soils. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 174, 714–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.02.068. Asiegbu, P. O., Paterson, A., & Smith, J. E. (2015). The effects of co-fungal cultures and supplementation with carbohydrate adjuncts on lignin biodegradation and substrate digestibility. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 12(3), 273–279. Awa, S. H., & Hadibarata, T. (2020). Removal of heavy metals in contaminated soil by phytoremediation mechanism:A review. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 231(2), e47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-020-4426-0. Babaei, A. A., Safdari, F., Alavi, N., Bakhshoodeh, R., Motamedi, H., & Paydary, P. (2020). Co - composting of oil-based drilling cuttings by bagasse. Bioproc. Biosystems Engineering, 1, 2020.43. Bajaj, S., & Singh, D. K. (2015). Biodegradation of persistent organic pollutants in soil, water and pristine sites by cold-adapted microorganisms: Mini review. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 100, 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.02.023. Banerjee, A., & Ghoshal, A. K. (2010). Phenol degradation by Bacillus cereus: Pathway and kinetic modeling. Bioresource Technology, 101(14), 5501–5507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.02.018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.05.094 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-014-1319-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.02.068 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-020-4426-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.02.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.02.018 111 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 Barrutia, O., Garbisu, C., Hernández-Allica, J., Garcıa-Plazaola, J. I., & Becerril, J. M. (2010). Differences in EDTA-assisted metal phytoextraction between metallicolous and non- metallicolous accessions of Rumex acetosa L. Environmental Pollution, 158(5), 1710–1715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.11.027. Batlle-Aguilar, J., Brovelli, A., Porporato, A., & Barry, D. A. (2011). Modelling soil carbon and nitrogen cycles during land use change. A review (PDF). Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 31(2), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2010007. Begum, M., Sarmah, B., Kandali, G. G., Kalita, S., Ojha, I., Bhagawati, R., & Talukdar, L. (2021). Persistant Organic Pollutants in Soil and Its Phytoremediation. In Biodegradation Technology of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants. IntechOpen. Bell, T. H., Joly, S., Pitre, F. E., & Yergeau, E. (2014). Increasing phytoremediation efficiency and reliability using novel omics approaches. Trends in Biotechnology, 32(5), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.02.008. Bhupinder, D. (2017). Bioremediation technologies for the removal of pollutants. Advances in Environmental Biotechnology, 69–91. BioRangers. (2022). Reliable remediation approach. Retrieved from https://www.bri.co.jp/english/teq/index.html Retrieved August 29. Bodor, A., Petrovszki, P., Erdeiné Kis, Á., Vincze, G. E., Laczi, K., Bounedjoum, N., Szilágyi, Á., Szalontai, B., Feigl, G., Kovács, K. L., Rákhely, G., & Perei, K. (2020). Intensification of ex situ bioremediation of soils polluted with used lubricant oils: A comparison of biostimulation and bioaugmentation with a special focus on the type and size of the inoculum. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 4106. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114106 Bolton, M. (2012). Comparing two remediation alternatives for diesel-contaminated soil in the Arctic using life cycle assessment. Queen’s University. Borriss, R. (2020). Phytostimulation and biocontrol by the plant-associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42:an update. In Phytol-microbiome in stress regulation, 1 (pp. 1–20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2576-6_1. Campos, J. M., Stamford, T. L. M., & Sarubbo, L. A. (2019). Characterization and application of a biosurfactant isolated from Candida utilis in salad dressings. Biodegradation, 30(4), 313– 324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-019-09877-8. Carŕe, F., Caudeville, J., Bonnard, R., Bert, V., Boucard, P., & Ramel, M. Soil contamination and human health: A major challenge for global soil security. In Global Soil Security, 2017; 275– 295. Cristaldi, A., Oliveri Conti, G., Cosentino, S. L., Mauromicale, G., Copat, C., Grasso, A., Zuccarello, P., Fiore, M., Restuccia, C., & Ferrante, M. (2020). Phytoremediation potential of Arundo donax (Giant Reed) in contaminated soil by heavy metals. Environmental Research, 185, 109427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109427. Cristorean, C., Micle, V., & Sur, I. M. (2016). A critical analysis of ex-situ bioremediation technologies of hydrocarbon polluted soils. ECOTERRA J. Environ. Res. Prot., 13, 17–29. Cui, X., Mayer, P., & Gan, J. (2013). Methods to assess bioavailability of hydrophobic organic contaminants: Principles, operations, and limitations. Environmental Pollution, 172, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.09.013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.11.027 https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2010007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.02.008 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114106 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2576-6_1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-019-09877-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109427 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.09.013 112 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 Dixit, R., Wasiullah, D., Malaviya, D., Pandiyan, K., Singh, U., Sahu, A., Shukla, R., Singh, B., Rai, J., Sharma, P., Lade, H., & Paul, D. (2015). Bioremediation of Heavy metals from Soil and Aquatic Environment: An Overview of principles and Criteria of Fundamental Processes. Sustainability, 7(2), 2189–2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7022189. Dzionek, A., Wojcieszyńska, D., & Guzik, U. (2016). . Natural carriers in bioremediation: A review. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 23, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejbt.2016.07.003. Fuentes, M. S., Benimeli, C. S., Cuozzo, S. A., & Amoroso, M. J. (2010). Isolation of pesticide degrading actinomycetes from a contaminated site: Bacterial growth, removal and dechlorination of organochlorine pesticides. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 64(6), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2010.05.001. Fukushima, K., Tabuani, D., Dottori, M., Armentano, I., Kenny, J. M., & Camino, G. (2011). Effect of temperature and nanoparticle type on hydrolytic degradation of poly(lactic acid) nanocomposites. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 96(12), 2120–2129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2011.09.018. Ganjar, S., & Sarwoko, M. (2012). Assessment of framework for remediation techmologies of oil polluted environment. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(2), 36–39. Girma, G. (2015). Microbial bioremediation of some heavy metals in soils: An updated review. Indian Journal of Scientific Research, 6(1), 147–161. Gohil, H., Ogram, A., & Thomas, J. (2014). Stimulation of anaerobic biodegradation of DDT and its metabolites in a muck soil: Laboratory microcosm and mesocosm studies. Biodegradation, 25(5), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-014-9687-0. Haritash, A. K., & Kaushik, C. P. (2016). Biodegradation aspects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): A review. Journal of hazardous materials, 169, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.137. Hmidet, N., Jemil, N., & Nasri, M. (2019). Simultaneous production of alkaline amylase and biosurfactant by Bacillus methylotrophicus DCS1: Application as detergent additive. Biodegradation, 30(4), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-018-9847-8. Iñiguez-Franco, F., Auras, R., Burgess, G., Holmes, D., Fang, X. Y., Rubino, M., & Soto-Valdez, H. (2016). Concurrent solvent induced crystallization and hydrolytic degradation of PLA by water-ethanol solutions. Polymer, 99, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2016.07.018. Invally, K., Sancheti, A., & Ju, L. K. (2019). A new approach for downstream purification of rhamnolipid biosurfactants. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 114, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2018.12.003. Jiang, T., Gao, C., Ma, C., & Xu, P. (2014). Microbial lactate utilization: Enzymes, pathogenesis, and regulation. Trends in Microbiology, 22(10), 589–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2014.05.008. Jiang, Y., Qi, H., & Zhang, X. M. (2018). Co-biodegradation of anthracene and naphthalene by the bacterium Acinetobacter johnsonii. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 53(5), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2017.1409579. Jin, L., Son, Y., DeForest, J. L., Kang, Y. J., Kim, W., & Chung, H. (2014). Single-walled carbon nanotubes alter soil microbial community composition. Science of the Total Environment, 466–467, 533–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7022189 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejbt.2016.07.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2010.05.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2011.09.018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-014-9687-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.137 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-018-9847-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2016.07.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2018.12.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2014.05.008 https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2017.1409579 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.035 113 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 Juwarkar, A. A., Singh, S. K., & Mudhoo, A. (2010). A comprehensive overview of elements in bioremediation. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 9(3), 215–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-010-9215-6. Khodakovskaya, M. V., Kim, B. S., Kim, J. N., Alimohammadi, M., Dervishi, E., Mustafa, T., & Cernigla, C. E. (2013). Carbon nanotubes as plant growth regulators: Effects on tomato growth, reproductive system, and soil microbial community. Small, 9(1), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201201225. Kulshreshtha, A., Agrawal, R., Barar, M., & Saxena, S. (2014). A review on bioremediation of heavy metals in contaminated water. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, 8(7), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.9790/2402-08714450. Li, D., & Alvarez, P. J. (2011). Avoidance, weight loss, and cocoon production assessment for Eisenia fetida exposed to C60 in soil. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 30(11), 2542–2545. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.644. Li, J., & Li, X. (2020). Landfarming: An effective bioremediation technique for the treatment of organic pollutants in soil. Critical reviews in biotechnology, 40(6), 766-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2020.1747253. Limmer, M., & Burken, J. (2016). Phytovolatilization of organic contaminants. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(13), 6632–6643. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04113 Liu, J., & Yang, Y. (2021). Biostimulation strategies for bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon- contaminated soil: A review. Journal of hazardous materials, 415, 125632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125632. Liu, J., Zhang, X., & Liang, R. (2020). Bio-immobilization technology for the remediation of organic pollutants in soil: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 720, 137520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137520 Lukic, B., Panico, A., Huguenot, D., Fabbricino, M., Hullebusch, V., & Esposito, G. (2017). A review on the efficiency of land farming integrated with composting as soil remediation treatment. Environmental Technology Reviewers, 6(1), 94–116. Macaulay, B., & Rees, D. (2014). Bioremediation of oil spills: A review of challenges for research advancement. Ann. Environ. Sci., 8, 9–37. Major, D. W., McMaster, M. L., Cox, E. E., Edwards, E. A., Dworatzek, S. M., Hendrickson, E. R., Starr, M. G., Payne, J. A., & Buonamici, L. W. (2002). Field demonstration of successful bioaugmentation to achieve dechlorination of tetrachloroethene to ethene. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(23), 5106–5116. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0255711. Mangwani, N., Kumari, S., Das, S., & Naik, M. M. (2019). Cometabolic bioremediation of organic pollutants in soil: Progress and prospects. Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 1132- 1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.042. Mapelli, F., Scoma, A., Michoud, G., Aulenta, F., Boon, N., Borin, S., Kalogerakis, N., & Daffonchio, D. (2017). Biotechnologies for marine oil spill cleanup: Indissoluble ties with microorganisms. Trends in Biotechnology, 35(9), 860–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.04.003. Mateju, K. Bioatabilization & bioimbobilization. (2010). Trends in Bioremediation and Phytoremediation. GrazynaPlaza, Ed., pp. 131-14 ISBN, 978-81-308-0424-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-010-9215-6 https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201201225 https://doi.org/10.9790/2402-08714450 https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.644 https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2020.1747253 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125632 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137520 https://doi.org/10.1021/es0255711 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.042 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.04.003 114 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 Megharaj, M., Ramakrishnan, B., Venkateswarlu, K., Sethunathan, N., & Naidu, R. (2011). Bioremediation approaches for organic pollutants: A critical perspective. Environment International, 37(8), 1362–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.06.003. Mihopoulos, P. G., Suidan, M. T., Sayles, G. D., & Kaskassian, S. (2002). Numerical modeling of oxygen exclusion experiments of anaerobic bioventing. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 58(3–4), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-7722(02)00037-2. Muehlberger, E. W., Harris, K., & Hicks, P. (1997). In situ Biosparging of a Large Scale Dissolved Petroleum hydrocarbon Plume at a Southwest Lumber mill, TAPPI. Proceedings of the— Environmental Conference and Exhibition, 1. Mukherjee, S., & Kumar, R. (2019). Bioremediation of volatile organic compounds from soil and water. Microbial biotechnology, 12(6), 1196-1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13465. Mustapha, M. U., & Halimoon, N. (2015). Microorganisms and biosorption of heavy metals in the environment: A review paper. Journal of Microbial and Biochemical Technology, 07(5), 253– 256. https://doi.org/10.4172/1948-5948.1000219. Oberoi, A. S., Philip, L., & Bhallamudi, S. M. (2015). Biodegradation of various aromatic compounds by enriched bacterial cultures: Part a – Monocyclic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 176(7), 1870–1888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010- 015-1684-1. Okere, U., & Semple, K. (2012). Biodegradation of PAHs in “pristine” soils from different climatic regions. Journal of Bioremediation and Biodegradation, 1(Suppl. 1), 1–11. Othman, N., Irwan, M., & Hussain, N. (2011). Bioremediation a potential approach for soil contaminated with polycyclic 112 B. LUKIĆ ET AL. aromatic hydrocarbons: an overview. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 2(2), 48–53. RAAG. (2000). Evaluation of risk based corrective action model. Remediation Alternative Assessment Group, Memorial University of Newfoundland, NF. Canada. Rajavel, K., Gomathi, R., Manian, S., & Rajendra Kumar, R. T. (2014). In vitro bacterial cytotoxicity of CNTs: Reactive oxygen species mediate cell damage edges over direct physical puncturing. Langmuir, 30(2), 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1021/la403332b. Ren, W., Ren, G., Teng, Y., Li, Z., & Li, L. (2015). Time-dependent effect of graphene on the structure, abundance, and function of the soil bacterial community. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 297, 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.05.017. Ritter, L., Solomon, K., Forget, J., Stemeroff, M., & O’Leary, C. (1995). A review of Persistent Organic Pollutants. Internat (pp. 1–149). Program on Chemical Safety. Rocha e Silva, N. M. P., Meira, H. M., Almeida, F. C. G., Soares da Silva, R. D. C. F., Almeida, D. G., Luna, J. M., Rufino, R. D., Santos, V. A., & Sarubbo, L. A. (2019). Natural surfactants and their applications for heavy oil removal in industry. Separation and Purification Reviews, 48(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15422119.2018.1474477. Roy, A., Dutta, A., Pal, S., Gupta, A., Sarkar, J., Chatterjee, A., Saha, A., Sarkar, P., Sar, P., & Kazy, S. K. (2018). Biostimulation and bioaugmentation of native microbial community accelerated bioremediation of oilrefinery sludge. Bioresource Technology, 253, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.06.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-7722(02)00037-2 https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13465 https://doi.org/10.4172/1948-5948.1000219 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-015-1684-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-015-1684-1 https://doi.org/10.1021/la403332b https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.05.017 https://doi.org/10.1080/15422119.2018.1474477 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.004 115 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 Sabale, R., Tamhankar, V., Dongare, M., & Mohite, S. (2012). Extraction, determination and bioremediation of heavy metal ions and pesticide residues from lake water. J. Bioremedi. Biodegra, 3(4), 2155-6199. Salehi, M. A., & Hakimghiasi, N. (2017). Hydrodynamics and mass transfer inthree-phase airlift reactors for activated carbon and sludge filtration. Advances in Environmental Technology, 2, 179–184. Sayara, T. (2010). Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)-contaminated soil: Process evaluation through composting and anaerobic digestion approach [Thesis]. University Autònoma de Barcelona. Seh-Bardan, B. J., Othman, R., Wahid, S. A., Husin, A., & Sadegh-Zadeh, F. (2012). Bioleaching of heavy metals from mine tailings by Aspergillus fumigatus. Bioremediation Journal, 16(2), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10889868.2012.665958. Semple, K. T., Reid, B. J., & Fermor, T. R. (2001). Impact of composting strategies on the treatment of soils contaminated with organic pollutants. Environmental Pollution, 112(2), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0269-7491(00)00099-3. Sidhu, G. P. S., Bali, A. S., Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., & Kohli, R. K. (2018). Ethylenediamine disuccinic acid enhanced phytoextraction of nickel from contaminated soils using Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. Chemosphere, 205, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.04.106. Speight, J. G. (2018). Environmental organic chemistry for engineers, 1. Elsevier Ltd.-Heinemann. UK, ISBN 9780128006689. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2012). Land farming | cleaning up UST system releases. Uqab, B., Mudasir, S., & Nazir, R. (2016). Review on bioremediation of pesticides. J. Bioremed Biodeg., 7, 343. Venkata, M., Veer, R., Kannaiah, G., Srikanth, S., Lalit, B., & Sarma, P. (2010). Microbial diversity analysis of long term operated biofilm configured anaerobic bioreactor producing hydrogen from wastewater treatment under diverse conditions. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35, 12208–12215. Venkateswar, R., Srikanth, S., Venkata, M., & Sarma, P. (2010). Phosphatase and dehydrogenase activities in anodic chamber of single chamber microbial fuel cell (MFC) at variable substrate loading conditions, Bioelectro. Chem, 77, 125–132. Vidali, M. (2001). Bioremediation. An overview. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 73(7), 1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200173071163. Wang, Q., Chang, C., Gao, Y., & Wang, Y. (2016). Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons-contaminated soil by microbial degradation. Frontiers in microbiology, 7, 2097. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.02097. Wick, A. F., Haus, N. W., Sukkariyah, B. F., Haering, K. C., & Daniels, W. L. (2011). Remediation of PAH-contaminated soils and sediments: a literature review. CSES Department, internal research document, 102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10889868.2012.665958 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0269-7491(00)00099-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.04.106 https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200173071163 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.02097 116 Sana Akhtar et al. / Geosfera Indonesia 8 (1), 2023, 102-116 Wózniak-Karczewska, M., Lisiecki, P., Białas, W., Owsianiak, M., Piotrowska-Cyplik, A., Wolko, Ł., Ławniczak, Ł., Heipieper, H. J., Gutierrez, T., & Chrzanowski, Ł. (2019). E_ect of bioaugmentation on long-term biodegradation of diesel/biodiesel blends in soil microcosms. Science of the Total Environment, 671, 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.431. Wu, X., Gent, D. B., Davis, J. L., & Alshawabkeh, A. N. (2012). Lactate injection by electric currents for bioremediation of tetrachloroethylene in clay. Electrochimica Acta, 86, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2012.06.046. Yang, Z., Li, B., Wang, S., Yang, Q., & Wang, Y. (2016). Investigation of degradation of phenanthrene by Bacillus cereus isolated from activated sludge and competitive inhibition kinetics. Fresen. Environmental Bulletin, 25, 5786–5794. Yoon, S., Kim, J. H., Kim, J. H., Lee, J. H., & Kim, Y. H. (2020). Bioremediation of trichloroethylene - contaminated soil using mixed culture of microorganisms. Journal of hazardous materials, 394, 122556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122556. Zaneti, I. C. B. B., & Silva, G. O. (June 12–14, 2017). Sustentabilidade urbana e gestão de resíduos sólidos: O caso do Distrito Federal. In Proceedings of the Forum Internacional de Resíduos Sólidos-Anais, Curitiba, Brazil p. 10. Zeneli, A., Kastanaki, E., Simantiraki, F., & Gidarakos, E. (2019). Monitoring the biodegradation of TPH and PAHs in refinery solid waste by biostimulation and bioaugmentation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 7(3), e103054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103054. Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y. G., Houot, S., Qiao, M., Nunan, N., & Garnier, P. (2011). Remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminated soil through composting with fresh organic wastes. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 18(9), 1574–1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0521-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.431 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2012.06.046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122556 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103054 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0521-5 2. BIOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANTS 3. DISCUSSION 4. CONCLUSION