Phenanthrene Biodegradation in Soils Using an Antarctic Bacterial Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Antarctic soils is limited by low temperatures, lack of adequate levels of nutrients, low number of PAH-tolerant members in the autochthonous microbiota and low bioavailability of contaminants. In the present work, microcosms systems (performed in 1-L glass flasks containing Antarctic soil supplemented with 1744 ppm of phenanthrene) were used to study (i) the effect of biostimulation with a complex organic source of nutrients (fish meal) combined with a surfactant (Brij 700); (ii) the effect of bioaugmentation with a psychrotolerant PAH-degrading bacterial consortium (M10); (iii) the effect of the combination of both strategies. The authors found that combination of biostimulation and bioaugmentation caused a significant removal (46.6%) of phenanthrene after 56 days under Antarctic environmental conditions. When bioaugmentation or biostimulation were applied separately, nonsignificant reduction in phenanthrene concentration was observed. Microtox test showed a low increase in toxicity only in the most efficient system. Results proved that “in situ” bioremediation process of phenanthrene-contaminated soils is possible in Antarctic stations. In addition, inoculation with a psychrotolerant PAH-degrading bacterial consortium in association with a mix of fish meal and a high-molecular-weight surfactant improved phenanthrene removal and should be the selected strategy when the number of hydrocarbons degrading bacteria in the target soil is low.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".