Bioremediation of DDT-Contaminated Soils: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The insecticide 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis-(4-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT) has been used extensively since the 1940s for control of agricultural pests, and is still used in many tropical countries for mosquito control. Despite a ban on DDT use in most industrialized countries since 1972, DDT and its related residues (DDTr) persist in the environment and pose animal and human health risks. Abiotic processes such as volatilization, adsorption, and photolysis contribute to the dissipation of DDTr in soils, often without substantial alteration of the chemical structure. In contrast, biodegradation has the potential to degrade DDTr significantly and reduce soil concentrations in a cost-effective manner. Many bacteria and some fungi transform DDT, forming products with varying recalcitrance to further degradation. DDT biodegradation is typically co-metabolic and includes dechlorination and ring cleavage mechanisms. Factors that influence DDTr biodegradation in soil include the composition and enzymatic activity of the soil microflora, DDTr bioavailability, the presence of soil organic matter as a co-metabolic substrate and (or) inducer, and prevailing soil conditions, including aeration, pH, and temperature. Understanding how these factors affect DDTr biodegradation permits rational design of treatments and amendments to stimulate biodegradation in soils. The DDTr-degrading organisms, processes and approaches that may be useful for bioremediation of DDTr-contaminated soils are discussed, including in situ amendments, ex situ bioreactors and sequential anaerobic and aerobic treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".