Использование поверхностно-активных веществ в биодеградации гидрофобных соединений: обзор

Развитие промышленности привело к колоссальным выбросам и накоплению в окружающей среде гидрофобных органических соединений (ГОС). В первую очередь стоит назвать углеводороды нефти, полициклические ароматические углеводороды (ПАУ) и полихлорбифенилы. Интенсивное и широкое применение гидрофобных пестицидов в сельском хозяйстве способствовало загрязнению ими почвы, воздуха и воды. Многие из гидрофобных веществ являются опасными для представителей биоты, поскольку обладают высоким токсическим, канцерогенным и мутагенным действием на организмы. Кроме широкой распространенности, их возможные негативные эффекты определяются и устойчивостью к разложению, в том числе биологическому. Это позволяет им в течение длительного времени сохраняться в почве, воде и других средах. Воздействие ГОС на экосистемы представляет потенциальную угрозу не только для окружающей среды, но и для здоровья человека. Существует труднообозримое число исследований, посвященных ремедиации почв, загрязненных ГОС. Можно до некоторой степени условно выделить механические, химические и биоремедиационные методы. Первые два особенно широко применялись в прошлом. Биоремедиационные методы оказались более эффективными и дешевыми. Биоремедиация – это, как правило, более рентабельная и экологически безопасная технология. В последние годы показана хорошая эффективность солюбизирующих агентов в биоремедиационных процессах. Широкую популярность приобрели различные поверхностно-активные вещества (ПАВ). Их способность увеличивать десорбцию, растворимость в воде и микробную биодоступность ГОС хорошо известна. В настоящем кратком обзоре рассмотрены современные литературные сведения по биодеградации гидрофобных органических соединений, стимулируемой поверхностно-активными веществами.

1. García-Delgado C., Marín-Benito J. M., Sánchez-Martín M. J., Rodríguez-Cruz M. S. Organic carbon nature determines the capacity of organic amendments to adsorb pesticides in soil // Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2020. Vol. 390. P. 122–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122162.

2. Jin M., Yu X., Yao Z., Tao P., Li G., Yu X., et al. How biofilms affect the uptake and fate of hydrophobic organic compounds (HOCs) in microplastic: insights from an in situ study of Xiangshan Bay, China // Water Research. 2020. Vol. 184. P. 116–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116118.

3. Taylor A. C., Fones G. R., Vrana B., Mills G. A. Applications for passive sampling of hydrophobic organic contaminants in water – a review // Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry. 2021. Vol. 51, no. 1. P. 20–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408347.2019.1675043.

4. Trellu C., Mousset E., Pechaud Y., Huguenot D., van Hullebusch E. D., Esposito G., et al. Removal of hydrophobic organic pollutants from soil washing/ flushing solutions: a critical review // Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2016. Vol. 306. P. 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.12.008.

5. Zeng Z., Liu Y., Zhong H., Xiao R., Zeng G., Liu Z., et al. Mechanisms for rhamnolipids-mediated biodegradation of hydrophobic organic compounds // Science of the Total Environment. 2018. Vol. 634. P. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.349.

6. Kupryianchyk D., Hale S., Zimmerman A. R., Harvey O., Rutherford D., Abiven S., et al. Sorption of hydrophobic organic compounds to a diverse suite of carbonaceous materials with emphasis on biochar // Chemosphere. 2016. Vol. 44. P. 879–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.09.055.

7. Richard E., Saichek R. E., Reddy K. R. Electrokinetically enhanced remediation of hydrophobic organic compounds in soils: a review // Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2005. Vol. 35. P. 115–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380590900237.

8. Trellu C., Pechaud Y., Oturan N., Mousset E., van Hullebusch E. D., Huguenot D., et al. Remediation of soils contaminated by hydrophobic organic compounds: how to recover extracting agents from soil washing solutions? // Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2021. Vol. 404. P. 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124137.

9. Ashraf S., Ali Q., Ahmad Z. Z., Ashraf S., Asghar N. H. Phytoremediation: environmentally sustainable way for reclamation of heavy metal polluted soils // Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2019. Vol. 174. P. 714–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.02.068.

10. Lu H., Wang W., Li F., Zhu L. Mixed-surfactant-enhanced phytoremediation of PAHs in soil: bioavailability of PAHs and responses of microbial community structure // Science of the Total Environment. 2019. Vol. 653. P. 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.385.

11. Rodriguez-Campos J., Perales-Garcia A., Hernandez-Carballo J., Martinez-Rabelo F., Hernández-Castellanos B., Barois I., et al. Bioremediation of soil contaminated by hydrocarbons with the combination of three technologies: bioaugmentation, phytoremediation, and vermiremediation // Journal of Soils and Sediments. 2019. Vol. 19. P. 1981–1994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2213-y.

12. Shi Z., Liu J., Tang Z., Zhao Y., Wang C. Vermiremediation of organically contaminated soils: concepts, current status, and future perspectives // Applied Soil Ecology. 2020. Vol. 147. P. 103377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103377.

13. Shishir T. A., Mahbub N., Kamal N. E. Review on bioremediation: a tool to resurrect the polluted rivers // Pollution. 2019. Vol. 5. P. 555–568. https://doi.org/10.22059/poll.2019.272339.558.

14. Villela H. D. M., Pexito R. S., Soriano A. U., Carmo F. L. Microbial bioremediation of oil contaminated seawater: a survey of patent deposits and the characterization of the top genera applied // Science of the Total Environment. 2019. Vol. 666. P. 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.153.

15. Azubuike C. C., Chikere C. B., Okpokwasili G. C. Bioremediation techniques – classification based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects // World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2016. Vol. 32. P. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-016-2137-x.

16. Vasilyeva G., Kondrashina V., Strijakova E., Ortega-Calvo J. Adsorptive bioremediation of soil highly contaminated with crude oil // Science of The Total Environment. 2020. Vol. 706. P. 135739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135739.

17. Kang S., Kim G., Choe J. K., Choi Y. Effect of using powdered biochar and surfactant on desorption and biodegradability of phenanthrene sorbed to biochar // Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2019. Vol. 371. P. 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.02.104.

18. Ghosh I., Mukherji S. Diverse effect of surfactants on pyrene biodegradation by a Pseudomonas strain utilizing pyrene by cell surface hydrophobicity induction // International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2016. Vol. 10. P. 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.12.010.

19. Стом Д. И., Богданова И. А., Саксонов М. Н., Толстой В. М., Евтушенко Л. И., Се Б. Ж. Влияние гумата на адгезию клеток и спор микроорганизмов и их десорбцию с гидрофобизированных поверхностей // Известия Иркутского государственного университета. Серия: Биология. Экология. 2017. Т. 21. С. 31–40.

20. Стом Д. И., Боярова Н. А., Дагуров А. В., Вятчина О. Ф., Саксонов М. Н. Возможные механизмы биологического действия гуминовых веществ // Сибирский медицинский журнал. 2008. Т. 81. N 6. P. 76–79.

21. Wei W., Ran Z., He H., Zhou K., Huangfu Z., Yu J. Desorption process and morphological analysis of real polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contaminated soil by the heterogemini surfactant and its mixed systems // Chemosphere. 2020. Vol. 254. P. 126854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126854.

22. Yadav M., Shukla A. K., Srivastva N., Upadhyay S. N., Dubey S. K. Utilization of microbial community potential for removal of chlorpyrifos: a review // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 2016. Vol. 3. P. 727–742. https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2015.1015958.

23. Yanto D. H. Y., Tachibana S. Enhanced biodegradation of asphalt in the presence of tween surfactants, Mn2+ and H2O2 by Pestalotiopsis sp. in liquid medium and soil // Chemosphere. 2014. Vol. 10. P. 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.11.044.

24. Zhang D., Zhu L. Effects of Tween 80 on the removal, sorption and biodegradation of pyrene by Klebsiella oxytoca PYR-1 // Environmental Pollution. 2012. Vol. 16. P. 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.01.036.

25. Fainerman V. B., Möbius D., Miller R. Studies in interface science // Surfactants. Chemistry, Interfacial Properties, Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2001. 661 p.

26. Raffa P., Wever D. A. Z., Picchioni F., Broekhuis A. A. Polymeric surfactants: synthesis, properties, and links to applications // Chemical Reviews. 2015. Vol. 115. P. 8504–8563. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr500129h.

27. Gao Y. Z., Ling W. T., Zhu L. Z., Zhao B. W., Zheng Q. S. Surfactant-enhanced phytoremediation of soils contaminated with hydrophobic organic contaminants: potential and assessment // Pedosphere. 2007. Vol. 7. P. 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(07)60050-2.

28. Miller U., Sówka I., Adamiak W. The use of surfactant from the tween group in toluene biofiltration // Archives of Environmental Protection. 2020. Vol. 46. P. 53–57. https://doi.org/10.24425/aep.2020.133474.

29. Lv K., Jia K., Yang Y., Huang W., Wu H., Pan W., et al. Effects of additional salts on the interfacial tension of crude oil/zwitterionic gemini surfactant solutions // Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology. 2019. Vol. 40, no. 7. P. 1031–1038. https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2018.1494606.

30. Farias M. L., Campos E. F., Souza A. L. S., Carvalho M. S. Injection of dilute oil-in-water emulsion as an enhanced oil recovery method for heavy oil: 1D and 3D flow configurations // Transport in Porous Media. 2016. Vol. 113. P. 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-016-0692-0.

31. Yu L., Dong M. Z., Ding B. X., Yuan Y. G. Experimental study on the effect of interfacial tension on the conformance control of oil-in-water emulsions in heterogeneous oil sands reservoirs // Chemical Engineering Science. 2018. Vol. 189. P. 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2018.05.033.

32. Feng H. S., Kang W. L., Zhang L. M., Chen J., Li Z., Zhou Q., et al. Experimental study on a fine emulsion flooding system to enhance oil recovery for low permeability reservoirs // Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2018. Vol. 171. P. 974– 981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.08.011.

33. Liu H., Zhang Y., Li Y., Hou J., Liu Y. Influence on emulsification in binary flooding of oil displacement effect // Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology. 2016. Vol. 37. P. 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2015.1029583.

34. Bera A., Kumar T., Ojha K., Mandal A. Screening of microemulsion properties for application in enhanced oil recovery // Fuel. 2014. Vol. 121. P. 198– 207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.12.051.

35. Bera A., Mandal A., Kumar T. Physicochemical characterization of anionic and cationic microemulsions: water solubilization, particle size distribution, surface tension, and structural parameters // Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data. 2014. Vol. 59. P. 2490–2498. https://doi.org/10.1021/je500274r.

36. Kumar N., Mandal A. Thermodynamic and physicochemical properties evaluation for formation and characterization of oil-in-water nanoemulsion // Journal of Molecular Liquids. 2018. Vol. 266. P. 147– 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2018.06.069.

37. Sharma S. C., Warr G. G. Phase behavior, self-assembly, and emulsification of tween 80/water mixtures with limonene and perfluoromethyldecalin // Langmuir. 2012. Vol. 28. P. 11707–11713. https://doi.org/10.1021/la300942f.

38. Doryani H., Kazemzadeh Y., Parsaei R., Malayeri M. R., Riazi M. Impact of asphaltene and normal paraffins on methane-synthetic oil interfacial tension: an experimental study // Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering. 2015. Vol. 26. P. 538–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.06.048.

39. Lashkarbolooki M., Ayatollahi S. Effect of asphaltene and resin on interfacial tension of acidic crude oil/sulfate aqueous solution: experimental study // Fluid Phase Equilibria. 2016. Vol. 414. P. 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2016.01.032.

40. Lashkarbolooki M., Ayatollahi S. Effects of asphaltene, resin and crude oil type on the interfacial tension of crude oil/brine solution // Fuel. 2018. Vol. 223. P. 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.03.029.

41. Lashkarbolooki M., Ayatollahi S. The effects of pH, acidity, asphaltene and resin fraction on crude oil/ water interfacial tension // Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2018. Vol. 162. P. 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.12.061.

42. Lashkarbolooki M., Riazi M., Ayatollahi M., Hezave A. Z. Synergy effects of ions, resin, and asphaltene on interfacial tension of acidic crude oil and low–high salinity brines // Fuel. 2016. Vol. 165. P. 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.10.030.

43. Sharma P., Kostarelos K., Palayangoda S. S. Hydrocarbon recovery from oil sands by cyclic surfactant solubilization in single-phase microemulsions // Journal of Energy Resources Technology. 2019. Vol. 141. P. 085001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042715.

44. Masrat R., Maswal M., Dar Ahmad A. Competitive solubilization of naphthalene and pyrene in various micellar systems // Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2013. Vol. 244-245. P. 662–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.10.057.

45. Sales P. S., de Rossi R. H., Fernandez M. A. Different behaviours in the solubilization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water induced by mixed surfactant solutions // Chemosphere. 2011. Vol. 84. P. 1700–1707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.04.073.

46. Bidoia E., Montagnolli R. Toxicity and biodegradation testing, methods in pharmacology and toxicology. Totowa: Humana Press, 2018. 394 p.

47. Smułek W., Kaczorek E., Hricovıniova Z. Alkyl xylosides: physico-chemical properties and influence on environmental bacteria cells // Journal of Surfactants and Detergents. 2017. Vol. 20. P. 1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11743-017-2012-2.

48. Wang L., Sha Y., Wu D., Wei Q., Chen D., Yang Sh., et al. Surfactant induces ROS-mediated cell membrane permeabilization for the enhancement of mannatide production // Process Biochemistry. 2020. Vol. 91. P 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2019.12.009.

49. Ostroumov S. A., Solomonova E. A. Phytotoxicity of a surfactant-containing product towards macrophytes // Russian Journal of General Chemistry. 2013. Vol. 83. P. 2614–2617. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1070363213130057.

50. Поклонов В. А., Остроумов С. А. Влияние синтетических поверхностно-активных веществ на бобовые культуры // Экологическая химия. 2019. Т. 28. N 5. С. 244–249.

51. Al-Jamala O., Al-Jighefee H., Younes H., Abdin R., Al-Asmakh M. A., Radwan A. B. et al. Organ-specific toxicity evaluation of stearamidopropyl dimethylamine(SAPDMA) surfactant using zebrafish embryos // Science of the Total Environment. 2020. Vol. 741. P. 140450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140450.

52. Cheng M., Zeng G., Huang D., Lai C., Xu P., Zhang Ch., et al. Hydroxyl radicals based advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for remediation of soils contaminated with organic compounds: a review // Chemical Engineering Journal. 2016. Vol. 284. P. 582–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.09.001.

53. Zhou W., Zhu L., Chen B., Tao S., Chiou C. T. Interactions of organic contaminants with mineral-adsorbed surfactants // Environmental Science & Technology. 2003. Vol. 37. P. 4001–4006. https://doi.org/10.1021/es026326k.

54. Paria S. Surfactant-enhanced remediation of organic contaminated soil and water // Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2008. Vol. 138. P. 24– 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2007.11.001.

55. Aken B. V., Correa P. A., Schnoor J. L. Phytoremediation of polychlorinated biphenyls: new trends and promises // Environmental Science & Technology. 2009. Vol. 44. P. 2767–2776. https://doi.org/10.1021/es902514d.

56. Mao X., Jiang R., Xiao W., Xiao W., Yu J. Use of surfactants for the remediation of contaminated soils: a review // Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2015. Vol. 285. P. 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.12.009.

57. Bradl H. B. Interface science and technology // Heavy Metals in the Environment: Origin, Interaction and Remediation. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005. 269 p.

58. Mathurasa L., Tongcumpou C., Sabatini D., Luepromchai E. Anionic surfactant enhanced bacterial degradation of tributyltin in soil // International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2012. Vol. 75. P. 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2012.06.027.

59. Rodrigues A., Nogueira R., Melo L., Brito A. Effect of low concentrations of synthetic surfactants on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) biodegradation // International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2013. Vol. 83. P. 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.04.001.

60. Jafvert C. T., Heath J. K. Sedimentand saturated-soilassociated reactions involving an anionic surfactant (dodecylsulfate). Precipitation and micelle formatiol // Environmental Science & Technology. 1991. Vol. 25, no. 6. P. 1031–1038. https://doi.org/10.1021/es00018a003.

61. Wang P., Keller A. A. Particle-size dependent sorption and desorption of pesticides within a water–soil–nonionic surfactant system // Environmental Science & Technology. 2008. Vol. 42. P. 3381–3387. https://doi.org/10.1021/es702732g.

62. Bautista L. F., Sanz R., Molina M. C., González N., Sánchez D. Effect of different non-ionic surfactants on the biodegradation of PAHs by diverse aerobic bacteria // International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2009. Vol. 63. P. 913–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2009.06.013.

63. Seo Y., Bishop P. L. Influence of nonionic surfactant on attached biofilm formation and phenanthrene bioavailability during simulated surfactant enhanced bioremediation // Environmental Science & Technology. 2007. Vol. 41. P. 7107–7113. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0701154.

64. Wolf D. C., Gan J. Influence of rhamnolipid biosurfactant and Brij-35 synthetic surfactant on 14C-Pyrene mineralization in soil // Environmental Pollution. 2018. Vol. 243. P. 1846–1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.031.

65. Wang S., Poon K., Cai Z. Removal and metabolism of triclosan by three different microalgal species in aquatic environment // Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2018. Vol. 342. P. 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.09.004.

66. Martínez L. M. T., Kharissova O. V., Kharisov B. I. Handbook of ecomaterials. New York: Springer, 2019. 46 p.

67. Corcellas C., Eljarrat E., Barceló D. First report of pyrethroid bioaccumulation in wild river fish: a case study in Iberian river basins (Spain) // Environment International. 2015. Vol. 75. P. 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.007.

68. Dar M. A., Kaushik G., Villarreal-Chiu J. F. Pollution status and bioremediation of chlorpyrifos in environmentalmatrices by the application of bacterial communities: a review // Journal of Environmental Science and Management. 2019. Vol. 239. P. 124– 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.048.

69. Kumar S., Kaushik G., Dar M. A., Nimesh S., López-Chuken U. J., Villarreal-Chiu J. Microbial degradation of organophosphate pesticides: a review // Pedosphere. 2018. Vol. 28. P. 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60017-7.

70. Dollinger J., Schacht V. J., Gaus C., Grant S. Effect of surfactant application practices on the vertical transport potential of hydrophobic pesticides in agrosystems // Chemosphere. 2018. Vol. 209. P. 78– 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.06.

71. Singh A. K., Cameotra S. S. Influence of microbial and synthetic surfactant on the biodegradation of atrazine // Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2013. Vol. 21, no. 3. P. 2088–2097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-2127-6.

72. Rosenberg M. Microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons: twenty-five years of doing MATH // FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2006. Vol. 262. P. 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00291.x.

73. Banat I. M., Franzetti A., Gandolfi I., Bestetti G., Martinotti M. G., Fracchia L., et al. Microbial biosurfactants production, applications and future potential // Applied Microbiology Biotechnology. 2010. Vol. 87. P. 427−444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253010-2589-0.

74. Silva E. J., Rocha de Silva N. M., Rufino R. D., Luna J. M., Silva R. O., Sarubbo L. A. Characterization of a biosurfactant produced by Pseudomonas cepacia CCT6659 in the presence of industrial wastes and its application in the biodegradation of hydrophobic compounds in soil // Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014. Vol. 117. P. 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.02.012.

75. Desai J. D., Banat I. M. Microbial production of surfactants and their commercial potential // Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 1997. Vol. 61. P. 47−64. https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.61.1.4764.1997.

76. Neu T. R. Significance of bacterial surface-active compounds in interaction of bacteria with interfaces // Microbiological Reviews. 1996. Vol. 60. P. 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1128/mr.60.1.151166.1996.

77. Ron E. Z., Rosenberg E. Natural roles of biosurfactants // Environvental Microbiology. 2001. Vol. 3, no. 4. P. 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.14622920.2001.00190.x.

78. Timmis K. N. Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology // Experimental Protocols and Appendices. Berlin: Springer, 2010. 4637 p.

79. Лыонг Т. М., Нечаева И. А., Петриков К. В., Пунтус И. Ф., Понаморева О. Н. Бактерии-нефтедеструкторы рода Rhodococcus – потенциальные продуценты биосурфактантов // Известия вузов. Прикладная химия и биотехнология. 2016. Т. 6. N 1. С. 50–60.

80. Лыонг Т. М., Нечаева И. А., Петриков К. В., Филонов А. Е., Понаморева О. Н. Структура и физико-химические свойства гликолипидных биосурфактантов, продуцируемых бактериями-нефтедеструкторами Rhodococcus sp. X5 // Известия вузов. Прикладная химия и биотехнология. 2017. Т. 7. N 2. С. 72–79. https://doi.org/10.21285/22272925-2017-7-2-72-79.

81. Luong T. M., Ponamoreva O. N., Nechaeva I. A., Petrikov K. V., Delegan Ya. A., Surin A. K., et al. Characterization of biosurfactants produced by the oil-degrading bacterium Rhodococcus erythropolis S67 at low temperature // World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2018. Vol. 34, no. 2. P. 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-0172401-8.

82. Лыонг Т. М., Нечаева И. А., Понаморева О. Н., Ву Х. З., Арляпов В. А., Пунтус И. Ф. [и др.]. Влияние температуры на биодеградацию гексадекана бактериями-нефтедеструкторами Rhodococcus sp. X5 – эффективными продуцентами гликолипидных биосурфактантов // Биотехнология. 2017. N 6. С. 49–56. https://doi.org/10.21519/0234-2758-2017-33-6-00-00.

83. Moldes A. B., Paradelo R., Rubinos D., Devesa-Rey R., Cruz J. M., Barral M. T. Ex situ treatment of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil using biosurfactants from Lactobacillus pentosus // Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2011. Vol. 59, no. 17. P. 9443–9447. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf201807r.

84. Patel K., Patel M. Improving bioremediation process of petroleum wastewater using biosurfactants producing Stenotrophomonas sp. S1VKR-26 and assessment of phytotoxicity // Bioresource Technology. 2022. Vol. 315. P. 123861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123861.

85. Серебренникова М. К., Головина Е. Э., Куюкина М. С., Ившина И. Б. Консорциум иммобилизованных родококков для очистки нефтепромысловой воды в колоночном биореакторе // Прикладная биохимия и микробиология. 2017. Т. 53. N 4. С. 380–386. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0555109917040122.

86. Güçlü-Üstündağ Ö., Mazza G. Saponins: properties, applications and processing, critical reviews in food // Science and Nutrition. 2007. Vol. 47. P. 231– 258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390600698197.

87. Kaczorek E., Chrzanowski Ł., Pijanowska A., Olszanowski A. Yeast and bacteria cell hydrophobicity and hydrocarbon biodegradation in the presence of natural surfactants: rhamnolipides and saponins // Bioresource Technology. 2008. Vol. 99. P. 4285– 4291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.

88. Kobayashi T., Kaminaga H., Navarro R. R., Iimura Y. Application of aqueous saponin on the remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonscontaminated soil // Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A. 2012. Vol. 47. P. 1138−1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2012.668106.

89. Pijanowska A., Kaczorek E., Chrzanowski Ł., Olszanowski A. Cell hydrophobicity of Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp. bacteria and hydrocarbon biodegradation in the presence of Quillaya saponin // World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2007. Vol. 23. P. 677–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-006-9282-6.

90. Sun Y., Zou M., Li C., Li X., Mao T., Zheng Ch. The solubilization of naphthalene using tea saponin as a biosurfactant: effect of temperature // Journal of Molecular Liquids. 2021. Vol. 335. P. 116475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2021.116475.

91. Davin M., Starren A., Deleu M., Lognay G., Colinet G., Fauconnier M.-L. Could saponins be used to enhance bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aged-contaminated soils? // Chemosphere. 2018. Vol. 194. P. 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.