Next Article in Journal
Demand for Ecosystem Services by Populations in the Luki Biosphere Reserve in DRC
Previous Article in Journal
Optimizing Vineyard Pruning Biochars for Nutrient Adsorption: Toward Sustainable Fertilizer Applications
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Pesticide Degradation by Soil Bacteria: Mechanisms, Bioremediation Strategies, and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture

by
Gyanendra Dhakal
1,2,*,
Srijana Thapa Magar
1,* and
Takeshi Fujino
1
1
Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saitama University, Saitama 338-8570, Japan
2
Agricultural Technology Centre (ATC) Pvt. Ltd., Lalitpur 44705, Nepal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2025, 12(12), 492; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12120492
Submission received: 6 October 2025 / Revised: 26 November 2025 / Accepted: 9 December 2025 / Published: 16 December 2025

Abstract

Pesticides remain indispensable for modern agriculture, yet their persistence in soil poses serious ecological and human-health risks through bioaccumulation, groundwater contamination, and impacts on non-target organisms. Although extensive research exists on pesticide degradation, most reviews separate biochemical pathways, environmental controls, and applied bioremediation strategies, limiting the ability to predict real-world field performance. This review integrates mechanistic enzymology, soil ecological responses, quantitative degradation kinetics, and emerging synthetic biology innovations into one unified framework. Soil bacteria including Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Rhodococcus, and Arthrobacter degrade organophosphates, carbamates, triazines, neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, and organochlorines through hydrolysis, oxidation, nitroreduction, and ring-cleavage pathways, often supported by plasmid-encoded genes and horizontal gene transfer. Bioaugmented systems typically achieve 70 to 95 percent removal within 10 to 30 days, with highly efficient cases such as Pseudomonas putida KT2440 removing 96 percent chlorpyrifos in 5 days, Rhodococcus koreensis mineralizing 98 percent endosulfan in 7 days, and Arthrobacter sp. AD26 degrading 95 percent atrazine in 72 h. Field-scale Azotobacter–Pseudomonas consortia have reduced chlorpyrifos from 25 mg kg−1 to less than 1 mg kg−1 within 30 days. Environmental conditions strongly influence degradation efficiency. Acidic soils increase pyrethroid half-lives by two to three times, anaerobic conditions can extend pesticide persistence from months to years, and drought or low organic matter reduces microbial activity by 60 to 80 percent, increasing neonicotinoid DT50 to more than 1000 days. Advances in omics, metagenomics, kinetic assays, and synthetic biology now enable engineered strains and synthetic consortia capable of more than 90 percent mineralization within 7 to 21 days. By linking molecular mechanisms, ecological constraints, quantitative outcomes, and emerging biotechnologies, this review provides a predictive roadmap for climate-resilient, scalable, and sustainable bioremediation strategies.

1. Introduction

Modern agriculture depends on pesticides to enhance crop production while managing pests, weeds, and diseases [1,2]. However, their widespread use causes significant environmental and health problems, including soil and water contamination, damage to food chains, non-target organisms, and human health [3,4,5,6]. Persistent pesticides, including organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids, accumulate in living organisms and cause long-lasting ecological harm [4,5]. The need for sustainable solutions has positioned degradation by soil bacteria as a natural and eco-friendly approach [7,8,9]. Soil bacteria possess diverse metabolic functions, enabling them to decompose complex pesticide compounds into less toxic substances through enzymatic processes [10,11,12]. This review explores pesticide degradation mechanisms by soil bacteria, their pathways, environmental factors influencing these processes, bioremediation strategies, and their impact on sustainable agriculture. Drawing on recent studies, it highlights the progress in omics technologies and synthetic biology and regulatory challenges [13,14,15,16]. Recent field studies show that soil bacteria play a vital role in breaking down pesticide residues in both tropical and temperate farming systems, helping to support global sustainability efforts [9,16,17].
The urgency of soil bacteria-based remediation is underscored by global reports indicating escalating pesticide usage and associated risks, as evidenced by the UNEP’s Global Chemicals Outlook, which calls for innovative solutions for managing contaminants [18]. Research on endocrine-disrupting pesticides reveals their dual threat to reproductive health and biodiversity, positioning bacterial degradation as a critical countermeasure [8]. Isolating degraders from contaminated sites, such as sugarcane farms, demonstrates how indigenous bacteria, like those degrading chlorpyrifos, can be used for targeted bioremediation practices [19]. Despite the extensive literature on pesticide degradation, existing reviews typically separate biochemical pathways, environmental controls, and applied bioremediation strategies. This fragmentation limits our ability to evaluate how enzymatic mechanisms translate into field-level degradation performance. The present review addresses this gap by integrating mechanistic enzymology, soil ecological responses, quantitative degradation metrics, and emerging synthetic-biology innovations into a single framework.
We synthesize evidence showing that soil bacteria, including Bacillus, Pseudomonas, and Rhodococcus, play central roles in pesticide removal within bioaugmented systems, while engineered CRISPR–Cas strains and synthetic consortia further enhance mineralization by expanding catalytic and metabolic capabilities. Environmental constraints such as acidity, low moisture, and pesticide-induced stress can diminish microbial functionality and slow degradation, underscoring the importance of maintaining supportive soil conditions for reliable bioremediation. Building on this foundation, the review integrates mechanistic enzymology, microbial ecological dynamics, bioremediation strategies, and advances in omics and synthetic biology into a unified framework. By linking enzyme-level transformation pathways with soil environmental factors, community-level adaptation, and emerging engineering innovations including CRISPR-enabled strains, multi-omics pathway discovery, and biochar-supported inocula, this work overcomes the fragmentation common in previous reviews. The resulting synthesis clarifies how molecular mechanisms translate into field-scale degradation outcomes across variable soil environments and provides a coherent foundation for developing resilient, scalable microbial bioremediation strategies for sustainable agriculture.

2. Pesticide Classes and Environmental Persistence

Major pesticide categories are classified by chemical composition and mode of action, including organophosphates (e.g., chlorpyrifos), carbamates (e.g., carbofuran), pyrethroids (e.g., cypermethrin), neonicotinoids (e.g., imidacloprid), triazines (e.g., atrazine), and organochlorines (e.g., DDT, endosulfan) [20,21,22,23,24,25]. Additional modern categories include phenylpyrazoles (e.g., fipronil) and sulfonylureas (e.g., metsulfuron-methyl), which are characterized by rapid degradation under high temperatures but increased leaching potential in permeable soils [26,27,28]. Table 1 quantitatively summarizes the persistence profiles of major pesticide classes, highlighting the substantial variability in their environmental half-lives (DT50) and the physicochemical factors governing their degradation. The table illustrates that while certain compounds such as glyphosate exhibit rapid dissipation (DT50 = 3–5 days), others, notably organochlorines, remain environmentally recalcitrant for years to decades. These differences underscore the influence of molecular structure, soil chemistry, and redox conditions on degradation kinetics, as well as the need for compound-specific remediation approaches [22,29,30,31,32,33].
As shown in Table 1, organochlorines (e.g., DDT, chlordane) exhibit the highest environmental persistence, with soil half-lives (DT50) ranging from 2 to 15 years [34,35]. This exceptional longevity stems from extensive chlorine substitution, which confers resistance to microbial hydrolysis, oxidation, and photolysis [34,36]. Their extremely low water solubility (DDT: 0.005–0.006 mg L−1; chlordane: 0.056 mg L−1) and strong sorption to soil organic matter (Koc > 105 mL g−1) further limit bioavailability and promote long-term accumulation [36,37]. These properties drive high bioaccumulation in aquatic food webs, with bioconcentration factors (BCF) exceeding 105 in fish for DDT and its metabolites [36,38]. These attributes explain the continued detection of organochlorine residues in polar and alpine ecosystems several decades post-ban [3,11,25,39]. Organophosphates, represented by chlorpyrifos in Table 1, exhibit moderate persistence (DT50 = 30–60 days) under aerobic conditions due to microbial hydrolysis of P–O bonds. Laboratory and field studies report >85–95% dissipation within 45 days at pH ≈ 7 and 28 °C in loamy soils [33]. However, in oxygen-depleted or waterlogged environments, such as rice paddies, hydrolysis and oxidation slow markedly, extending DT50 values to >120 days (e.g., cypermethrin: 124–168 days) [40,41]. The neonicotinoids, typified by imidacloprid, display high environmental persistence variability (DT50 = 40–150 days), primarily governed by soil organic carbon and moisture [32,33].
Table 1. Pesticide classes and their environmental persistence.
Table 1. Pesticide classes and their environmental persistence.
Pesticide ClassRepresentative CompoundsAverage Soil Half-Life (DT50)Persistence CategorySources
OrganophosphatesChlorpyrifos,
Parathion
30–60 daysModerate[33,42]
CarbamatesCarbofuran,
Aldicarb
10–50 daysLow to Moderate[23,43]
PyrethroidsCypermethrin,
Permethrin
30–100 days (up to years in anaerobic conditions)Moderate to High[40,44,45]
NeonicotinoidsImidacloprid,
Acetamiprid
40–150 days (dry conditions longer)Moderate[31,41,46,47,48]
TriazinesAtrazine,
Simazine
60–100 daysModerate[49,50]
OrganochlorinesDDT, Chlordane2–15 yearsHigh[3,11]
Others (e.g., Glyphosate)Glyphosate3–5 days (variable)Low[30,51]
Table 1 reflects this variability, with degradation times exceeding 1000 days in dry, low-organic soils (<1% OM). Such persistence corresponds with elevated ecological risks: field surveys link chronic imidacloprid residues to pollinator decline, with up to 68% colony collapse reported near intensively treated areas [46,48,52]. Empirical monitoring in Colombian tomato production corroborates higher neonicotinoid residues in greenhouses, with detections in 68% of conventional fruit samples versus ~25% in open-field sites [20]. In triazine herbicides such as atrazine (DT50 = 60–100 days, Table 1), persistence is driven by sorption and bound-residue formation. Between 40–62% of applied atrazine remains non-extractable after 180 days in high-clay soils, limiting bioavailability and impeding complete mineralization [49,50].
Although glyphosate is characterized in Table 1 as a low-persistence herbicide (DT50 = 3–5 days), its primary metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), persists considerably longer (120–150 days). AMPA’s higher mobility, especially in alkaline soils (pH > 7.5), accounts for its widespread detection up to 82% occurrence in groundwater beneath soybean cultivation zones in Argentina [30,51]. Pyrethroids, including cypermethrin and permethrin, exhibit biphasic degradation behavior consistent with Table 1 classifications: rapid surface photolysis (DT50 < 30 days) contrasts with long-term persistence (>1 year) in anaerobic subsoils. Residue monitoring has revealed cypermethrin concentrations of 0.05–0.5 mg kg−1 persisting in agricultural soils one-year post-application [40,44,45]. Collectively, the data synthesized in Table 1 emphasize that the apparent half-life of a pesticide is highly context-dependent, integrating molecular stability, soil physicochemical parameters, and microbial community function. Understanding these interactions is therefore essential for accurate modeling of pesticide fate and for prioritizing bioremediation strategies in contaminated agroecosystems.

3. Bacterial Taxa Involved in Pesticide Degradation

Soil bacteria are the primary agents of pesticide breakdown in soil, driving both natural attenuation and engineered bioremediation in contaminated environments through specialized enzymes and metabolic pathways that allow them to transform, detoxify, or mineralize a wide range of pesticide compounds [9,10,11]. These microbial processes are summarized in Table 2, which lists 14 genera known for pesticide degradation, their target compounds, and specific pathways or enzymes involved.
Pseudomonas spp. are the most versatile and intensively studied degraders, capable of hydrolyzing organophosphates, pyrethroids, and carbamates through the action of opd-encoded phosphotriesterases, esterases, and hydrolases [10]. For instance, Pseudomonas putida KT2440 achieved 96% chlorpyrifos removal (50 mg L−1) in just five days via opd-phosphotriesterase (k_cat = 1800 s−1) [53,54]. Soil bacteria can rapidly eliminate cypermethrin, achieving more than 85% degradation within 10 days [55], conjugative catabolic plasmids are known to spread effectively in nutrient-rich soils where high microbial activity and close cell-to-cell contact enhance horizontal gene transfer which allows rapid evolution of degradative pathways under pesticide stress [56,57].
Rhodococcus spp. exhibit broad catabolic versatility, allowing them to degrade structurally complex and persistent pesticides. Rhodococcus koreensis mineralizes endosulfan into endosulfan diol monosulfate with 98% efficiency within seven days through monooxygenase-mediated oxidation [58,59]. Similarly, Rhodococcus pyridinivorans Y6 has been shown to degrade multiple pyrethroids (>95% within 14 days) in co-contaminated soils [60]. The detection of endosulfan-degrading Rhodococcus like isolates in earthworm gut microbiota indicates adaptive evolution to niche-specific pesticide exposure [59].
Arthrobacter aurescens TC1 and Arthrobacter sp. AD26 are important soil bacteria with remarkable abilities to degrade s-triazine herbicides such as atrazine [61]. In TC1, degradation proceeds via the trzN–atzB–atzC gene cluster, which mediates sequential dechlorination and ring cleavage, ultimately producing cyanuric acid [62]. This strain can metabolize up to ~3000 mg L−1 of atrazine in culture and maintains activity under varying pH and nutrient conditions. Likewise, AD26 efficiently degraded approximately 95% of 500 mg L−1 atrazine in minimal medium within 72 h [63]. Their plasmid-borne catabolic genes, broad substrate range (TC1 can degrade more than 20 different s-triazines), and resilience under environmental stresses make these strains highly promising for in situ bioremediation of triazine-contaminated soils [61,62,63].
Table 2. Microbial taxa involved in pesticide degradation.
Table 2. Microbial taxa involved in pesticide degradation.
Bacterial Genus/SpeciesPesticides DegradedProcess/NotesSources
PseudomonasOrganophosphates, Pyrethroids,
DDT, Phenolics
Hydrolysis, Oxidation,/genetically modified for phenolics; consortia synergy and PTE/OPH-mediated cleavage of P–O bonds in organophosphates[10,53,54,61]
RhodococcusEndosulfan, Triazines,
Chlorpyrifos
Oxidation, ring cleavage/Produces metabolites such as endosulfan diol monosulfate in soil [58,59,60,64]
Arthrobacter aurescens TC1Atrazine,
S-Triazines
Hydrolytic dechlorination, ring-cleavage/Specialized pathways for s-triazine metabolism[61,63,65]
BacillusPyrethroids, Diphenyl Ethers,
Carbamates
Ester hydrolysis, nitroreduction/Enhanced rates in consortia; some strains dissipate triazoles[60,66,67,68,69]
BurkholderiaParathion, Carbofuran,
Various Organochlorines
Hydrolysis, oxidation/Broad-spectrum degradation; cometabolism supported by plant rhizosphere[9,12,70,71]
FlavobacteriumOrganophosphatesHydrolysis/Early-identified OP-degrading genus[9,10,12]
KlebsiellaNeonicotinoids, ChlorpyrifosEster hydrolysis/Nitroreductases assist detoxification[72,73,74]
NovosphingobiumPAHs, Sulfonylureas, NeonicotinoidsOxidation, hydrolysis/Dioxygenases contribute to aromatic ring cleavage[75]
AcinetobacterNeonicotinoids, Diazinon, OrganophosphatesHydrolysis/achieves up to 80% diazinon removal in laboratory systems and contributes to OP and neonicotinoid dissipation in contaminated soils[72,73,76]
StreptomycesDDT, Endosulfan, Diflufenican
Carbamates, Organophosphates
Oxidation, cometabolism/actinobacterial degradation important in pesticide-enriched agricultural soils and biomixtures[46,73,77]
SphingomonasNeonicotinoids, Sufonylureas Oxidation, hydrolysis/genetically modified for carbamates/organophosphates; biofilm enhances stability and cytochrome P450 monooxygenases enable oxidative breakdown of neonicotinoids[52,78]
StenotrophomonasNeonicotinoids, Sufonylureas Hydrolysis, cometabolism/tolerates co-contaminants and contributes to sulfonylurea dissipation in multi-pesticide systems[26,79]
AlcaligenesOrganochlorines Reductive dichlorination/targets persistent organochlorine pollutants via stepwise removal of chlorine substituents[80]
AchromobacterTriazinesHydrolysis, ring-cleavage/active in agricultural soils where it contributes to triazine herbicide dissipation[44,81]
ParacoccusPyrethroidsEster hydrolysis/catalyzes initial detoxification of pyrethroids, producing more polar intermediates for further microbial metabolism[26,82]
Bacillus spp., notably B. subtilis and B. sp. Za, play a major role in the biodegradation of pyrethroids, triazoles, and diphenyl ethers through esterase and nitroreductase activities [60,66,67,68,69,83]. Bacillus subtilis can degrade up to 90% of carbamates and 85% of triazoles in microbial consortia [84], while Bacillus sp. Za reduces diphenyl ethers by 78% within five days through nitroreducation [66,83]. These taxa demonstrate remarkable enzymatic versatility and resilience, particularly when functioning in synergistic partnerships with Pseudomonas. Indeed, Pseudomonas–Bacillus consortia increase overall degradation rate constants by approximately 3.2-fold via complementary metabolic handoffs [85,86,87].
Actinobacteria genera, particularly Streptomyces spp., degrade a wide range of xenobiotics including organophosphates, carbamates, and organochlorines [46]. Through actinobacterial cometabolism, Streptomyces species can degrade up to 80% of DDT and diflufenican within 21 days [46,77]. Their filamentous morphology and extracellular enzyme secretion make them particularly effective in soil–plant interfaces [88].
Azotobacter spp., isolated from sugarcane and paddy soils, also participate in organophosphate degradation. When co-applied with Pseudomonas consortia, they reduce chlorpyrifos from 25 mg kg−1 to <1 mg kg−1 within 30 days, while simultaneously enhancing soil nitrogen fixation and fertility recovery [16].
Recent studies have expanded the known diversity of degradative bacteria. Sphingomonas, Novosphingobium, Stenotrophomonas, and Alcaligenes genera have been reported to degrade neonicotinoids, organochlorines, and phenylpyrazoles via oxidative and reductive transformations [52,73,75,78,79,89,90]. For example, Novosphingobium sp. and Stenotrophomonas sp. achieved approximately 80% acetamiprid removal within 48 h in biofilm reactors through dioxygenase and hydrolase activity [75,78,79,91]. Biofilm-based configurations enhance both biodegradation efficiency and microbial resilience in continuous-flow conditions [52,78]. Genomic analyses of metaldehyde-degrading strains reveal that unrelated bacteria share highly conserved degradation pathways, highlighting strong selection pressure driving the convergent evolution of degradative genes and shaping microbial adaptation in contaminated environments [57].
Field-based studies provide essential validation of laboratory-derived degradation mechanisms [9,16,17]. In Brazilian sugarcane soils, Azotobacter-Pseudomonas consortia achieved up to 96% reduction in chlorpyrifos concentrations (from 25 mg kg−1 to 1 mg kg−1 within 30 days, demonstrating the efficacy of bioaugmentation under real world conditions [16,92]. However, long-term survival of introduced strains remains a major challenge, with persistence typically below 30% in the absence of carrier-based immobilization or synergistic interactions with native microbial communities [93].
Table 2 highlights these major bacterial genera, including Pseudomonas (degrading organophosphates and pyrethroids through hydrolytic enzymes) [10,53,54,61]; Rhodococcus species, such as R. koreensis (endosulfan and triazines degradation, producing metabolites like endosulfan diol monosulfate [58,59]; Arthrobacter strains, such as A. aurescens and A. sp. AD26 (mineralizing s-triazines like atrazine via dechlorination and ring cleavage pathways [61,65].To complement the taxa-level overview presented in Table 2, Figure 1 summarizes the enzymatic degradation pathways used by soil bacteria to transform major pesticide classes into non-toxic end products.
Figure 1 illustrates the primary microbial degradation pathways for four major pesticide classes (organophosphates, triazines, neonicotinoids, and pyrethroids) in agricultural soils. Organophosphate pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos, are predominantly degraded via hydrolysis catalyzed by organophosphorus hydrolase (OPH), which releases p-nitrophenol as a primary product. This intermediate is subsequently converted by soil bacteria, particularly Pseudomonas and Bacillus species, into low-toxicity organic acids and alcohols through a series of detoxification steps, ultimately leading to mineralization [10,44,76]. Triazine herbicides, including atrazine, are transformed through a highly conserved three-step hydrolytic pathway: initial dechlorination by AtzA, followed by hydroxylation catalyzed by AtzB, and finally deamination by AtzC to yield cyanuric acid. Cyanuric acid then undergoes ring cleavage and is completely mineralized to CO2 and NH4+, a process widely documented in Pseudomonas and Arthrobacter isolates from contaminated environments [61,63,65,94]. Neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid are primarily detoxified by nitroreduction, forming nitroso- and hydroxylamine intermediates that are further reduced to amines and eventually mineralized. This sequence is commonly mediated by Bacillus, Klebsiella, and related soil bacteria [45,66,72,73]. Pyrethroids such as cypermethrin are first hydrolyzed by microbial carboxylesterases, generating the corresponding alcohol and carboxylic acid intermediates [21,64]. These primary products are subsequently oxidized by cytochrome P450 monooxygenases and related oxidative enzymes, producing oxyacids and other readily degradable metabolites that continue toward complete breakdown in soil microbial systems [95,96,97]. Taken together, these enzymatic pathways share a common outcome: the conversion of toxic pesticides into non-toxic end products such as CO2, H2O, organic acids, and alcohols. Soil bacteria from the genera Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Rhodococcus consistently play the central role in pesticide detoxification and full mineralization in agricultural soils [11,43,53,58,68].

4. Enzymatic and Genetic Mechanisms of Degradation

Soil bacteria degrade pesticides through enzymatic reactions that cleave chemical bonds via oxidation and hydrolysis [10,21,22,23]. Table 3 outlines key enzyme classes and their roles in pesticide degradation. Phosphotriesterases (PTE/OPH) in Pseudomonas and Bacillus cleave P–O bonds in organophosphates, yielding non-toxic alcohols and acids [10,98,99]. These enzymes demonstrate remarkable catalytic proficiency, with the Pseudomonas diminuta phosphotriesterase (OPH) exhibiting turnover rates (k₍cat₎) in the range of approximately 2.1  ×  103–2.3  ×  103 s−1 for paraoxon hydrolysis and catalytic efficiencies (k₍cat₎/Kₘ) approaching 4  ×  107 M−1 s−1. Such values correspond to rate enhancements of roughly 106–1012-fold relative to the spontaneous, uncatalyzed hydrolysis of organophosphate esters, underscoring the exceptional catalytic power of OPH [100,101,102,103]. Field-deployable OPH variants retain greater than 80% activity across a pH range of 5–9, enhancing their practical utility in variable soil environments [104]. However, enzyme inhibition by heavy metals (Cu2+, Zn2+) can reduce activity by 50–70% in contaminated agroecosystems, posing a significant challenge to field performance [105].
Carboxylesterases are pivotal enzymes in the microbial degradation of pyrethroid pesticides, catalyzing the hydrolytic cleavage of their ester bonds that initiates detoxification [44,45,64,114,116]. For example, the estA gene from Bacillus cereus BCC01 encodes a carboxylesterase (EstA) capable of degrading 40–100% of several pyrethroids within 2 h at an initial concentration of 20 mg L−1, exhibiting the highest catalytic activity toward β-cypermethrin (≈7.9 mg min−1). Under similar conditions, whole-cell B. cereus BCC01 cultures achieved nearly 85% removal of β-cypermethrin within 4 days at 50 mg L−1 [114]. Likewise, Bacillus subtilis strain 1D demonstrated up to 95% cypermethrin degradation under laboratory conditions within 10–15 days, with its esterase showing apparent Kₘ values of approximately 11.16 and 12.43 as determined from Lineweaver–Burk analysis [117]. Nitroreductases in Rhodococcus spp. play a pivotal role in the detoxification of nitroguanidine-type neonicotinoids by catalyzing the stepwise reduction of nitro groups to corresponding amine metabolites, substantially lowering their toxicity [73]. Comparable nitroreductases have shown catalytic rates in the range of 40–50 nmol min−1 mg−1 when reducing nitroaromatic substrates under optimized biocatalytic conditions [107]. Cytochrome P450 monooxygenases in Sphingomonas spp. catalyze the oxidative hydroxylation of imidacloprid, producing 5-hydroxy-imidacloprid, with degradation efficiencies reaching ~56–70% within 48 h under co-metabolic conditions [73,118,119].
Amidases and hydrolases in Arthrobacter and Variovorax target triazine amide bonds, with atzA gene expression strongly correlating with near-complete atrazine mineralization (>99%) in contaminated soils [52,94]. Multicopper oxidases (laccases) from Pseudomonas and Streptomyces species catalyze radical-mediated oxidation of aromatic pollutants such as chlorophenols, achieving 70–90% degradation within 24–48 h [113]. Laccase-assisted systems have shown particular promise for recalcitrant compounds [84]. Genetic regulation plays a pivotal role in microbial pesticide degradation. Key genes such as opd (organophosphates), atz (triazines), and est (pyrethroids) are frequently carried on plasmids or conjugative elements, enabling horizontal gene transfer that enhances degradation efficiency in contaminated soils [10,15]. Metagenomic studies indicate that CRISPR-Cas systems are widespread in environmental microbial communities, where they play an important role in microbial adaptation by mediating defense responses and influencing horizontal gene transfer under chemical stress conditions [120,121]. In engineered microbes, CRISPR-Cas9 has been successfully applied to modify esterase genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, demonstrating precise control of esterase activity and associated metabolic outputs [122]. Marker-free chromosomal integration of mpd and pytH under J23119 promoter enabled 100% degradation of six pesticides (0.2 mM each) in 48 h (liquid) and 15 days (soil, 106 cells g−1) [54]. Pesticide degradation often occurs via cometabolism, where pollutants serve as secondary substrates, as seen with the mineralization of 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol from chlorpyrifos [15]. Organophosphate-degrading enzymes are not only valuable for environmental remediation but are also being developed as promising medical countermeasures against organophosphate poisoning, functioning as catalytic bioscavengers that can rapidly hydrolyze toxic compounds before they reach critical neural targets [98,123].
Cytochrome P450 enzymes are key mediators of pesticide degradation, with Bacillus sp. MFK14 achieving nearly complete removal of β-cyfluthrin and λ-cyhalothrin within 48 h, and Trametes versicolor showing efficient fipronil breakdown through P450-driven oxidation [124,125]. Such catalytic systems, together with hydrolases like phosphotriesterases (PTEs), represent complementary enzymatic strategies that enhance the overall biodegradation efficiency of diverse pesticide classes across bacterial, fungal, and microbial communities [126,127]. An immobilized His6-OPH formulation on straw/cellulose carriers degraded approximately 850 mg diazinon kg−1 soil within 10 days, demonstrating rapid enzymatic detoxification of contaminated soils [128]. Biochar’s high surface area (~300–800 m2 g−1) and functional stability make it a promising alternative carrier for enzyme immobilization in field-scale applications [129].
Pyrethroid-degrading bacteria exhibit enhanced catalytic efficiency through evolved esterases and hydrolases, achieving degradation of compounds such as cypermethrin and cyfluthrin within 7–54 days under soil conditions [44,45]. Advances in synthetic biology and microbial-assisted remediation further highlight cytochrome P450 monooxygenases as vital enzymes in the breakdown of neonicotinoids and organochlorines, supporting removal efficiencies exceeding 80–90% in optimized microbial systems [130,131]. Carbamate degradation exhibits conserved hydrolytic and oxidative pathways across microbial taxa, underscoring evolutionary convergence in detoxification mechanisms [23]. Table 3 provides actionable targets for enzyme mining and synthetic biology in agroecosystem restoration, offering a roadmap for developing robust, field-ready bioremediation strategies.

5. Environmental Factors Affecting Degradation

Pesticide degradation rates in soil ecosystems are controlled by abiotic and biotic factors [5,20,49], as summarized in Table 4. This table lays out the key environmental drivers of microbial activity, pinpointing optimal ranges and critical stress points that can make or break degradation efficiency [5,132]. Soil pH profoundly influences enzyme functionality: organophosphate hydrolysis rates increase 3.8-fold from pH 5 to 7, reflecting maximized active site availability in neutral conditions (pH 6–7), whereas acidic soils (pH < 5.5) extend pyrethroid half-lives (DT50) by 2–3 times longer due to enhanced sorption to iron oxides [30,49,132]. Pyrethroid persistence generally increases under acidic conditions, while organophosphate hydrolysis accelerates in neutral to slightly alkaline soils [44,132].
Temperature governs microbial metabolism and enzyme kinetics, with an optimal range of 25–30 °C aligning with mesophilic activity: atrazine degradation rate constants reach k = 0.018 day−1 at 30 °C compared to 0.005 day−1 at 10 °C [133]. Field studies in Indian wheat soils demonstrate that chlorpyrifos removal efficiency drops sharply from 92% to 38% as temperature decreases from 28 °C to 12 °C, underscoring thermal sensitivity in real-world settings [134]. Soil moisture at 60–80% field capacity supports biofilm formation and substrate diffusion; drought conditions (<40% field capacity) reduce microbial activity by 60% and suppress degradative gene expression (opd, est) by up to 75% [135]. High humidity in tropical and greenhouse soils accelerates degradation but elevates leaching risks [20,27].
Table 4. Environmental factors affecting bacterial pesticide degradation in soils.
Table 4. Environmental factors affecting bacterial pesticide degradation in soils.
Environmental FactorEffect on DegradationIndicative Optimal RangeNotes/InterpretationExample Pesticides/Bacteria AffectedSource
pHControls enzyme stability, hydrolysis rates, sorption interactions Neutral (pH 6–7)Acidic soils (<5.5) reduce pyrethroid degradation; OP hydrolysis faster near neutralChlorpyrifos/Pseudomonas (optimal pH 7); Atrazine/Arthrobacter (unaffected 5.5–8.5); Lindane/Bacillus (peak at pH 8)[89,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143]
TemperatureIncrease enzyme kinetics and microbial metabolism 25–30 °CDegradation declines rapidly < (15 °CLindane/soil consortia (optimal 30 °C, 60% degradation); Chlorpyrifos/Rhodococcus (faster at 28 °C); General pesticides (slowed at 1.9–15 °C)[141,144,145,146,147,148,149]
Moisture/Water holding Support microbial growth and substrate diffusion, biomass and nutrient transferField capacity (60–80%)Drought and waterlogging inhibit microbial activityPyrethroids/Bacillus (50% WHC optimal); Neonicotinoids/Sphingomonas (reduced at low moisture/ <50% WHC) [141,145,146,147,148,149]
Organic Matter (OM)/Organic compoundsSupports cometabolism + microbial adaptation; also increases sorption2–5% OMElevated OM increases sorption affinity (higher Koc) and reduces pesticide bioavailability; balanced OM improves co-metabolism Atrazine/indigenous consortia (>3% SOM accelerates); Carbamates (compost amendments enhance 30–50%)[89,141,150,151,152,153,154]
Aeration/OxygenEnable aerobic monooxygenases and oxidase reactionAir-filled porosity ≥ 10–15% Below ~10% AFP aerobic turnover drops; compaction & flooding limit O2DDT/soil bacteria (both conditions viable, aerobic faster); Clothianidin (rapid anaerobic at 25–35 °C); Aldicarb (faster anaerobic)[136,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162]
Organic matter (OM) content plays a dual role: soils with >3% OM harbor 2.5 times more degradative taxa and degrade imidacloprid 40% faster than low-OM counterparts, reflecting enhanced microbial adaptation [29,163]. However, excessive OM (>5%) reduces pesticide bioavailability by 30–50% through strong sorption, potentially limiting degradation [132,163]. Aeration favors oxidative pathways, while anaerobic conditions prolong pyrethroid persistence beyond one year [40,44]. Prior pesticide exposure shapes microbial community resilience, with repeated applications enriching degrader populations and enhancing long-term degradation capacity [70,133].
Co-contaminants and amendments significantly modulate outcomes. Heavy metals such as copper (>100 mg kg−1) and zinc inhibit esterases by up to 55%, competing for enzymatic sites or disrupting microbial diversity [105,164,165]. Biochar amendments (2% w/w) effectively mitigate this inhibition, restoring enzyme activity to ~90% while limiting pesticide mobility and promoting microbial colonization though over-application can suppress degradation [105,132,165,166]. Climate change projections under RCP 8.5 (+2 °C, −20% rainfall) are expected to reduce overall degradation efficiency by 45% by 2050, driven by altered microbial community structure and increased pesticide persistence [167]. Drought and rising temperatures exacerbate these challenges by shifting community composition and necessitating higher pesticide inputs [134,167]. Field and greenhouse studies indicate that co-applying lime to raise soil pH with 1–3% biochar can substantially accelerate glyphosate degradation, increasing removal efficiencies from roughly 60–70% to 85–95% within 3–4 weeks, confirming the effectiveness of targeted soil amendments [168,169,170]. Biochar application must be balanced to avoid inhibitory effects [132]. Historical pesticide use has profoundly influenced soil microbiomes, priming them for enhanced degradation capacity in chronically exposed systems [133]. Table 4 serves as an essential framework for site-specific bioremediation modeling and climate-adaptive strategies.

6. Bioremediation Strategies

Bioremediation leverages soil bacteria to detoxify pesticide-contaminated sites, offering cost-effective, eco-friendly alternatives to chemical methods [7,13,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171]. Table 5 outlines bioremediation strategies for pesticide degradation. Although Table 5 outlines the main bioremediation strategies, presenting their typical degradation yields and timeframes helps clarify how these approaches perform under real conditions. Reported efficiencies vary because soil type, pesticide chemistry, and microbial traits strongly influence outcomes, but several consistent patterns emerge from published studies. Natural attenuation generally results in about 30–60% pesticide removal over 30–90 days, with faster breakdown in soils that have been previously exposed to pesticides due to microbial priming [12,13,171,172,173]. Bioaugmentation typically offers higher and quicker removal, where Bacillus- and Rhodococcus-based inocula commonly achieve 70–95% degradation of chlorpyrifos and pyrethroids within 10–30 days [60,67,80,174]. Engineered or synthetic microbial consortia can accelerate this process even further, often reaching more than 90% mineralization within 7–21 days because multiple hydrolytic, oxidative, and reductive pathways operate synergistically [15,21,87,135,175,176,177]. At the field scale, biobeds and biomixture systems usually deliver 50–100% dissipation within 30–90 days, influenced by factors such as substrate composition, moisture, climate, and biomixture aging [178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187]. Overall, these values highlight a clear trend: degradation efficiency and speed increase markedly from natural attenuation to bioaugmented and engineered bioremediation systems, reinforcing their suitability for managing contaminated agricultural soils.

6.1. Natural Attenuation

Natural attenuation relies on native microbial populations to break down pesticides through a cost-effective but slow process, independent of human intervention [13,171,172,173]. It leverages indigenous microbiota, achieving 40–70% pesticide removal in 6 months in periurban horticultural soils with prior exposure [12,173]. Attenuation of chlorpyrifos and endosulfan involves hydrolysis and oxidation, accelerated by microbial adaptation in periurban environments [173]. Omics-guided synthetic consortia, such as Pseudomonas–Bacillus co-cultures, achieve up to 90% chlorpyrifos removal in soilsand exhibit higher organophosphorus degradation (opd) gene expression than monocultur while Azotobacter chroococcum strain 67B degrades ~60% of 50 mg L−1 chlorpyrifos in 30 days under laboratory conditions in Indian agricultural isolates via organophosphorus degradation (opd) activity [16]. Natural attenuation offers a cost-effective, passive bioremediation approach for low-contamination agricultural soils, yet its slow degradation kinetics, with half-lives of 30–120 days for organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids, and incomplete mineralization, exemplified by the persistence of toxic 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (3,5,6-TCP) from chlorpyrifos, restrict its use in high-risk scenarios [12,21]. Success depends on diverse soil bacterial populations with specific pesticide degradation capabilities, whose abundance varies between soil types and geographic locations [112]. Sites with prior pesticide treatment harbor soil bacterial populations that degrade contaminants at accelerated rates through soil bacterial priming.
Reviews confirm natural attenuation is effective in agricultural fields with diverse taxonomic species [171,172]. Optimized soil conditions, including higher organic matter content and pH adjustments, enhance the activity of indigenous microorganisms, particularly for organophosphate degradation [67,163]. Biochar addition enhances natural pesticide attenuation by creating improved environments for microorganisms and increasing pesticide bioavailability to microbial action setting the stage for synergistic bioaugmentation [93]. In Brazilian soils, natural attenuation combined with other remediation techniques achieves better performance [12]. Variable microbial responses necessitate site-specific assessments to ensure effective results [11].

6.2. Bioaugmentation

Bioaugmentation represents the deliberate introduction of pre-selected, pesticide-degrading microbial strains or consortia into contaminated soils to accelerate and enhance the natural degradation process [41,80]. This targeted strategy overcomes limitations of indigenous populations such as slow kinetics or low abundance by deploying specialized degraders (e.g., Bacillus, Rhodococcus, Pseudomonas) that are pre-adapted, genetically optimized, or encapsulated for survival [67,188]. Bioaugmentation accelerates pesticide degradation in contaminated soils by introducing specific microbial strains or consortia, offering a targeted, rapid-response strategy for high-contamination sites and achieving 10–50-fold faster rates than natural processes alone [80,189,190]
Bacillus sp. degrades chlorpyrifos in contaminated soil systems, and kinetic experiments verify first-order degradation [67]. For instance, Rhodococcus pyridinivorans strain Y6 completely metabolized beta-cypermethrin (50 mg L−1) within 36 h in liquid mineral salt medium via esterase-mediated hydrolysis, demonstrating the strain’s potential for rapid pyrethroid degradation [60]. Bacillus and Sphingomonas consortia exhibit successful degradation of pyrethroids and neonicotinoids [64,67]. Rhodococcus pyridinivorans Y6 efficiently degrades multiple pyrethroids [60]. Strain survival and competition are mitigated with carrier materials [80,93]. Encapsulation substantially enhances microbial persistence and functional stability for soil bioremediation, with alginate–bentonite encapsulated Pseudomonas/Bacillus consortia maintaining ~106 CFU g−1 after 12 months at 4 °C and ~89% survival at 6 months, while microbeads retain >99% cells with viable release for ≥60 days and immobilized pesticide degraders preserve >80% catalytic efficiency across cycles [191,192,193]. Advanced delivery systems, encasing microorganisms in biodegradable carriers, enhance performance in challenging soil conditions [15,174].
In practice, Bacillus spp. consortia have removed ~81–95% of imidacloprid from soil microcosms by day 56 with half-lives of 13–16 days at near-ambient conditions, evidencing strong biodegradative potential [194]. Under optimized in vitro conditions (pH 7), Bacillus cereus has achieved ~92% imidacloprid biodegradation in 11 days, illustrating the upper bound on achievable rates in enriched systems [195]. Complementarily, biochar/compost amendments in soils significantly reduce imidacloprid concentrations and half-life, and biochar-based media in engineered wetlands enhance neonicotinoid (e.g., imidacloprid, acetamiprid) removal, supporting the synergy between bioaugmentation and carbonaceous carriers for scalable remediation [196,197]. Combining biochar or compost with biological methods yields synergistic effects, enhancing bacterial survival, pesticide bioavailability, and activity [129,198]. Bioaugmentation, combined with these methods, enhances degradation speed and microbial retention, making it suitable for large-scale remediation [163]. Synergistic organic biomixtures incorporating compost with biochar achieve >90% pesticide removal and up to 99% glyphosate dissipation within ~40–63 days in tropical biobed systems, and when combined with targeted bioaugmentation further enhance degradation kinetics, supporting scalable field remediation [181,187,199,200]. Microcosm studies in Argentine peri-urban horticultural soils demonstrated effective biological attenuation of chlorpyrifos and endosulfan [173], and the combined application of soil-derived microbial consortia with cyclodextrin significantly enhanced herbicide dissipation rates in soil systems, highlighting that strategic amendment pairing can strengthen bioaugmentation performance for scalable pesticide remediation [175]. Genetically engineered Bacillus subtilis strains expressing dehalogenases have shown effective removal of organochlorine pesticides including chlorothalonil and iprodione in soil and lab systems [201,202,203]. Cyclodextrin-based technologies enhance herbicide removal in contaminated soil systems [175,204].

6.3. Synthetic Microbial Consortia

Engineered soil microbial consortia assembled from pesticide-degrading genera such as Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Streptomyces, and Sphingomonas demonstrate superior degradation performance compared to individual isolates, as synthetic consortia have been shown to significantly increase removal efficiency and degradation rates across diverse pesticide classes [87]. These consortia build on bioaugmentation principles, achieving synergistic degradation by combining multiple strains, with Pseudomonas–Bacillus–Streptomyces assemblies enhancing pesticide removal efficiency beyond single isolates, as evidenced by consortia reaching 82.2% diflufenican degradation versus 51.8% for the best monoculture [146] and >90% λ-cyhalothrin removal in cotton-planted soil [205,206]. These consortia enhance degradation through complementary hydrolytic, oxidative, and reductive enzymatic activities [60,86]. Quorum sensing (QS) via AHL-mediated regulation enhances esterase expression in Bacillus subtilis BSF01, coordinating enzymatic activity and improving synergistic pyrethroid degradation, increasing cypermethrin removal from 58.7% to 83.2% and fenpropathrin removal from 52.3% to 79.4% within 48 h compared to non-QS controls [68]. Engineering microbial consortia frequently leverages quorum sensing (QS) circuits to coordinate interstrain interactions and enhance operational stability, with several studies showing QS-based regulation contributes to sustained performance in complex environmental applications [86,207].
CRISPR/Cas9 toolkits now enable precise metabolic rewiring of environmental degraders [135]. Incorporation of heavy-metal efflux determinants such as czcCBA substantially enhances metal stress tolerance and resistance phenotypes [208]. Likewise, integration of pH-responsive promoter systems, including P_asr and alkaline-inducible regulatory modules, provides dynamic, condition-responsive control of gene expression under fluctuating soil chemistry [209]. Collectively, these synthetic biology capabilities support the rational construction of CRISPR-enabled, czc-equipped, pH-responsive bioaugmentation consortia suitable for resilient field deployment [135,208,209]. Machine learning and computational microbiome modeling approaches are increasingly being applied to identify functionally compatible microbial assemblies and guide rational consortium design for bioremediation applications [176,210]. These predictive frameworks integrate multi-omics datasets (metagenomics, metatranscriptomics) to identify pathway bottlenecks and optimize division-of-labor in engineered consortia, thereby minimizing accumulation of toxic metabolic intermediates during pesticide mineralization [210].
Field-relevant microbial consortia consistently outperform individual isolates, as demonstrated by a four-strain assembly achieving superior diflufenican degradation efficiency in soil compared to the best monoculture [146]. In cotton-planted soil systems, a three-member bacterial consortium achieved high λ-cyhalothrin removal under near-field conditions, further reinforcing the translational potential of consortium-based bioaugmentation [205]. Consortia also enable simultaneous biotransformation of multiple pesticide classes, as demonstrated for bacterial communities capable of concurrent degradation of chlorpyrifos and methyl-parathion in soil systems [211]. Mechanistic enhancements, such as quorum sensing-mediated regulation of carboxylesterase expression in Bacillus subtilis BSF01, further increase pyrethroid degradation efficiency compared to non-QS controls [68]. Despite the strong performance of engineered consortia, maintaining ecological containment remains a critical priority. Rationally engineered kill-switch systems now enable precise control over strain persistence, preventing survival outside intended deployment boundaries [212]. Integration with biochar-based immobilization matrices enhances spatial confinement and long-term viability, bridging laboratory efficacy with scalable field deployment [198,213]. Future consortia are expected to strategically incorporate synthetic biology tools to co-engineer pesticide catabolism with soil fertility enhancement functions such as nitrogen fixation and phosphorus solubilization, aligning bioremediation outputs with regenerative and climate-smart agriculture paradigms [87,136,177].

6.4. Field-Scale Applications

Field-scale bioremediation represents a critical step in translating laboratory innovations into practical strategies for managing pesticide contamination in agricultural systems. Common approaches include the use of biomixtures and biobeds, soil amendments with biochar or compost, phytoremediation, and application of adapted microbial consortia [174,185,214,215]. Biomixture and biobed systems have demonstrated reliable pesticide attenuation under both pilot and full-scale agricultural deployment. Full-scale field biobeds consistently achieve >50% dissipation across multiple pesticide classes, while mature biomixture formulations can exceed 80% chlorpyrifos removal, especially following appropriate pre-incubation [179,182]. Multi-stage on-farm configurations have further validated robust treatment performance when confronted with mixed pesticide waste streams [183]. Notably, reports from Latin American agricultural systems indicate that optimized biobed architectures can approach near-complete dissipation within approximately 30–90 days, although overall degradation kinetics remain strongly dependent on pesticide physicochemistry, biomixture maturity, hydraulic load, and prevailing climatic conditions [188]. Studies across Mediterranean and temperate biobed systems consistently report slow-to-moderate chlorpyrifos dissipation kinetics, typically corresponding to ~0.7–2% day−1 depending on biomixture composition, substrate maturity, and environmental conditions [178,179,181,182,187]. At 200 mg kg−1 CP, 15-day matured biomixtures achieved 85% degradation within 40 days, compared with ~70% removal in fresh and 30-day matured mixtures, confirming maturity as a major driver of dissipation performance [179].
Formulation strategies that enhance pesticide bioavailability, such as inclusion complexes and molecular carriers, combined with biochar-supported degraders accelerate degradation and improve microbial persistence. Biochar-amended systems can increase transformation efficiency by 28–46% relative to non-biochar controls [216], while integrated biochar–bacteria–plant systems routinely achieve >70–90% removal of organic pollutants under soil-relevant conditions [217]. However, these gains remain highly dependent on feedstock source, pyrolysis temperature (adsorption dominates (adsorption dominates above ~500 °C), functional group chemistry, and soil context [213,218]. Regional field studies corroborate these patterns. European and Brazilian biobed systems routinely achieve 70–98% removal efficiencies for organophosphates, triazines, and glyphosate [181,187], while tropical biobed designs using banana stem, mulch and soil (50:25:25 v/v), EBDC (Ethylene bis-dithiocarbamate) contaminated biomixtures achieved >99% reduction of EBDC-derived residues within 84 days, demonstrating the high remediation capacity of banana-stem lignocellulosic substrates [186]. Similarly, pine-litter and vermicompost-based biomixtures sustain more than 85–90% atrazine and chlorpyrifos degradation within 60 days, particularly when pre-composted for 30 days [219], and coconut-fiber biomixtures in tropical potato systems show linuron half-lives less than 15 days under repeated application cycles [220].
Advanced in synthetic biology has enabled multi-pathway engineered Pseudomonas putida KT2440 strains capable of degrading multiple pesticide classes. Engineered variants completely mineralize 100 mg L−1 methyl parathion within ~12 h and rapidly degrade γ-HCH in liquid culture [53]. Complementary KT2440 strains carrying organophosphate-, pyrethroid-, and carbamate-hydrolysing genes simultaneously remove mixed residues (50 mg kg−1 each) from soil within 15 days [53,54,221]. However, despite these strong laboratory and pilot-scale performances, field deployment remains constrained due to biosafety risks associated with horizontal gene transfer, containment, and regulatory restrictions on deliberate release of genetically modified microbial inoculants [174]. Integrating biochar or compost amendments with microbial inocula or plant-assisted systems can enhance microbial survival, modify sorption–bioavailability dynamics, and accelerate pesticide dissipation [196,217,218]. For instance, pine-litter or vermicompost biomixtures achieved near-complete phosmet removal within 90 days [219] while biochar combined with microbial agents increased organic matter and total nitrogen by 22.1% and 41%, respectively, during composting [222]. However, performance remains highly dependent on biochar feedstock and pyrolysis conditions, underscoring the need for site-specific optimization and monitoring [223]. To achieve scalable, environmentally safe, and socially acceptable applications, standardized field monitoring protocols, ecological risk assessments, and active engagement with regulatory bodies and stakeholders are essential [174,181,183,187].

7. Methodology

This review adopted a structured and transparent approach for identifying, screening, and synthesizing scientific evidence on microbial pesticide degradation, following the PRISMA guidelines as outlined in Figure 2. Literature searches were conducted across major academic databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, covering the period 1995 to 2025 to capture both foundational and emerging developments in the field. Search terms included combinations of “pesticide degradation,” “soil bacteria,” “bioremediation,” “microbial enzymes,” “degradation pathways,” “omics technologies,” and “synthetic biology,” ensuring comprehensive coverage of mechanistic, ecological and applied aspects of microbial degradation.
All retrieved records were imported into a reference management system, where duplicates were removed prior to screening. The title and abstract screening phase excluded papers that did not address microbial degradation, focused solely on non-biological remediation methods, lacked relevance to soil ecosystems, or provided insufficient scientific grounding. Full-text assessment was then applied to all remaining articles. Studies were included if they: (i) examined bacterial degradation of pesticides in soil or soil-relevant systems; (ii) reported enzymatic, genetic, metabolic or pathway-level mechanisms; (iii) investigated environmental factors influencing degradation; or (iv) evaluated bioremediation strategies at laboratory, greenhouse or field scales.
Studies were excluded if they lacked methodological rigor, did not provide interpretable experimental outcomes, or were unrelated to bacterial degradation processes. The final dataset therefore comprised peer-reviewed journal articles, review papers and book chapters, with special emphasis on recent advances published after 2019 that align with the manuscript’s focus on enzymatic mechanisms, multi-omics technologies and synthetic-biology-based innovations. Data extracted from the included literature encompassed bacterial taxa, enzyme classes, degradation pathways, kinetic characteristics, regulatory genes, environmental modulators and bioremediation performance metrics, enabling a multi-level synthesis that integrates mechanistic, ecological and technological insights.
Throughout the review process, attention was given to the quality, reproducibility and ecological relevance of evidence, ensuring that conclusions drawn from the literature reflect robust trends across microbial metabolism, soil science, environmental biotechnology and sustainable agriculture. The final synthesis integrates these diverse strands of evidence to provide a comprehensive, state-of-the-art understanding of soil-bacterial pesticide degradation.

8. Advances in Omics Technologies and Synthetic Biology

Omics technologies have revolutionized pesticide degradation research by integrating metagenomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics to reveal soil bacterial catabolic pathways, discover new genes, enzymes, and regulatory systems [14,67,81,224,225,226]. Metagenomic profiling has identified chlorpyrifos-degrading genes, including phosphotriesterases and organophosphorus hydrolases, not only in known pesticide degraders but also in previously unculturable soil microorganisms, expanding the functional microbial reservoir available for bioremediation [227,228,229]. Complementary metagenomic and molecular analyses have revealed previously uncharacterized chlorpyrifos- and TCP-degrading bacteria in agricultural soils. Notably, Stenotrophomonas sp. YC-1 has been shown to completely degrade 100 mg L−1 chlorpyrifos within 24 h in liquid culture [230], while Bacillus pumilus C2A1 achieves approximately 90% TCP removal within 8 days [231]. These findings substantially expand the known microbial and genetic reservoir underpinning organophosphate biodegradation.
Proteomic analyses have demonstrated that pesticide biodegradation can be enhanced through the activity of key hydrolytic and oxidoreductive enzymes including esterases, dehalogenases, peroxidases, and laccases while transcriptomic responses reveal that abiotic stressors modulate the expression and regulation of these pathways, collectively accelerating enzymatic detoxification of soil pesticide residues [52]. Integrating omics with machine learning facilitates prediction and optimization of degradation pathways, revealing complex soil bacterial community interactions and synergistic effects in contaminated sites [47,81,108,210,225,232]. Metabolomics tracks intermediary metabolites to address pathway limitations, aiding the development of efficient synthetic consortia [14,67,94,233,234].
Synthetic biology has enhanced pesticide bioremediation by enabling the construction of multi-pathway Pseudomonas putida KT2440 strains capable of degrading organophosphate, pyrethroid and carbamate pesticides [53,54,221], supported by CRISPR–Cas genome-engineering platforms in this chassis [235], and by developing engineered Escherichia coli strains carrying multiple degradation genes for accelerated pollutant removal [104,236,237]. Epigenomic regulation influences degradation-linked gene expression and functional outcomes within plant–microbe systems, while AI-enabled modeling frameworks are increasingly being used to predict pesticide behavior and guide ecosystem-scale bioremediation strategy design [47,238]. Bacillus strains encoding herbicide-active nitroreductases (e.g., PNR/LNR) catalyze the initiating nitroreduction of dinitroaniline herbicides and thereby accelerate biodegradation (kinetic support available), while algae–bacteria consortia translated into high-rate algal pond and related pilot systems deliver scalable pollutant removal e.g., NH4+-N and PO43−-P removal rates of ~9.05 and 0.79 mg L−1 d−1 in urban wastewater underscoring practical large-scale applicability [239,240,241,242]. Integrated multi-omics combined with machine learning approaches increasingly enables rational design, prediction and optimization of microbial biodegradation processes, positioning microbial bioremediation as a central strategy for sustainable environmental managemen [14,67,87,176,232,243].

9. Regulatory and Practical Considerations

Regulatory frameworks place strong emphasis on the safety of genetically modified microbes, requiring detailed assessment before approval for field application [244,245]. Differences in regulatory systems across countries make GMO authorization difficult and create obstacles for environmental deployment and long-term ecological protection [15,246]. International initiatives such as the Global Chemicals Outlook encourage innovative biological solutions but stress that outdoor release must be supported by comprehensive risk evaluation [18]. Advances in ecological modeling are improving the reliability of risk assessments and may help streamline approval processes in the future [15,245,246].
Practical constraints further restrict widespread adoption. High bioremediation costs reduce feasibility in developing regions [247,248], and environmental variation such as changes in temperature or soil composition can reduce microbial activity during field use [21,249]. Public acceptance also plays a decisive role. Concerns about ecological safety, the persistence of engineered organisms, and long-term impacts can hinder community support and delay field adoption. Transparent communication, community involvement, and strong stakeholder engagement are therefore essential to build trust and ensure social acceptance [67].
To address these challenges, global efforts are underway to establish standardized safety protocols, technology-transfer mechanisms, and monitoring frameworks that support responsible deployment and protect soil and freshwater ecosystems [250]. Policy initiatives encouraging reduced pesticide use and ecosystem restoration, together with standardized assays for degradation monitoring, are also helping overcome barriers to scalability and long-term performance [2,18,24,251]. Collectively, these regulatory, social, and practical considerations underscore the need for integrated, community-centered approaches to advance microbial and GMO-supported bioremediation.

10. Implications for Sustainable Agriculture

Degradation by soil bacteria supports sustainable intensification by reducing pesticide concentrations in soils and enhancing soil health [252,253,254,255]. It reduces chemical contamination, enhances soil quality, biodiversity, and mitigates risks to health and ecosystems [4,9,11,253]. Bioremediation restores soil fertility and microbial diversity, facilitating nutrient cycling [87,224,256]. By restoring soil bacterial ecosystems, bioremediation fosters fertile conditions for sustainable crop cultivation within global climate-smart agricultural programs [2]. Bio-pesticides complement degradation strategies [7,246]. Integrating bioremediation with organic farming and integrated pest management facilitates a shift to sustainability by reducing chemical pesticide dependency [12,254]. Integrated pest management (IPM) combined with bioremediation reduces pesticide inputs by leveraging natural bacterial degradation processes, promoting sustainable crop production and ecosystem resilience [257,258].
Climate-resilient microbes reduce the need for increased pesticide use [134]. Microbial bioremediation enhances climate resilience by improving soil carbon storage and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from pesticide production and application [39,67]. This approach reduces cleanup costs and improves yields [247,253]. Eco-friendly farming practices in Brazil and India demonstrate global applicability [174,224]. Bioremediation supports pollinator health, enabling essential ecosystem services for sustainable agriculture [75,172]. Bacteria are critical to sustainable agriculture [254]. Recent studies confirm microbial consortia successfully restore polluted agricultural land, contributing to global ecological restoration and food security [2,198].

11. Conclusions

This review shows that soil bacteria are highly effective degraders of major pesticide classes, acting through hydrolytic, oxidative, reductive and ring-cleavage mechanisms. Under favorable conditions, they achieve rapid and substantial removal, with documented efficiencies of 85–98 percent within 5–30 days. Examples include 96 percent chlorpyrifos degradation by Pseudomonas putida KT2440, 98 percent endosulfan mineralization by Rhodococcus koreensis and fast atrazine removal by Arthrobacter strains. Field studies further demonstrate the potential of microbial consortia, such as Azotobacter–Pseudomonas combinations reducing chlorpyrifos from 25 mg kg−1 to less than 1 mg kg−1 in 30 days. Across remediation approaches, natural attenuation typically achieves 30–60 percent removal, while bioaugmentation reaches 70–95 percent and advanced synthetic consortia or engineered strains routinely exceed 90 percent mineralization.
Environmental constraints remain the main limitation to field performance. Anaerobic conditions, soil acidity, low moisture and reduced organic matter can prolong pesticide persistence and lower microbial activity by up to 80 percent. Addressing these limitations requires strategies that maintain microbial stability and activity under variable soil conditions. This review highlights the importance of integrating enzymatic mechanisms, microbial ecology, quantitative performance data and synthetic-biology tools to better understand degradation processes and to guide the development of more reliable field applications.
Future efforts should focus on multi-omics-designed microbial consortia that perform consistently across diverse environmental ranges, field testing of engineered strains, improved carrier materials such as biochar or polymers and predictive models that incorporate soil chemistry, microbial dynamics and climate variability. Regulatory systems that support safe deployment of enhanced degraders and collaboration among researchers, policymakers and farmers will be essential. Advancing these areas will enable scalable, climate-adaptive microbial bioremediation and contribute to healthier soils, reduced pesticide residues and more sustainable agricultural systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.; methodology, G.D.; investigation, G.D.; resources, G.D.; data curation, G.D.; writing—original draft preparation, G.D.; writing—review and editing, G.D., writing and review S.T.M.; review, T.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, constructive suggestions, and careful evaluation of this manuscript. Their detailed feedback greatly improved the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of this review. We deeply appreciate the time and expertise they dedicated to strengthening our work.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Gyanendra Dhakal has been involved as a consultant and expert witness at the Agricultural Technology Centre (ATC) Pvt. Ltd. All authors confirm that the research was carried out without any commercial or financial ties that could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
3,5,6-TCP3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol
AHLAcyl-homoserine lactone
AMPAAminomethylphosphonic acid
BCFBioconcentration Factor
CFUColony Forming Unit
CPChlorpyrifos
DDTDichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DT50Dissipation Half-Life (time required for 50% degradation)
EBDCEthylene bis-dithiocarbamate
FCField Capacity
NH4+Ammonium
GMOGenetically modified organism
OMOrganic Matter
OPOrganophosphate
OPHOrganophosphorus Hydrolase
PAHPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PTEPhosphotriesterase
QSQuorum Sensing
RHRelative Humidity
SOMSoil Organic Matter
UVUltraviolet Radiation
WHCWater Holding Capacity

References

  1. Aktar, M.W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2009, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2023: Revealing the True Cost of Food to Transform Agrifood Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2023. Available online: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc7724en (accessed on 21 August 2025).
  3. Bouwman, H.; Sereda, B.; Meinhardt, H.M. Simultaneous presence of DDT and pyrethroid residues in human breast milk from a malaria-endemic area in South Africa. Environ. Pollut. 2003, 156, 902–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Sharma, A.; Kumar, V.; Shahzad, B.; Tanveer, M.; Sidhu, G.; Handa, N.; Kohli, S.; Yadav, P.; Bali, A.; Parihar, R.; et al. Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Kim, K.H.; Kabir, E.; Jahan, S.A. Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 904, 166147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P.; Maipas, S.; Kotampasi, C.; Stamatis, P.; Hens, L. Chemical pesticides and human health: The urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Chaudhary, V.; Kumar, M.; Chauhan, C.; Sirohi, U.; Srivastav, A.L.; Rani, L. Strategies for mitigation of pesticides from the environment through alternative approaches: A review of recent developments and future prospects. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 354, 120326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Mnif, W.; Hassine, A.I.H.; Bouaziz, A.; Bartegi, A.; Thomas, O.; Roig, B. Effect of endocrine disruptor pesticides: A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 2265–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Bose, S.; Kumar, P.S.; Vo, D.V.N.; Rajamohan, N.; Saravanan, R. Microbial degradation of recalcitrant pesticides: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 3209–3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Singh, B.K.; Walker, A. Microbial degradation of organophosphorus compounds. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2006, 30, 428–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Ortiz-Hernández, M.L.; Sánchez-Salinas, E.; Dantán-González, E.; Castrejón-Godínez, M.L. Pesticide biodegradation: Mechanisms, genetics and strategies to enhance the process. In BT-Biodegradation-Life of Science; Intechopen: London, UK, 2013; pp. 251–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Lopes, P.R.M.; Cruz, V.H.; de Menezes, A.B.; Gadanhoto, B.P.; Moreira, B.R.A.; Mendes, C.R.; Mazzeo, D.E.C.; Dilarri, G.; Montagnolli, R.N. Microbial bioremediation of pesticides in agricultural soils: An integrative review on natural attenuation, bioaugmentation and biostimulation. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2022, 21, 851–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Morillo, E.; Villaverde, J. Advanced technologies for the remediation of pesticide-contaminated soils. Sci. Total Env. 2017, 586, 576–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Sahoo, A.; Yadav, G.; Mehta, T.; Meena, M.; Swapnil, P. Omics-driven insights into plant growth-promoting microorganisms for sustainable agriculture. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Rayu, S.; Nielsen, U.N.; Nazaries, L.; Singh, B.K. Isolation and molecular characterization of novel chlorpyrifos and 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol-degrading bacteria from sugarcane farm soils. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Chennappa, G.; Udaykumar, N.; Vidya, M.; Nagaraja, H.; Amaresh, Y.S.; Sreenivasa, M.Y. Azotobacter—A Natural Resource for Bioremediation of Toxic Pesticides in Soil Ecosystems. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Arbeli, Z.; Fuentes, C.L. Microbial Degradation of Pesticides in Tropical Soils. In Biodegradation of Pesticides; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 251–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. UNEP. Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions. United Nations Environment Programme. 2021. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-chemicals-outlook-ii-legacies-innovative-solutions (accessed on 20 March 2025).
  19. Rayu, S.; Nielsen, U.N.; Nazaries, L.; Singh, B.K. Isolation and characterization of novel microbes for bioremediation of pesticides. Environ. Chem. 2017, 14, 387–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Arias, L.A.; Garzón, A.; Ayarza, A.; Aux, S.; Bojacá, C.R. Environmental fate of pesticides in open field and greenhouse tomato production regions from Colombia. Environ. Adv. 2021, 3, 100031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Bhatt, P.; Zhou, X.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Chen, S. Characterization of the role of esterases in the biodegradation of organophosphate, carbamate, and pyrethroid pesticides. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 411, 125026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Fenner, K.; Canonica, S.; Wackett, L.P.; Elsner, M. Evaluating pesticide degradation in the environment: Blind spots and emerging opportunities. Science 2013, 341, 752–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Malhotra, H.; Kaur, S.; Phale, P.S. Conserved Metabolic and Evolutionary Themes in Microbial Degradation of Carbamate Pesticides. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 648868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Mdeni, N.L.; Adeniji, A.O.; Okoh, A.I.; Okoh, O.O. Analytical Evaluation of Carbamate and Organophosphate Pesticides in Human and Environmental Matrices: A Review. Molecules 2022, 27, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Zhou, W.; Li, M.; Achal, V. A comprehensive review on environmental and human health impacts of chemical pesticide usage. Emerg. Contam. 2025, 11, 100410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Lei, Q.; Zhong, J.; Chen, S.-F.; Wu, S.; Huang, Y.; Guo, P.; Mishra, S.; Bhatt, K.; Chen, S. Microbial degradation as a powerful weapon in the removal of sulfonylurea herbicides. Environ. Res. 2023, 235, 116570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Fenet, H.; Beltran, E.; Gadji, B.; Cooper, J.F.; Coste, C.M. Fate of a phenylpyrazole in vegetation and soil under tropical field conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 1293–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Satapute, P.; Kaliwal, B. Biodegradation of propiconazole by newly isolated Burkholderia sp. strain BBK_9. 3 Biotech. 2016, 6, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Bhandari, G.; Atreya, K.; Scheepers, P.T.J.; Geissen, V. Concentration and distribution of pesticide residues in soil: Non-dietary human health risk assessment. Chemosphere 2020, 253, 126594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Borggaard, O.K.; Gimsing, A.L. Fate of glyphosate in soil and the possibility of leaching to ground and surface waters: A review. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2008, 64, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Goulson, D. An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 50, 977–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Arya, R.; Kumar, R.; Mishra, N.K.; Sharma, A.K. Microbial Flora and Biodegradation of Pesticides: Trends, Scope, and Relevance. In Advances in Environmental Biotechnology; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Kumar, S.; Kaushik, G.; Dar, M.A.; Nimesh, S.; López-Chuken, U.J.; Villarreal-Chiu, J.F. Microbial Degradation of Organophosphate Pesticides: A Review. Pedosphere 2018, 28, 190–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Jayaraj, R.; Megha, P.; Sreedev, P. Organochlorine pesticides, their toxic effects on living organisms and their fate in the environment. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2016, 9, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Tzanetou, E.N.; Karasali, H. A Comprehensive Review of Organochlorine Pesticide Monitoring in Agricultural Soils: The Silent Threat of a Conventional Agricultural Past. Agriculture 2022, 12, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Kamalesh, T.; Kumar, P.S.; Rangasamy, G. An insights of organochlorine pesticides categories, properties, eco-toxicity and new developments in bioremediation process. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 333, 122114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Faroon, O.; Harris, M.O. Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD. ATSDR’s Toxicol. Profiles 2002. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2025).
  38. Rani, L.; Thapa, K.; Kanojia, N.; Sharma, N.; Singh, S.; Grewal, A.S.; Srivastav, A.L.; Kaushal, J. An extensive review on the consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 124657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Kumari, A.; Dash, M.; Singh, S.K.; Jagadesh, M.; Mathpal, B.; Mishra, P.K.; Pandey, S.K.; Verma, K.K. Soil Microbes: A Natural Solution for Mitigating the Impact of Climate Change. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Amweg, E.L.; Weston, D.P.; Ureda, N.M. Use and toxicity of pyrethroid pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2005, 24, 966–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Bonmatin, J.M.; Giorio, C.; Girolami, V.; Goulson, D.; Kreutzweiser, D.P.; Krupke, C.; Liess, M.; Long, E.; Marzaro, M.; Mitchell, E.A.D.; et al. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 35–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  42. Bhende, R.S.; Jhariya, U.; Srivastava, S.; Bombaywala, S.; Das, S.; Dafale, N.A. Environmental Distribution, Metabolic Fate, and Degradation Mechanism of Chlorpyrifos: Recent and Future Perspectives. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2022, 194, 2301–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  43. Mishra, S.; Pang, S.; Zhang, W.; Lin, Z.; Bhatt, P.; Chen, S. Insights into the microbial degradation and biochemical mechanisms of carbamates. Chemosphere 2021, 279, 130500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Cycon, M.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Pyrethroid-degrading microorganisms and their potential for the bioremediation of contaminated soils: A review. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 218351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Zhan, H.; Huang, Y.; Lin, Z.; Bhatt, P.; Chen, S. New insights into the microbial degradation and catalytic mechanism of synthetic pyrethroids. Environ. Res. 2020, 182, 109138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Briceño, G.; Fuentes, M.S.; Saez, J.M.; Diez, M.C.; Benimeli, C.S. Streptomyces Genus as Biotechnological Tool for Pesticide Degradation in Polluted Systems. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 48, 773–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Anandhi, G.; Iyapparaja, M. Systematic approaches to machine learning models for predicting pesticide toxicity. Heliyon 2024, 10, e28752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Simon-Delso, N.; Amaral-Rogers, V.; Belzunces, L.P.; Bonmatin, J.M.; Chagnon, M.; Downs, C.; Furlan, L.; Gibbons, D.W.; Giorio, C.; Girolami, V.; et al. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): Trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 5–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Arias-Estévez, M.; López-Periago, E.; Martínez-Carballo, E.; Simal-Gándara, J.; Mejuto, J.C.; García-Río, L. The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 123, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Graymore, M.; Stagnitti, F.; Allinson, G. Impacts of atrazine in aquatic ecosystems. Environ. Int. 2001, 26, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Duke, S.O.; Powles, S.B. Glyphosate: A once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2008, 64, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Chia, X.K.; Hadibarata, T.; Kristanti, R.A.; Jusoh, M.N.H.; Tan, I.S.; Foo, H.C.Y. The function of microbial enzymes in breaking down soil contaminated with pesticides: A review. Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng. 2024, 47, 597–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Gong, T.; Liu, R.; Zuo, Z.; Che, Y.; Yu, H.; Song, C.; Yang, C. Metabolic Engineering of Pseudomonas putida KT2440 for Complete Mineralization of Methyl Parathion and γ-Hexachlorocyclohexane. ACS Synth. Biol. 2016, 5, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Zuo, Z.; Gong, T.; Che, Y.; Liu, R.; Xu, P.; Jiang, H.; Qiao, C.; Song, C.; Yang, C. Engineering Pseudomonas putida KT2440 for simultaneous degradation of organophosphates and pyrethroids and its application in bioremediation of soil. Biodegradation 2015, 26, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Akbar, S.; Sultan, S.; Kertesz, M. Determination of Cypermethrin Degradation Potential of Soil Bacteria Along with Plant Growth-Promoting Characteristics. Curr. Microbiol. 2015, 70, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Garbisu, C.; Garaiyurrebaso, O.; Epelde, L.; Grohmann, E.; Alkorta, I. Plasmid-mediated bioaugmentation for the bioremediation of contaminated soils. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Castro-Gutiérrez, V.; Fuller, E.; Thomas, J.C.; Sinclair, C.J.; Johnson, S.; Helgason, T.; Moir, J.W.B. Genomic basis for pesticide degradation revealed by selection, isolation and characterisation of a library of metaldehyde-degrading strains from soil. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 2020, 142, 107702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Ito, K.; Kawashima, F.; Takagi, K.; Kataoka, R.; Kotake, M.; Kiyota, H.; Yamazaki, K.; Sakakibara, F.; Okada, S. Isolation of endosulfan sulfate-degrading Rhodococcus koreensis strain S1-1 from endosulfan contaminated soil and identification of a novel metabolite, endosulfan diol monosulfate. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2016, 473, 1094–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  59. Verma, K.; Agrawal, N.; Farooq, M.; Misra, R.B.; Hans, R.K. Endosulfan degradation by a Rhodococcus strain isolated from earthworm gut. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2006, 64, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  60. Huang, Y.; Chen, S.-F.; Chen, W.-J.; Zhu, X.; Mishra, S.; Bhatt, P.; Chen, S. Efficient biodegradation of multiple pyrethroid pesticides by Rhodococcus pyridinivorans strain Y6 and its degradation mechanism. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 469, 143863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Strong, L.C.; Rosendahl, C.; Johnson, G.; Sadowsky, M.J.; Wackett, L. Arthrobacter aurescens TC1 metabolizes diverse s-triazine ring compounds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 5973–5980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Sajjaphan, K.; Shapir, N.; Wackett, L.P.; Palmer, M.; Blackmon, B.; Tomkins, J.; Sadowsky, M.J. Arthrobacter aurescens TC1 atrazine catabolism genes trzN, atzB, and atzC are linked on a 160-kilobase region and are functional in Escherichia coli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 4402–4407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Li, Q.; Li, Y.; Zhu, X.; Cai, B. Isolation and characterization of atrazine-degrading Arthrobacter sAD26 and use of this strain in bioremediation of contaminated soil. J. Environ. Sci. 2008, 20, 1226–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Zhao, T.; Hu, K.; Li, J.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, A.; Yao, K.; Liu, S. Current insights into the microbial degradation for pyrethroids: Strain safety, biochemical pathway, and genetic engineering. Chemosphere 2021, 279, 130542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Mandelbaum, R.T.; Allan, D.L.; Wackett, L. Isolation and characterization of a Pseudomonas that mineralizes the s-triazine herbicide atrazine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 1451–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Tian, Y.; Zhao, G.; Cheng, M.; Lu, L.; Zhang, H.; Huang, X. A nitroreductase DnrA catalyzes the biotransformation of several diphenyl ether herbicides in Bacillus sp. Za. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2023, 107, 5269–5279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Farhan, M.; Ahmad, M.; Kanwal, A.; Butt, Z.A.; Khan, Q.F.; Raza, S.A.; Qayyum, H.; Wahid, A. Biodegradation of chlorpyrifos using isolates from contaminated agricultural soil, its kinetic studies. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  68. Xiao, Y.; Lu, Q.; Yi, X.; Zhong, G.; Liu, J. Synergistic Degradation of Pyrethroids by the Quorum Sensing-Regulated Carboxylesterase of Bacillus subtilis BSF01. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Salunkhe, V.P.; Sawant, I.S.; Banerjee, K.; Wadkar, P.N.; Sawant, S.D. Enhanced Dissipation of Triazole and Multiclass Pesticide Residues on Grapes after Foliar Application of Grapevine-Associated Bacillus Species. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 10736–10746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Ahmad, S.; Ahmad, H.W.; Bhatt, P. Microbial adaptation and impact into the pesticide’s degradation. Arch. Microbiol. 2022, 204, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Bilal, M.; Ashraf, S.S.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Laccase-Mediated Bioremediation of Dye-Based Hazardous Pollutants. In Methods for Bioremediation of Water and Wastewater Pollution; Ahamed, M.I., Lichtfouse, E., Asiri, A.M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Pandey, R.; Sharma, A.; Kumar, V. Neonicotinoid degradation by Klebsiella and Acinetobacter: Enzymatic mechanisms. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2023, 30, 103098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Pang, S.; Lin, Z.; Zhang, W.; Mishra, S.; Bhatt, P.; Chen, S. Insights Into the Microbial Degradation and Biochemical Mechanisms of Neonicotinoids. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Mahalle, S.; Bhende, R.S.; Bokade, P.; Bajaj, A.; Dafale, N.A. Emerging microbial remediation methods for rejuvenation of pesticide-contaminated sites. Total Environ. Microbiol. 2025, 1, 100026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Dai, Y.; Li, N.; Zhao, Q.; Xie, S. Bioremediation using Novosphingobium strain DY4 for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid-contaminated soil and impact on microbial community structure. Biodegradation 2015, 26, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Amani, F.; Safari, S.A.A.; Ebrahimi, F.; Nazarian, S. Biodegradation of Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon Organophosphates by Two Bacteria Isolated from Contaminated Agricultural Soils. Biol. J. Microorg. 2019, 7, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Ishag, A.E.S.A.; Abdelbagi, A.O.; Hammad, A.M.A.; Elsheikh, E.A.E.; Elsaid, O.E.; Hur, J.H. Biodegradation of endosulfan and pendimethalin by three strains of bacteria isolated from pesticides-polluted soils in the Sudan. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2017, 60, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Leys, N.M.E.J.; Ryngaert, A.; Bastiaens, L.; Verstraete, W.; Top, E.M.; Springael, D. Occurrence and Phylogenetic Diversity of Sphingomonas Strains in Soils Contaminated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  79. Tang, H.; Li, J.; Hu, H.; Xu, P. A newly isolated strain of Stenotrophomonas sHydrolyzes acetamiprid, a synthetic insecticide. Process Biochem. 2012, 47, 1820–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Cycoń, M.; Mrozik, A.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Bioaugmentation as a strategy for the remediation of pesticide-polluted soil: A review. Chemosphere 2017, 172, 52–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Hassan, S.; Ganai, B.A. Deciphering the recent trends in pesticide bioremediation using genome editing and multi-omics approaches: A review. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2023, 39, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Parte, S.G.; Mohekar, A.D.; Kharat, A.S. Microbial degradation of pesticide: A review. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 11, 992–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Zhang, J.; Lu, L.; Chen, F.; Chen, L.; Yin, J.; Huang, X. Detoxification of diphenyl ether herbicide lactofen by Bacillus sp. Za and enantioselective characteristics of an esterase gene lacE. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 341, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Geed, S.R.; Kureel, M.K.; Shukla, A.K.; Singh, R.S.; Rai, B.N. Biodegradation of malathion and evaluation of kinetic parameters using three bacterial species. Resour. Technol. 2016, 2, S3–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  85. Zhang, T.; Zhang, H. Microbial Consortia Are Needed to Degrade Soil Pollutants. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  86. Cao, Z.; Yan, W.; Ding, M.; Yuan, Y. Construction of microbial consortia for microbial degradation of complex compounds. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 1051233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  87. Chaudhary, P.; Xu, M.; Ahamad, L.; Chaudhary, A.; Kumar, G.; Adeleke, B.S.; Verma, K.K.; Hu, D.-M.; Širić, I.; Kumar, P. Application of Synthetic Consortia for Improvement of Soil Fertility, Pollution Remediation, and Agricultural Productivity: A Review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  88. Guo, D.D.; Luo, L.-M.; Ma, H.-L.; Zhang, S.-P.; Xu, H.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, Z.; He, Y.-X. The Regulator PltZ Regulates a Putative ABC Transporter System PltIJKNOP of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 in Response to the Antimicrobial 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  89. Dechesne, A.; Badawi, N.; Aamand, J.; Smets, B.F. Fine scale spatial variability of microbial pesticide degradation in soil: Scales, controlling factors, and implications. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Cycoń, M.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Biochemical and microbial soil functioning after application of the insecticide imidacloprid. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 27, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  91. Erguven, G.O.; Demirci, U. Using Ochrobactrum thiophenivorans and Sphingomonas melonis for bioremediation of Imidacloprid. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 21, 101236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  92. Raimondo, E.E.; Aparicio, J.D.; Bigliardo, A.L.; Fuentes, M.S.; Benimeli, C.S. Enhanced bioremediation of lindane-contaminated soils through microbial bioaugmentation assisted by biostimulation with sugarcane filter cake. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 190, 110143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  93. Hou, R.; Zhang, J.; Fu, Q.; Li, T.; Gao, S.; Wang, R.; Zhao, S.; Zhu, B. The boom era of emerging contaminants: A review of remediating agricultural soils by biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 931, 172899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  94. Han, S.; Tao, Y.; Zhao, L.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, Y. Metabolic insights into how multifunctional microbial consortium enhances atrazine removal and phosphorus uptake at low temperature. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 461, 132539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  95. Chen, W.J.; Zhang, W.; Lei, Q.; Chen, S.-F.; Huang, Y.; Bhatt, K.; Liao, L.; Zhou, X. Pseudomonas aeruginosa based concurrent degradation of beta-cypermethrin and metabolite 3-phenoxybenzaldehyde, and its bioremediation efficacy in contaminated soils. Environ. Res. 2023, 236, 116619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  96. Sun, S.; Guo, J.; Zhu, Z.; Zhou, J. Microbial degradation mechanisms of the neonicotinoids acetamiprid and flonicamid and the associated toxicity assessments. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1500401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  97. Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Tu, C.; Long, T.; Bu, Y.; Wang, H.; Jeyakumar, P.; Jiang, J.; Deng, S. Remediation technologies for neonicotinoids in contaminated environments: Current state and future prospects. Environ. Int. 2023, 178, 108044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  98. Pashirova, T.; Salah-Tazdaït, R.; Tazdaït, D.; Masson, P. Applications of Microbial Organophosphate-Degrading Enzymes to Detoxification of Organophosphorous Compounds for Medical Countermeasures against Poisoning and Environmental Remediation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 7822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  99. Serdar, C.M.; Gibson, D.T. Enzymatic hydrolysis of organophosphates by a bacterial phosphotriesterase. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1982, 24, 1473–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  100. Donarski, W.J.; Dumas, D.P.; Heitmeyer, D.P.; Lewis, V.E.; Raushel, F.M. Structure-Activity Relationships in the Hydrolysis of Substrates by the Phosphotriesterase from Pseudomonas diminuta. Biochemistry 1989, 28, 4650–4655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  101. Meier, M.M.; Rajendran, C.; Malisi, C.; Fox, N.G.; Xu, C.; Schlee, S.; Barondeau, D.P.; Höcker, B.; Sterner, R.; Raushel, F.M. Molecular Engineering of Organophosphate Hydrolysis Activity from a Weak Promiscuous Lactonase Template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 11670–11677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  102. Aubert, S.D.; Li, Y.; Raushel, F.M. Mechanism for the Hydrolysis of Organophosphates by the Bacterial Phosphotriesterase†. Biochemistry 2004, 43, 5707–5715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  103. Zhang, X.; Wu, R.; Song, L.; Lin, Y.; Lin, M.; Cao, Z.; Wu, W.; Mo, Y. Molecular dynamics simulations of the detoxification of paraoxon catalyzed by phosphotriesterase. J. Comput. Chem. 2009, 30, 2388–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  104. Xu, J.; Wang, B.; Wang, M.-Q.; Gao, J.-J.; Li, Z.-J.; Tian, Y.-S.; Peng, R.-H.; Yao, Q.-H. Metabolic Engineering of Escherichia coli for Methyl Parathion Degradation. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 679126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  105. Pande, V.; Pandey, S.C.; Sati, D.; Bhatt, P.; Samant, M. Microbial Interventions in Bioremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminants in Agroecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 824084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  106. Aswathi, A.; Pandey, A.; Sukumaran, R.K. Rapid degradation of the organophosphate pesticide–Chlorpyrifos by a novel strain of Pseudomonas nitroreducens AR-3. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 292, 122025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  107. Cosgrove, S.C.; Miller, G.J.; Bornadel, A.; Dominguez, B. Realizing the Continuous Chemoenzymatic Synthesis of Anilines Using an Immobilized Nitroreductase. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 8556–8561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  108. Gautam, P.; Dubey, S.K. Biodegradation of Neonicotinoids: Current Trenads and Future Prospects. Curr. Pollut. Reports 2023, 9, 410–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  109. Zeng, Y.; Sun, S.; Li, P.; Zhou, X.; Wang, J. Neonicotinoid Insecticide-Degrading Bacteria and Their Application Potential in Contaminated Agricultural Soil Remediation. Agrochemicals 2024, 3, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  110. Kumar, G.; Lal, S.; Soni, S.K.; Maurya, S.K.; Shukla, P.K.; Chaudhary, P.; Bhattacherjee, A.K.; Garg, N. Mechanism and kinetics of chlorpyrifos co-metabolism by using environment restoring microbes isolated from rhizosphere of horticultural crops under subtropics. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 891870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  111. Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N.; Barceló, D. Persistence of pesticides-based contaminants in the environment and their effective degradation using laccase-assisted biocatalytic systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 695, 133896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  112. Scott, C.; Pandey, G.; Hartley, C.J.; Oakeshott, J.G. The enzymatic basis for pesticide bioremediation. Indian J. Microbiol. 2008, 48, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  113. Vaithyanathan, V.K.; Vaidyanathan, V.K.; Cabana, H. Laccase-Driven Transformation of High Priority Pesticides Without Redox Mediators: Towards Bioremediation of Contaminated Wastewaters. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 9, 770435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  114. Hu, W.; Lu, Q.; Zhong, G.; Hu, M.; Yi, X. Biodegradation of Pyrethroids by a Hydrolyzing Carboxylesterase EstA from Bacillus cereus BCC01. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  115. Chauhan, P.S.; Jha, B. Pilot scale production of extracellular thermo-alkali stable laccase from Pseudomonas Sp. S2 using agro waste and its application in organophosphorous pesticides degradation. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2018, 93, 1022–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  116. Bhatt, P.; Huang, Y.; Zhan, H.; Chen, S. Insight into microbial applications for the biodegradation of pyrethroid insecticides. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 457788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  117. Gangola, S.; Sharma, A.; Bhatt, P.; Khati, P.; Chaudhary, P. Presence of esterase and laccase in Bacillus subtilis facilitates biodegradation and detoxification of cypermethrin. Sci. Reports 2018, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  118. Lv, N.; Li, R.; Cheng, S.; Zhang, L.; Liang, P.; Gao, X. The gut symbiont Sphingomonas mediates imidacloprid resistance in the important agricultural insect pest Aphis gossypii Glover. BMC Biol. 2023, 21, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  119. Ma, Y.; Zhai, S.; Mao, S.Y.; Sun, S.L.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.H.; Dai, Y.J.; Yuan, S. Co-metabolic transformation of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid by the new soil isolate Pseudoxanthomonas indica CGMCC 6648. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 2014, 49, 661–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  120. Sharma, N.; Zhai, S.; Mao, S.Y.; Sun, S.L.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.H.; Dai, Y.J.; Yuan, S. Metagenomic insights into microbial community, functional annotation, and antibiotic resistance genes in Himalayan Brahmaputra River sediment, India. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1426463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  121. Koonin, E.V.; Makarova, K.S. Origins and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2019, 374, 20180087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  122. Dank, A.; Smid, E.J.; Notebaart, R.A. CRISPR-Cas genome engineering of esterase activity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae steers aroma formation. BMC Res. Notes 2018, 11, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  123. Eddleston, M.; Clutton, R.E.; Taylor, M.; Thompson, A.; Worek, F.; John, H.; Thiermann, H.; Scott, C. Efficacy of an organophosphorus hydrolase enzyme (OpdA) in human serum and minipig models of organophosphorus insecticide poisoning. Clin. Toxicol. 2020, 58, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  124. Khan, M.F.; Liao, J.; Liu, Z.; Chugh, G. Bacterial Cytochrome P450 Involvement in the Biodegradation of Fluorinated Pyrethroids. J. Xenobiotics 2025, 15, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  125. Wolfand, J.M.; Lefevre, G.H.; Luthy, R.G. Metabolization and degradation kinetics of the urban-use pesticide fipronil by white rot fungus Trametes versicolor. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2016, 18, 1256–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  126. Siminszky, B. Plant cytochrome P450-mediated herbicide metabolism. Phytochem. Rev. 2006, 5, 445–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  127. Lourthuraj, A.A.; Hatshan, M.R.; Hussein, D.S. Biocatalytic degradation of organophosphate pesticide from the wastewater and hydrolytic enzyme properties of consortium isolated from the pesticide contaminated water. Environ. Res. 2022, 205, 112553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  128. Sirotkina, M.; Lyagin, I.; Efremenko, E. Hydrolysis of organophosphorus pesticides in soil: New opportunities with ecocompatible immobilized His6-OPH. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2012, 68, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  129. Manikandan, S.K.; Pallavi, P.; Shetty, K.; Bhattacharjee, D.; Giannakoudakis, D.A.; Katsoyiannis, I.A.; Nair, V. Effective Usage of Biochar and Microorganisms for the Removal of Heavy Metal Ions and Pesticides. Molecules 2023, 28, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  130. Randhawa, J.S. Microbial-assisted remediation approach for neonicotinoids from polluted environment. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2024, 48, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  131. Rylott, E.L.; Bruce, N.C. How Synthetic Biology Can Help Bioremediation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2020, 58, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  132. Khalid, S.; Shahid, M.; Murtaza, B.; Bibi, I.; Natasha; Naeem, M.A.; Niazi, N.K. A critical review of different factors governing the fate of pesticides in soil under biochar application. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 711, 134645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  133. Kalia, A.; Gosal, S.K. Effect of pesticide application on soil microorganisms. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2011, 57, 569–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  134. Delcour, I.; Spanoghe, P.; Uyttendaele, M. Literature review: Impact of climate change on pesticide use. Food Res. Int. 2015, 68, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  135. Ding, W.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, S. Development and Application of CRISPR/Cas in Microbial Biotechnology. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  136. Yasir, M.; Hossain, A.; Pratap-Singh, A. Pesticide Degradation: Impacts on Soil Fertility and Nutrient Cycling. Environments 2025, 12, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  137. Ćwieląg-Piasecka, I. Soil Organic Matter Composition and pH as Factors Affecting Retention of Carbaryl, Carbofuran and Metolachlor in Soil. Molecules 2023, 28, 5552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  138. Racke, K.D.; Steele, K.P.; Yoder, R.N.; Dick, W.A.; Avidov, E. Factors Affecting the Hydrolytic Degradation of Chlorpyrifos in Soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1996, 44, 1582–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  139. Wepukhulu, M.; Wachira, P.; Huria, N.; Sifuna, P.; Essuman, S.; Asamba, M. Optimization of Growth Conditions for Chlorpyrifos-Degrading Bacteria in Farm Soils in Nakuru County, Kenya. Biomed Res. Int. 2024, 2024, 1611871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  140. Paneque, P.; Gómez, I.; Parrado, J.; Orts, J.M.; Tejada, M. Effect of soil temperature and moisture on degradation of the oxyfluorfen herbicide. Cogent Food Agric. 2025, 11, 2540979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  141. Liu, P.; Wen, S.; Zhu, S.; Hu, X.; Wang, Y. Microbial Degradation of Soil Organic Pollutants: Mechanisms, Challenges, and Advances in Forest Ecosystem Management. Processes 2025, 13, 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  142. Siddique, T.; Okeke, B.C.; Arshad, M.; Frankenberger, W.T. Temperature and pH Effects on Biodegradation of Hexachlorocyclohexane Isomers in Water and a Soil Slurry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 5070–5076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  143. Singh, B.K.; Walker, A.; Morgan, J.A.W.; Wright, D.J. Effects of Soil pH on the Biodegradation of Chlorpyrifos and Isolation of a Chlorpyrifos-Degrading Bacterium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 5198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  144. Parven, A.; Meftaul, I.M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Pre-emergence herbicides used in urban and agricultural settings: Dissipation and ecological implications. Environ. Geochem. Health 2024, 46, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  145. Jaikaew, P.; Malhat, F.; Boulange, J.; Watanabe, H. Aspect of the degradation and adsorption kinetics of atrazine and metolachlor in andisol soil. Hell. Plant Prot. J. 2017, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  146. Książek-Trela, P.; Potocki, L.; Szpyrka, E. The impact of novel bacterial strains and their consortium on diflufenican degradation in the mineral medium and soil. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 18051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  147. Katagi, T. Aerobic microbial transformation of pesticides in surface water. J. Pestic. Sci. 2013, 38, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  148. Schroll, R.; Becher, H.H.; Dörfler, U.; Gayler, S.; Grundmann, S.; Hartmann, H.P.; Ruoss, J. Quantifying the effect of soil moisture on the aerobic microbial mineralization of selected pesticides in different soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 3305–3312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  149. Wirsching, J.; Chavez Rodriguez, L.; Ditterich, F.; Pagel, H.; He, R.; Uksa, M.; Zwiener, C.; Kandeler, E.; Poll, C. Temperature and soil moisture change microbial allocation of pesticide-derived carbon. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2023, 74, e13417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  150. Nandi, R.; Sarker, A.; Rana, M.M.; Hasan, A.K. Influence of Organic Matter and Growing Conditions on Dissipation Behavior and Mobility of Two Pesticides in Soils. Environments 2025, 12, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  151. Novotny, E.H.; Turetta, A.P.D.; Resende, M.F.; Rebello, C.M. The quality of soil organic matter, accessed by 13C solid state nuclear magnetic resonance, is just as important as its content concerning pesticide sorption. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266, 115298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  152. Rohilla, Y.; Pai, A.; Pandit, S.; Priya, K.; Ranjan, N.; Sharma, K.; Verma, R.; Nag, M.; Lahiri, D.; Bhattacharya, D. A concise review on microbial degradation of pesticides and organohalogen compounds: Recent advances and current challenges. Vegetos 2025, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  153. Ukalska-Jaruga, A.; Bejger, R.; Smreczak, B.; Weber, J.; Mielnik, L.; Jerzykiewicz, M.; Ćwieląg-Piasecka, I.; Jamroz, E.; Debicka, M.; Kocowicz, A.; et al. The Interaction of Pesticides with Humin Fractions and Their Potential Impact on Non-Extractable Residue Formation. Molecules 2023, 28, 7146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  154. Meftaul, I.M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Annamalai, P.; Parven, A.; Megharaj, M. Degradation of four pesticides in five urban landscape soils: Human and environmental health risk assessment. Environ. Geochem. Health 2022, 45, 1599–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  155. Itoh, H.; Navarro, R.; Takeshita, K.; Tago, K.; Hayatsu, M.; Hori, T.; Kikuchi, Y. Bacterial population succession and adaptation affected by insecticide application and soil spraying history. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  156. Estop-Aragonés, C.; Knorr, K.H.; Blodau, C. Controls on in situ oxygen and dissolved inorganic carbon dynamics in peats of a temperate fen. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2012, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  157. Zawierucha, I.; Malina, G. Effects of oxygen supply on the biodegradation rate in oil hydrocarbons contaminated soil. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2011, 289, 12035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  158. Richard, T.L.; Veeken, A.H.M.; De Wilde, V.; Hamelers, H.V.M. Air-Filled Porosity and Permeability Relationships during Solid-State Fermentation. Biotechnol. Prog. 2004, 20, 1372–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  159. Chowdhury, I.F.; Doran, G.S.; Stodart, B.J.; Chen, C.; Wu, H. Microbial Degradation of Herbicide Residues in Australian Soil: An Overview of Mechanistic Insights and Recent Advancements. Toxics 2025, 13, 949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  160. Kanissery, R.; Liu, W.; Tiwari, R.; Sims, G. Impact of Soil Aeration on the Environmental Fate of Pre-Emergent Herbicide Metolachlor. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  161. Schwarz, E.; Khurana, S.; Chakrawal, A.; Chavez Rodriguez, L.; Wirsching, J.; Streck, T.; Manzoni, S.; Thullner, M.; Pagel, H. Spatial Control of Microbial Pesticide Degradation in Soil: A Model-Based Scenario Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 14427–14438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  162. Ewere, E.E.; White, S.; Mauleon, R.; Benkendorff, K. Soil microbial communities and degradation of pesticides in greenhouse effluent through a woodchip bioreactor. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 359, 124561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  163. Kumar, S.; Anshumali. Biogeochemical appraisal of carbon fractions and carbon stock in riparian soils of the Ganga River basin. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2023, 182, 104687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  164. Qattan, S.Y.A. Harnessing bacterial consortia for effective bioremediation: Targeted removal of heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and persistent pollutants. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2025, 371, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  165. Varjani, S.; Kumar, G.; Rene, E.R. Developments in biochar application for pesticide remediation: Current knowledge and future research directions. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  166. Cara, I.G.; Țopa, D.; Puiu, I.; Jităreanu, G. Biochar a Promising Strategy for Pesticide-Contaminated Soils. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  167. De Silva, S.; Gamage, L.K.H.; Thapa, V.R. Impact of Drought on Soil Microbial Communities. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  168. Zhelezova, A.; Cederlund, H.; Stenström, J. Effect of Biochar Amendment and Ageing on Adsorption and Degradation of Two Herbicides. Water Air. Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  169. Zhang, C.; Hu, X.; Luo, J.; Wu, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, B.; Wang, Y.; Sun, G. Degradation dynamics of glyphosate in different types of citrus orchard soils in China. Molecules 2015, 20, 1161–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  170. Sun, C.; Liu, Y.; Bei, K.; Zheng, W.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Q. Impact of biochar on the degradation rates of three pesticides by vegetables and its effects on soil bacterial communities under greenhouse conditions. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 19986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  171. Jayasekara, S.K.; Ratnayake, R.R. The bioremediation of agricultural soils polluted with pesticides. In Microbial Syntrophy-Mediated Eco-Enterprising; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 15–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  172. Raffa, C.M.; Chiampo, F. Bioremediation of Agricultural Soils Polluted with Pesticides: A Review. Bioengineering 2021, 8, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  173. Cabrera, S.; Zubillaga, M.; Montserrat, J.M. Natural attenuation and bioremediation of chlorpyrifos and endosulfan in periurban horticultural soils of Buenos Aires (Argentina) using microcosms assays. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 169, 104192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  174. Gonçalves, C.R.; da Silva Delabona, P. Strategies for bioremediation of pesticides: Challenges and perspectives of the Brazilian scenario for global application–A review. Environ. Adv. 2022, 8, 100220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  175. Villaverde, J.; Rubio-Bellido, M.; Lara-Moreno, A.; Merchan, F.; Morillo, E. Combined use of microbial consortia isolated from different agricultural soils and cyclodextrin as a bioremediation technique for herbicide contaminated soils. Chemosphere 2018, 193, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  176. Ruan, Z.; Chen, K.; Cao, W.; Meng, L.; Yang, B.; Xu, M.; Xing, Y.; Li, P.; Freilich, S.; Chen, C.; et al. Engineering natural microbiomes toward enhanced bioremediation by microbiome modeling. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 4694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  177. Shahid, M.; Khan, M.S.; Singh, U.B. Pesticide-tolerant microbial consortia: Potential candidates for remediation/clean-up of pesticide-contaminated agricultural soil. Environ. Res. 2023, 236, 116724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  178. Coppola, L.; Castillo, M.D.P.; Monaci, E.; Vischetti, C. Adaptation of the Biobed Composition for Chlorpyrifos Degradation to Southern Europe Conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 55, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  179. Tortella, G.R.; Rubilar, O.; Castillo, M.D.P.; Cea, M.; Mella-Herrera, R.; Diez, M.C. Chlorpyrifos degradation in a biomixture of biobed at different maturity stages. Chemosphere 2012, 88, 224–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  180. Singh, R.P.; Yadav, R.; Pandey, V.; Singh, A.; Singh, M.; Shanker, K.; Khare, P. Effect of biochar on soil microbial community, dissipation and uptake of chlorpyrifos and atrazine. Biochar 2024, 6, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  181. Mussali-Galante, P.; Castrejón-Godínez, M.L.; Díaz-Soto, J.A.; Vargas-Orozco, Á.P.; Quiroz-Medina, H.M.; Tovar-Sánchez, E.; Rodríguez, A. Biobeds, a Microbial-Based Remediation System for the Effective Treatment of Pesticide Residues in Agriculture. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  182. Spliid, N.H.; Helweg, A.; Heinrichson, K. Leaching and degradation of 21 pesticides in a full-scale model biobed. Chemosphere 2006, 65, 2223–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  183. Cooper, R.J.; Fitt, P.; Hiscock, K.M.; Lovett, A.A.; Gumm, L.; Dugdale, S.J.; Rambohul, J.; Williamson, A.; Noble, L.; Beamish, J.; et al. Assessing the effectiveness of a three-stage on-farm biobed in treating pesticide contaminated wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 874–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  184. Góngora-Echeverría, V.R.; Quintal-Franco, C.; Arena-Ortiz, M.L.; Giácoman-Vallejos, G.; Ponce-Caballero, C. Identification of microbial species present in a pesticide dissipation process in biobed systems using typical substrates from southeastern Mexico as a biomixture at a laboratory scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 628–629, 528–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  185. Góngora-Echeverría, V.R.; Martin-Laurent, F.; Quintal-Franco, C.; Giácoman-Vallejos, G.; Ponce-Caballero, C. Agricultural effluent treatment in biobed systems using novel substrates from southeastern Mexico: The relationship with physicochemical parameters of biomixtures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 9741–9753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  186. Domínguez-Rodríguez, V.I.; Baltierra-Trejo, E.; Gómez-Cruz, R.; Adams, R.H. Microbial growth in biobeds for treatment of residual pesticide in banana plantations. PeerJ 2021, 9, e12200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  187. de A., L.; Gebler, L.; Niemeyer, J.C.; Itako, A.T. Destination of pesticide residues on biobeds: State of the art and future perspectives in Latin America. Chemosphere 2020, 248, 126038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  188. Feng, S.; Khurana, S.; Chakrawal, A.; Chavez Rodriguez, L.; Wirsching, J.; Streck, T.; Manzoni, S.; Thullner, M.; Pagel, H. Bioaugmentation potential evaluation of a bacterial consortium composed of isolated Pseudomonas and Rhodococcus for degrading benzene, toluene and styrene in sludge and sewage. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 320, 124329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  189. Singh, D.K. Biodegradation and bioremediation of pesticide in soil: Concept, method and recent developments. Indian J. Microbiol. 2008, 48, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  190. Silva, E.; Fialho, A.M.; Sa-Correia, I.; Burns, R.G.; Shaw, L.J. Combined Bioaugmentation and Biostimulation to Cleanup Soil Contaminated with High Concentrations of Atrazine. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 38, 632–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  191. Arriagada-Escamilla, C.; Alvarado, R.; Ortiz, J.; Campos-Vargas, R.; Cornejo, P. Alginate–Bentonite Encapsulation of Extremophillic Bacterial Consortia Enhances Chenopodium quinoa Tolerance to Metal Stress. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  192. Balla, A.; Silini, A.; Cherif-Silini, H.; Mapelli, F.; Borin, S. Root colonization dynamics of alginate encapsulated rhizobacteria: Implications for Arabidopsis thaliana root growth and durum wheat performance. AIMS Microbiol. 2025, 11, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  193. Peng, T.; Huang, Y.; Yang, T.; Wang, Y.; Jin, L. Enhanced phoxim biodegradation by immobilizing Novosphingobium Sp. RL4 on attapulgite-sodium alginate. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1541328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  194. Sharma, S.; Singh, B.; Gupta, V.K. Biodegradation of imidacloprid by consortium of two soil isolated bacillus sp. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2014, 93, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  195. Talpur, F.N.; Unar, A.; Bhatti, S.K.; Alsawalha, L.; Fouad, D.; Bashir, H.; Afridi, H.I.; Ataya, F.S.; Jefri, O.A.; Bashir, M.S. Bioremediation of Neonicotinoid Pesticide, Imidacloprid, Mediated by Bacillus cereus. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  196. Shi, G.; Li, H.; Fu, Q.; Li, T.; Hou, R.; Chen, Q.; Xue, P. Effects of biochar and compost on the abundant and rare microbial communities assembly and multifunctionality in pesticide-contaminated soil under freeze–thaw cycles. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 362, 125003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  197. Tang, X.; Zheng, W.; Chen, L.; Liu, H.; Li, M.; Chen, M.; Yang, Y. Enhancing neonicotinoid removal in recirculating constructed wetlands: The impact of Fe/Mn biochar and microbial interactions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 476, 135139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  198. Rafeeq, H.; Afsheen, N.; Rafique, S.; Arshad, A.; Intisar, M.; Hussain, A.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Genetically engineered microorganisms for environmental remediation. Chemosphere 2023, 310, 136751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  199. Shi, G.; Hou, R.; Fu, Q.; Li, T.; Chen, Q. Effects of biochar and compost on microbial community assembly and metabolic processes in glyphosate, imidacloprid and pyraclostrobin polluted soil under freezethaw cycles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 471, 134397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  200. Sethi, G.; Saini, R.; Banerjee, T.; Singh, N. Bioaugmentation: A strategy for enhanced degradation of pesticides in biobed. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 2024, 59, 654–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  201. Zhang, M.; Li, Q.; Bai, X.; Gao, S.; Zhu, Q.; Ye, B.; Zhou, Y.; Qiu, J.; Yan, X.; Hong, Q. Construction of an Unmarked Genetically Engineered Strain Bacillus subtilis Wb800-Ipah and its Pilot Application. SSRN Electron. J. 2023, 176, 105527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  202. Meng, C.; He, Q.; Huang, J.-W.; Cao, Q.; Yan, X.; Li, S.-P.; Jiang, J.-D. Degradation of chlorothalonil through a hydrolytic dehalogenase secreted from Bacillus subtilis WB800. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2015, 104, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  203. Ye, B.; Luo, Y.; Zhong, B.; Zhu, J.; Huang, J.; Gu, J.; Jiang, J.; Yan, X.; He, J.; He, Q. High-level stable expression of gene for preparation of chlorothalonil hydrolytic dehalogenase and its application in elimination of chlorothalonil inhibition on bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2020, 130, 630–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  204. Morillo, E.; Madrid, F.; Lara-Moreno, A.; Villaverde, J. Soil bioremediation by cyclodextrins. A review. Int. J. Pharm. 2020, 591, 119943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  205. Anwar, S.; Liaqat, A.; Munir, A.; Ashraf, M.F.; Iqbal, S. Bioaugmentation of a novel bacterial consortium in cotton-planted soil for lambda-cyhalothrin degradation. Pedosphere 2024, 34, 1100–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  206. Faridy, N.; Torabi, E.; Pourbabaee, A.A.; Osdaghi, E.; Talebi, K. Efficacy of novel bacterial consortia in degrading fipronil and thiobencarb in paddy soil: A survey for community structure and metabolic pathways. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1366951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  207. Duncker, K.E.; Holmes, Z.A.; You, L. Engineered microbial consortia: Strategies and applications. Microb. Cell Factories 2021, 20, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  208. Nies, D.H. Efflux-mediated heavy metal resistance in prokaryotes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 27, 313–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  209. Stirling, F.; Naydich, A.; Bramante, J.; Barocio, R.; Certo, M.; Wellington, H.; Redfield, E.; O’Keefe, S.; Gao, S.; Cusolito, A.; et al. Synthetic Cassettes for pH-Mediated Sensing, Counting, and Containment. Cell Rep. 2020, 30, 3139–3148.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  210. Malla, M.A.; Dubey, A.; Raj, A.; Kumar, A.; Upadhyay, N.; Yadav, S. Emerging frontiers in microbe-mediated pesticide remediation: Unveiling role of omics and In silico approaches in engineered environment. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 299, 118851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  211. Pino, N.; Peñuela, G. Simultaneous degradation of the pesticides methyl parathion and chlorpyrifos by an isolated bacterial consortium from a contaminated site. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2011, 65, 827–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  212. Stirling, F.; Bitzan, L.; O’Keefe, S.; Redfield, E.; Oliver, J.W.K.; Way, J.; Silver, P.A. Rational Design of Evolutionarily Stable Microbial Kill Switches. Mol. Cell 2017, 68, 686–697.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  213. Yameen, M.Z.; Naqvi, S.R.; Juchelková, D.; Khan, M.N.A. Harnessing the power of functionalized biochar: Progress, challenges, and future perspectives in energy, water treatment, and environmental sustainability. Biochar 2024, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  214. Castillo, M.D.P.; Torstensson, L.; Stenström, J. Biobeds for Environmental Protection from Pesticide Use–A Review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 6206–6219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  215. Fogg, P.; Boxall, A.B.A.; Walker, A.; Jukes, A.A. Pesticide degradation in a ‘biobed’ composting substrate. Pest Manag. Sci. 2003, 59, 527–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  216. Guo, Z.; Zhou, H.; Yin, H.; Wei, X.; Dang, Z. Functional bacterial consortium responses to biochar and implications for BDE-47 transformation: Performance, metabolism, community assembly and microbial interaction. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 313, 120120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  217. Xiang, L.; Harindintwali, J.D.; Wang, F.; Redmile-Gordon, M.; Chang, S.X.; Fu, Y.; He, C.; Muhoza, B.; Brahushi, F.; Bolan, N.; et al. Integrating Biochar, Bacteria, and Plants for Sustainable Remediation of Soils Contaminated with Organic Pollutants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 16546–16566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  218. Mukherjee, S.; Sarkar, B.; Aralappanavar, V.K.; Mukhopadhyay, R.; Basak, B.B.; Srivastava, P.; Marchut-Mikołajczyk, O.; Bhatnagar, A.; Semple, K.T.; Bolan, N. Biochar-microorganism interactions for organic pollutant remediation: Challenges and perspectives. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 308, 119609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  219. Dias, L.A.; Itako, A.T.; Gebler, L.; Tolentino Júnior, J.B.; Pizzutti, I.R.; Fontana, M.E.; Janisch, B.D.; Niemeyer, J.C. Pine Litter and Vermicompost as Alternative Substrates for Biobeds: Efficiency in Pesticide Degradation. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  220. Acosta-Sánchez, A.; Soto-Garita, C.; Masís-Mora, M.; Cambronero-Heinrichs, J.C.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C.E. Impaired pesticide removal and detoxification by biomixtures during the simulated pesticide application cycle of a tropical agricultural system. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 195, 110460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  221. Gong, T.; Xu, X.; Dang, Y.; Kong, A.; Wu, Y.; Liang, P.; Wang, S.; Yu, H.; Xu, P.; Yang, C. An engineered Pseudomonas putida can simultaneously degrade organophosphates, pyrethroids and carbamates. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 628–629, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  222. Wang, H.; Su, Z.; Ren, S.; Zhang, P.; Li, H.; Guo, X.; Liu, L. Combined Use of Biochar and Microbial Agents Can Promote Lignocellulosic Degradation Microbial Community Optimization during Composting of Submerged Plants. Fermentation 2024, 10, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  223. Dong, M.; He, L.; Jiang, M.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, J.; Gustave, W.; Wang, S.; Deng, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z. Biochar for the Removal of Emerging Pollutants from Aquatic Systems: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  224. Giri, B.S.; Geed, S.; Vikrant, K.; Lee, S.S.; Kim, K.-H.; Kailasa, S.K.; Vithanage, M.; Chaturvedi, P.; Rai, B.N.; Singh, R.S. Progress in bioremediation of pesticide residues in the environment. Environ. Eng. Res. 2021, 26, 200446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  225. Sharma, P.; Singh, S.P.; Iqbal, H.M.N.; Tong, Y.W. Omics approaches in bioremediation of environmental contaminants: An integrated approach for environmental safety and sustainability. Environ. Res. 2022, 211, 113102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  226. Jaiswal, S.; Shukla, P. Alternative Strategies for Microbial Remediation of Pollutants via Synthetic Biology. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  227. Jeffries, T.C.; Rayu, S.; Nielsen, U.N.; Lai, K.; Ijaz, A.; Nazaries, L.; Singh, B.K. Metagenomic functional potential predicts degradation rates of a model organophosphorus xenobiotic in pesticide contaminated soils. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 309432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  228. Asamba, M.N.; Mugendi, E.N.; Oshule, P.S.; Essuman, S.; Chimbevo, L.M.; Atego, N.A. Molecular characterization of chlorpyrifos degrading bacteria isolated from contaminated dairy farm soils in Nakuru County, Kenya. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  229. Malla, M.A.; Dubey, A.; Kumar, A.; Yadav, S. Metagenomic analysis displays the potential predictive biodegradation pathways of the persistent pesticides in agricultural soil with a long record of pesticide usage. Microbiol. Res. 2022, 261, 127081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  230. Deng, S.; Chen, Y.; Wang, D.; Shi, T.; Wu, X.; Ma, X.; Li, X.; Hua, R.; Tang, X.; Li, Q.X. Rapid biodegradation of organophosphorus pesticides by Stenotrophomonas sp. G1. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 297, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  231. Anwar, S.; Liaquat, F.; Khan, Q.M.; Khalid, Z.M.; Iqbal, S. Biodegradation of chlorpyrifos and its hydrolysis product 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol by Bacillus pumilus strain C2A1. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 168, 400–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  232. Picard, M.; Scott-Boyer, M.P.; Bodein, A.; Périn, O.; Droit, A. Integration strategies of multi-omics data for machine learning analysis. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2021, 19, 3735–3746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  233. Renganathan, P.; Gaysina, L.A.; Gutiérrez, C.G.; Puente, E.O.R.; Sainz-Hernández, J.C. Harnessing Engineered Microbial Consortia for Xenobiotic Bioremediation: Integrating Multi-Omics and AI for Next-Generation Wastewater Treatment. J. Xenobiotics 2025, 15, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  234. Alidoosti, F.; Giyahchi, M.; Moien, S.; Moghimi, H. Unlocking the potential of soil microbial communities for bioremediation of emerging organic contaminants: Omics-based approaches. Microb. Cell Factories 2024, 23, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  235. Sun, J.; Wang, Q.; Jiang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Yang, L.; Wu, J.; Yang, S. Genome editing and transcriptional repression in Pseudomonas putida KT2440 via the type II CRISPR system. Microb. Cell Fact. 2018, 17, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  236. Yang, J.; Liu, R.; Song, W.; Yang, Y.; Cui, F.; Qiao, C. Construction of a genetically engineered microorganism that simultaneously degrades organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2012, 166, 590–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  237. Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Nong, S.; Bai, Z.; Han, N.; Wu, Q.; Huang, Z.; Ding, J. Display of a novel carboxylesterase CarCby on Escherichia coli cell surface for carbaryl pesticide bioremediation. Microb. Cell Fact. 2022, 21, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  238. Chen, C.; Wang, M.; Zhu, J.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, Q.; Jing, M.; Chen, Y.; Xu, X.; Jiang, J.; et al. Long-term effect of epigenetic modification in plant–microbe interactions: Modification of DNA methylation induced by plant growth-promoting bacteria mediates promotion process. Microbiome 2022, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  239. Sousa, J.F.; Amaro, H.M.; Ribeirinho-Soares, S.; Esteves, A.F.; Salgado, E.M.; Nunes, O.C.; Pires, J.C.M. Native Microalgae-Bacteria Consortia: A Sustainable Approach for Effective Urban Wastewater Bioremediation and Disinfection. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  240. Ni, H.; Li, N.; Qian, M.; He, J.; Chen, Q.; Huang, Y.; Zou, L.; Long, Z.-E.; Wang, F. Identification of a Novel Nitroreductase LNR and Its Role in Pendimethalin Catabolism in Bacillus subtilis Y3. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 12816–12823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  241. Oruganti, R.K.; Katam, K.; Show, P.L.; Gadhamshetty, V.; Upadhyayula, V.K.K.; Bhattacharyya, D. A comprehensive review on the use of algal-bacterial systems for wastewater treatment with emphasis on nutrient and micropollutant removal. Bioengineered 2022, 13, 10412–10453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  242. Ni, H.Y.; Wang, F.; Li, N.; Yao, L.; Dai, C.; He, Q.; He, J.; Hong, Q. Pendimethalin nitroreductase is responsible for the initial pendimethalin degradation step in Bacillus subtilis Y3. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 7052–7062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  243. Li, X.; Wu, S.; Dong, Y.; Fan, H.; Bai, Z.; Zhuang, X. Engineering Microbial Consortia towards Bioremediation. Water 2021, 13, 2928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  244. Lensch, A.; Abbas Lindfors, H.; Duwenig, E.; Fleischmann, T.; Hjort, C.; Kärenlampi, S.O.; McMurtry, L.; Melton, E.-D.; Andersen, M.R.; Skinner, R.; et al. Safety aspects of microorganisms deliberately released into the environment. EFB Bioecon. J. 2024, 4, 100061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  245. Kumar, N.M.; Muthukumaran, C.; Sharmila, G.; Gurunathan, B. Genetically Modified Organisms and Its Impact on the Enhancement of Bioremediation. In Bioremediation: Applications for Environmental Protection and Management; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 53–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  246. Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Microbial bioremediation as a robust process to mitigate pollutants of environmental concern. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2020, 2, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  247. Orellana, R.; Cumsille, A.; Piña-Gangas, P.; Rojas, C.; Arancibia, A.; Donghi, S.; Stuardo, C.; Cabrera, P.; Arancibia, G.; Cárdenas, F.; et al. Economic Evaluation of Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Urban Soils in Chile. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  248. O’Brien, R.M.; Phelan, T.J.; Smith, N.M.; Smits, K.M. Remediation in developing countries: A review of previously implemented projects and analysis of stakeholder participation efforts. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 51, 1259–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  249. Verma, J.P.; Jaiswal, D.K.; Sagar, R. Pesticide Relevance and Their Microbial Degradation: A-State-of-Art. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technology 2014, 13, 429–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  250. Li, Z.; Fantke, P. Toward harmonizing global pesticide regulations for surface freshwaters in support of protecting human health. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  251. Michael-Igolima, U.; Abbey, S.J.; Ifelebuegu, A.O. A systematic review on the effectiveness of remediation methods for oil contaminated soils. Environ. Adv. 2022, 9, 100319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  252. Sehrawat, A.; Phour, M.; Kumar, R.; Sindhu, S.S. Bioremediation of Pesticides: An Eco-Friendly Approach for Environment Sustainability. Microorg. Sustain. 2021, 25, 23–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  253. Pretty, J.; Bharucha, Z. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 2014, 114, 1571–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  254. Nadarajah, K.; Rahman, N.S.N.A. The Microbial Connection to Sustainable Agriculture. Plants 2023, 12, 2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  255. Aliste, M.; Ros, C.; Garrido, I.; Martínez, C.M.; Vera, A.; Siles, J.; Contreras, F.; Flores, P.; Hellín, P.; Fenoll, J.; et al. Green Manure from Cover Crops Enhances Pesticide Degradation and Soil Biological Health. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 495, 138984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  256. Bala, S.; Garg, D.; Thirumalesh, B.V.; Sharma, M.; Sridhar, K.; Inbaraj, B.S.; Tripathi, M. Recent Strategies for Bioremediation of Emerging Pollutants: A Review for a Green and Sustainable Environment. Toxics 2022, 10, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  257. Pathak, V.M.; Verma, V.K.; Rawat, B.S.; Kaur, B.; Babu, N.; Sharma, A.; Dewali, S.; Yadav, M.; Kumari, R.; Singh, S.; et al. Current status of pesticide effects on environment, human health and it’s eco-friendly management as bioremediation: A comprehensive review. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 962619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  258. Osburn, E.D.; Yang, G.; Rillig, M.C.; Strickland, M.S. Evaluating the role of bacterial diversity in supporting soil ecosystem functions under anthropogenic stress. ISME Commun. 2023, 3, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Figure 1. Microbial Pesticide Degradation Pathways.
Figure 1. Microbial Pesticide Degradation Pathways.
Environments 12 00492 g001
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process.
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process.
Environments 12 00492 g002
Table 3. Enzymatic mechanisms of pesticide degradation.
Table 3. Enzymatic mechanisms of pesticide degradation.
Enzyme ClassPesticide TypeMechanismBacterial ExamplesSources
Phosphotriesterases/Organophosphorus hydrolases (PTE/OPH)Organophosphates (e.g., chlorpyrifos, diazinon, methyl parathion)Hydrolysis of P-O bondsPseudomonas
Roseomonas, Sphingobium,
Bacillus,
Arthrobacter
[10,98,99,104,106]
Carboxylesterases/EsterasesCarbamates,
Pyrethroids
Ester hydrolysis, Ring openingBacillus,
Pseudomonas, Rhodococcus,
Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas
[21,44,45,64]
NitroreductasesNeonicotinoids,
Diphenyl ethers,
Nitroaromatic
Nitroreduction, Demethylation,
Nitroreduction
Bacillus,
Rhodococcus
Arthrobacter,
Enterobacter, Klebsiella
[73,107,108]
Cytochrome P450 Monooxygenases/
Other Monooxygenases
Neonicotinoids,
Organochlorines, Pyrethroids,
Fungicides
Oxidative degradation (hydroxylation, dealkylation, N-oxidation)Sphingomonas, Alcaligenes,
Pseudomonas,
Bacillus,
Streptomyces
[95,96,97,109]
Amidases/HydrolasesCarbamates,
Triazines
Amide bond cleavageArthrobacter,
Pseudomonas, Burkholderia, Variovorax,
Paenarthrobacter
[23,43,61,110]
Oxidases
(e.g., Laccases,
Peroxidases,
Multicopper oxidases)
Recalcitrant
Pesticides,
Aromatics,
Dyes
Oxidation of aromatic rings, radical-mediated reactionsPseudomonas, Ochrobactrum, Bacillus,
Azospirillum, Streptomyces
[111,112,113,114,115]
Table 5. Bioremediation strategies for pesticide degradation.
Table 5. Bioremediation strategies for pesticide degradation.
StrategyDescriptionMechanismAdvantagesLimitationDegradation Yield (%)Time
Duration
ExamplesSources
Natural AttenuationRelies on indigenous microbes for passive degradationHydrolysis and oxidation by native enzymesCost-effective, minimal ecological disruptionSlow rates, incomplete mineralization (varies with soil conditions)30–60%30–90 daysChlorpyrifos and endosulfan attenuation[12,13,171,172,173]
BioaugmentationIntroduces specific degraders to accelerate processes, using isolates or carrier materialsEsterase-mediated hydrolysis, nitroreductionTargets specific contaminants, accelerates degradationStrain survival, competition with natives, cost of inoculation70–95% chlorpyrifos & pyrethroids10–30 days Bacillus sp. for chlorpyrifos, Rhodococcus pyridinivorans Y6 for pyrethroids[60,67,80,174]
Synthetic Microbial ConsortiaEngineered combinations of strains for synergistic degradation, regulated by quorum sensingComplementary enzymatic pathways (e.g., esterases, oxidases) via quorum sensingSynergistic efficiency, adaptable to multi-contaminantsComplex engineering, regulatory hurdles (e.g., safety assessments)>90% mineralization7–21 daysPseudomonas and Bacillus consortia[15,21,87,135,175,176,177]
Field-Scale (biobed/biomixture) ApplicationsLarge-scale deployment of consortia and amendmentsEnhanced degradation with straw–peat–soil or composted organic substrates/ biochar and consortiaScalable, high efficiencyRequires monitoring, site-specific50–100% dissipation across multiple pesticide classes30–120 days depending on climate and substrateBiobeds for chlorpyrifos; biochar for atrazine & Chlorpyrifos[178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dhakal, G.; Thapa Magar, S.; Fujino, T. Pesticide Degradation by Soil Bacteria: Mechanisms, Bioremediation Strategies, and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture. Environments 2025, 12, 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12120492

AMA Style

Dhakal G, Thapa Magar S, Fujino T. Pesticide Degradation by Soil Bacteria: Mechanisms, Bioremediation Strategies, and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture. Environments. 2025; 12(12):492. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12120492

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dhakal, Gyanendra, Srijana Thapa Magar, and Takeshi Fujino. 2025. "Pesticide Degradation by Soil Bacteria: Mechanisms, Bioremediation Strategies, and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture" Environments 12, no. 12: 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12120492

APA Style

Dhakal, G., Thapa Magar, S., & Fujino, T. (2025). Pesticide Degradation by Soil Bacteria: Mechanisms, Bioremediation Strategies, and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture. Environments, 12(12), 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12120492

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop