Next Article in Journal
Advances in Algae-Based Bioplastics: From Strain Engineering and Fermentation to Commercialization and Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Adapted Kefir Grains in Aqueous Extract of Licuri (Syagrus coronata): Development and Characterization of a Novel Non-Dairy Probiotic Beverage
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimizing Pleurotus ostreatus Mushroom Cultivation on Various Agro-Industrial By-Products—Development of a Process Analytical Technology Tool for Predicting Biological Efficiency
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Aqueous Environments: A Review of Biofiltration, Biosorption, and Biodegradation Strategies Using Living Fungal Mycelium

1
Chair for Biohybrid Architecture, Det Kongelige Akademi, Philip de Langes Alle 10, 1435 Copenhagen, Denmark
2
Tegelaar Research Consultancy, 3541 SZ Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2025, 11(10), 573; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11100573
Submission received: 14 August 2025 / Revised: 16 September 2025 / Accepted: 17 September 2025 / Published: 2 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Fungi in Bioconversions and Mycoremediation)

Abstract

Accelerating urbanisation and industrial activity have led to the widespread release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a class of persistent organic pollutants with serious ecological and health consequences. While physical and chemical remediation techniques are widely used, they often require nonrenewable resources and generate secondary waste. Fungal-based bioremediation offers a promising alternative, leveraging the unique metabolic pathways and structural properties of fungi to break down or adsorb PAHs. This review focuses on three strategies of PAH remediation in aquatic environments: biofiltration, biosorption, and metabolic degradation. We conduct a comparison between conventional systems and fungal approaches with reference to the literature (2000–2025). Fungal matrices are identified as being able to capture and adsorb PAHs, facilitating localised remediation that capitalises on the biological capabilities of fungal organisms while requiring lower resource inputs than conventional methods. This review highlights fungal matrices as multifunctional water filtration membranes and provides insights for the application and development of engineered living materials (ELMs) for the water detoxification of PAHs.

1. Introduction

1.1. Biological Strategies for Water Remediation of PAHs: Biofiltration, Biosorption, and Biodegradation

PAHs are persistent, hydrophobic organic pollutants with carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic properties. Their presence in surface water, sediments, and groundwater poses significant ecological and public health risks [1,2]. Due to their low water solubility and high molecular stability, PAHs tend to adsorb onto particles and sediments, making them resistant to conventional remediation methods such as chemical oxidation, photodegradation, or physical filtration [3]. Traditional remediation technologies, such as microfiltration, adsorption, or chemical treatments, often rely on non-renewable inputs and can generate toxic by-products or cause environmental disturbance [4,5]. Bioremediation, by contrast, is increasingly being recognized as a sustainable and effective approach for degrading and removing PAHs from soil and water. It leverages the metabolic activity of microorganisms, including bacteria, algae, and fungi, to transform hazardous compounds into less harmful products [6,7]. Among biological agents, fungi offer distinct advantages in PAH remediation due to their ability to produce extracellular oxidative enzymes (e.g., laccases, manganese peroxidases), form extensive mycelial networks, tolerate toxic environments, and biosorb organic compounds through their cell walls [8]. Fungal-based PAH bioremediation offers a complementary strategy to conventional treatments [9], and the key strategies include biofiltration, biosorption, and biodegradation, each exploiting the unique physiological and biochemical properties of fungi; however, their use is limited due to the fact that its effectiveness is related to contaminant bioavailability, environmental conditions, and logistics (Figure 1). In biofiltration, biological mass, often integrated into a fixed support or membrane, acts as a filter, physically trapping PAHs while facilitating their interaction with active sites or microbial consortia [10]. Biosorption involves the passive binding of PAH molecules to fungal cell walls, especially to functional groups, such as carboxyl, hydroxyl, and amine groups, found in chitin and glucans [11]. This process does not require metabolic activity and is effective even under non-ideal environmental conditions that would inhibit biological growth and enzymatic activity. Biodegradation, by contrast, depends on enzymatic transformation of PAHs into less toxic compounds. Fungi, particularly white-rot species, secrete oxidative enzymes, such as laccases, lignin peroxidases, and manganese peroxidases, that break the complex aromatic structures of PAHs [12]. Together, these strategies enable fungi to act not just as passive adsorbents but as active participants in pollutant transformation. Their potential to function in acidic, saline, or low-nutrient environments makes them particularly suited for in situ or decentralised water treatment systems. Fungal matrices are identified as being able to capture, adsorb, and enzymatically transform PAHs, thereby enabling multifunctional localised remediation with lower resource inputs than conventional methods. This paper reviews the literature (2000–2025) on biological remediation strategies for PAHs and places special focus on unfolding relevant strategies for using living fungal matrices as active filtration membranes in aqueous environments.
Studies were retrieved from Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed using search terms including “fungi”, “PAH”, “bioremediation”, “biodegradation”, “biosorption”, and “biofiltration” (Figure 2). Through the analysis of biofiltration, biosorption, and enzymatic degradation, we highlight their mechanisms, efficiencies, and applications. The review addresses fungal remediation strategies, emphasising the prospective integration of these three mechanisms into one process utilising living fungal mycelium membrane. It aims to evaluate the plausibility of combining these mechanisms into an integrated water system of fungi-based living membranes, providing a valuable resource for advancing engineered living materials (ELMs) for water decontamination and to guide the future design of biologically active PAH remediation systems.

1.2. PAHs

PAHs are hydrophobic organic contaminants consisting of multiple fused benzene rings. They are generated mainly by the incomplete combustion of organic matter, including fossil fuels, wood, and biomass, and are released through industrial processes, transportation, agriculture, and domestic activities [2,13] (Figure 3). Though they can also originate from natural events (e.g., wildfires or volcanic activity), the anthropogenic contribution to PAH pollution has increased significantly since the industrial era, with environmental concentrations now estimated to be 3–20 times higher than pre-industrial levels [14]. In the atmosphere, PAHs occur in both gaseous and particle-bound forms; low-molecular-weight (LMW) PAHs remain mostly in the gas phase, while high-molecular-weight (HMW) PAHs preferentially adsorb to particulates. After deposition, their hydrophobicity and strong affinity for organic carbon lead to accumulation in soils and sediments. In aquatic systems, PAHs enter via atmospheric deposition, oil spills, and urban or industrial runoff. LMW PAHs, being more soluble, partition into the water, whereas HMW PAHs associate with particles and settle into sediments, creating long-term sinks that are difficult to remediate and prone to bioaccumulation. These organic pollutants are listed as priority by environmental agencies worldwide, and 16 are spread extensively [15] (Figure 4). The physicochemical properties of PAHs include their molecular weight, structure, and bonding patterns, which play a critical role in their environmental behaviour and toxicity. LMW PAHs (two–three rings) are more volatile and water-soluble, while HMW PAHs (four or more rings) are more stable, less soluble, and often more carcinogenic [2]. Structurally, PAHs can be categorized by ring arrangement into linear (e.g., anthracene), clustered (e.g., pyrene), or angular forms (e.g., dibenz[a,h]anthracene). Angular PAHs tend to be thermodynamically stable, yet possess reactive bay regions, concave pockets at ring junctions that offer points of attack for fungal oxidative enzymes [16]. This structural insight is key to understanding why fungal biodegradation strategies are effective, as enzymes like laccases target these vulnerable sites to initiate degradation. Their effective removal from aquatic environments remains a critical challenge, one for which fungal bioremediation offers a promising complementary solution.

2. Biofiltration and Other Methods

2.1. Overview of Biofiltration

Traditional filtration methods rely primarily on physical or chemical processes, and they often involve intricate procedures, substantial costs, and high energy consumption (Table 1 and Table 2). Biofiltration, by contrast, is gaining attention for its numerous advantages, as this method relies on biological entities and eliminates the need for chemical additives while being both energy efficient and effective in contaminant removal [17]. At its core, biofiltration is a physical process that relies on the activity of diverse microbial communities that colonise the filter media to break down pollutants [18]. The efficiency of this process is influenced by several factors, including the composition, activity and resilience of the microbial community. Typically, these communities are primarily dominated by bacteria and archaea, while fungi and other eukaryotic organisms play secondary but vital roles [19]. Biofiltration not only addresses water contamination challenges but also aligns with sustainable and environmentally friendly practices in water treatment such as membrane bioreactors, anaerobic digestion, and advanced oxidation processes [20]. Different factors influence the efficiency of the filter and its microbial community. The availability of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and vitamins in the water is crucial for sustaining the community’s metabolism. Temperature plays a significant role, as low temperatures can inhibit the metabolic rate of microbiomes. Optimal pH ensures the metabolic activity related to the type of the microbial community; in fact, extreme pH can potentially inhibit growth. Additionally, the filter media’s material composition and its physical and chemical properties shape the microbial environment. The media’s characteristics, including porosity, surface area, and roughness, affect how microbiomes attach to the filter and determine which microbial communities will thrive [21,22,23]. Lu et al. (2025) systematically demonstrated that the liquid-holding capacity (LHC) and BET surface area of lignocellulosic carriers are quantitative predictors of biofilm productivity, with higher values directly enhancing microbial attachment and metabolic activity. This provides measurable criteria for selecting carriers and links material choice to predictable remediation performance [24].
The microbiome of water biofilters is shaped by environmental factors and engineering design choices. Biofiltration technologies vary in design and application, each suited to specific filtration needs, and host distinct microbial communities that contribute to their effectiveness. One widely used technology is Rapid Sand Filtration (RSF), which operates at high flow rates of 5 to 30 m per hour. RSF efficiently separates harmful organic and inorganic particles and is dominated by microbial communities primarily composed of Proteobacteria and Nitrospirae that inhabit sand, with the addition of a granular media such as anthracite [19]. This method is favored for its speed and reliability in large-scale water treatment facilities. Another filtration method is granular activated carbon filtration (GACF), which is effective in removing organic pollutants. GACF media, typically made from organic materials such as coal and wood, are high in carbon and extremely porous. Contaminants are captured through adsorption on the surface of the granules, providing a habitat for microbial communities, predominantly Polaromonas and Hydrogenophaga species [33]. This dual action of adsorption and microbial degradation makes GACF a versatile and efficient treatment option. Slow sand filtration (SSF) is a more traditional technology where water percolates at a low flow rate through a sand bed layered atop gravel for structural support. A flow regulator is commonly used to maintain consistent flux. This method removes harmful bacteria, pathogens, and turbidity from water. A defining feature of SSF is the formation of a biological layer, known as the schmutzdecke, which develops on the sand’s surface. This layer hosts diverse microbial communities that play a critical role in breaking down contaminants [34]. Each of these biofiltration technologies relies on the interplay of microbial ecology and physical processes. A deeper understanding of the microbial communities and their interactions with the filter media can lead to improved designs and more efficient water treatment solutions.

2.2. Biofiltration of PAHs

Studies have reported specialised methods for separation on PAHs in aqueous sources [35]. Membrane filtration is a method that utilises a barrier material that is able to resist fluid pressure and perform separation of harmful constituents (Figure 5). There are a wide range of methods that filter membranes adopt in the removal of PAHs, such as reverse osmosis [36], ultrafiltration [37], microfiltration, and nanofiltration [5]. It has been shown that waste water can be cleaned with an efficiency of up to 85% through nanofiltration [38] and a separation of up to 72% through reverse osmosis [36]. These methods are all pressure-driven filtration methods and the main difference between them lies in the pore sizes, with microfiltrarion being least selective (largest pores size) and the most selective method of reverse osmosis being able to remove dissolved salts and ions. One study investigates aerated biofiltration as a method to simultaneously remove iron and PAHs, specifically naphthalene, from groundwater. The hypothesis of the work is that manufactured gas plant (MGP) groundwater can be purified by passing the water through a system of columns that have internal gravel media combined with filtered air delivery. This single-stage treatment has significant results for the separation of iron and PAHs, with 99% removal of two- and three-rings PAH compounds. This technology therefore holds promising remediation capabilities [39]. A case study in Compans, France, was performed on a drainage system of a trafficked highway situated in an industrial area that hosts treatment facilities, polymer fabrication, and hydrocarbons and gas storage. Two linear biofilters were studied—a bio-filter swale (BFS) and a vegetative filter strip (VFS)—both positioned in order to receive runoff water from the highway. It was noticed that lower-molecular-weight PAHs were harder to filter (47–88%). However, both systems performed efficiently in removal with high concentration reduction (Ec50) observed (91% for both systems for Σ 16 PAH ) [40]. Hybrid strategies are adopted for PAH removal, which require ultrafiltration in order to use sand for the removal of coking wastewater and leachate, achieving 53.2% and 54.4%, respectively. PAH reductions from coke on bed particles in cylinder containers incorporating three layers of gravel were recorded to be 36.8% for three-ring compounds, 63.9% for four-ring compounds, 65.2% for five-ring compounds, and 48.4% for six-ring compounds [38]. For municipal leachate these percentages were found to be 52.6% for three-ring compounds, 57.1% for four-ring compounds, 60.6% for five-ring compounds, and 67.7% for six-ring compounds [41]. Moreover, it was reported that layering multiple membranes is a successful strategy in PAH separation, suggesting that a systematic approach to biofiltration has potential for filtration efficacy [42].

2.3. Membrane Filtration of PAHs Through Fungi

While the use of fungal biomass for biosorption and biodegradation of PAHs is well established, the concept of employing fungal mycelial membranes as filtration media specifically for PAH removal in flow-through systems remains under-explored in the peer-reviewed literature (Table 3). Membrane filtration techniques are usually employed in cases of matter separation, and since PAHs are hydrophobic molecules, they tend to pass through the membrane, unless there is adsorption onto the surface. Moreover, most PAH remediation studies focus on soil/sediment mycoremediation or slurry-phase reactors because they align better with fungal ecology. However, related work in mycofiltration has shown promising results in water treatment. This method typically employs hybrid consortia of fungal mycelium combined with substrates such as wood chips or agricultural grains. This approach has been successfully applied for the removal of harmful waterborne microbes [43,44] and heavy metals [45,46]. In these cases, mycelial mats function as living filtration media capable of retaining microbial pathogens, excess nutrients, and heavy metals from stormwater and wastewater, suggesting their broader potential for contaminant removal in environmental remediation systems [47]. Additionally, the fungal membranes method has been exploited for biofiltration, focusing on treating textile waste water [48,49]. A more targeted example is the employment of a dried mycelium membrane from the genus Ganoderma. The membrane (approximately 5–6 mm thick) was used in cross-flow filtration, which achieved 85–90% removal efficiency of lead ( Pb 2 + ), even at high flux rates. This was achieved by combining mechanical retention and biosorption via functional groups on hyphal surfaces [50]. Although these studies focus on heavy metal contaminants, the architectural features of fungal membranes—porosity, large surface area, and the presence of binding moieties—suggest potential applicability to hydrophobic organic pollutants such as PAHs. Moreover, research on PAH transmembrane transport into fungal cells, particularly in white-rot fungi such as Phanerochaete chrysosporium, indicates that passive diffusion across the cell envelope is a prerequisite for enzymatic degradation, underscoring the fungal membrane’s central role in pollutant uptake [51]. Together, these lines of research lend plausibility to the hypothesis that living fungal membranes could serve as biofilters. Furthermore, in an advanced material context, they could be engineered to provide initial physical retention of PAHs followed by optimised enzymatic transformation.

3. Biosorption and Other Methods

3.1. Overview of Biosorption

Biosorption is a passive physiochemical process which happens in specific biomasses that have functional groups in the cell wall, such as carboxyl, hydroxyl, amino, phosphate, and sulfhydryl [52]. It is a subcategory of adsorption that does not rely on metabolic activity [53]. This method is useful when conventional biodegradation processes are ineffective against particular contaminants; in such cases, the contaminants are instead accumulated and collected on the surface of the biosorbents [54]. On the one hand, some biosorbents are specially engineered for biosorption; these materials often fall into the category of more expensive options due to the precision and resources required for their development. On the other hand, one of the most compelling advantages of biosorption technology lies in its ability to utilize by- or waste products and low-cost materials, making it both economically feasible and widely accessible. For instance, waste materials such as seaweed, eggshells, and cotton have been reported as effective biosorbents [54]. Additionally, industrial by-products like yeast residues from large-scale fermentation processes have demonstrated significant biosorptive potential, offering a sustainable solution for pollutant removal [55]. The ability to source biosorbents from either low-cost waste materials or specialized engineered materials demonstrates biosorption’s adaptability as a treatment technology. It allows for both high-performance applications, where specificity is critical, and large-scale, cost-effective solutions that capitalise on waste valorisation. The attachment to the surface develops through different mechanisms. Ion exchange is found to have a predominant role between the sorbate and the sorbent biomass. One determining factor is the pH and ion concentration defining the binding sites of the ions and influencing the attachment [56]. Another advantage of biosorption is that it is proven to be a reversible process. By adjusting the pH and/or ion concentration, mechanisms such as competition or deprotonation are induced, enabling the regeneration of the biosorbent [57]. Another mechanism of attachment is surface complexation, in which metal ions form chemical bonds or precipitates through reactions at the interface between sorbents and sorbates. This process involves the accumulation of complexes on the sorbent surface. Temperature can have an impact on biosorption: a moderate increase can promote physical adsorption or speed up chemical binding, whereas a substantial rise may impair biosorbent structures, reduce sorption efficiency and raise operational costs [58]. Biosorption serves as the crucial initial step in the broader process of bioremediation, laying the foundation for subsequent bioaccumulation. While these two processes are closely interlinked, they remain distinct in their mechanisms and roles. Biosorption, as previously mentioned, involves the passive binding of pollutants to the surface of the biosorbent, facilitated by functional groups on the cell wall. In contrast, bioaccumulation refers to the active uptake of pollutants into the cell, a process that requires the metabolic engagement of the biomass. Within the cell, these pollutants are transformed or degraded, ultimately contributing to the detoxification and remediation of the environment. Biosorption modulates the efficacy of bioaccumulation; understanding the biosorptive potential of a material is therefore paramount to establishing the feasibility of subsequent bioaccumulation processes. Studies have been conducted on biosorption using fungal pellets, demonstrating success across a broad spectrum of pollutants, including phenolic compounds, pesticides, and heavy metals [52,59,60]. Fungal pellets represent the form in which fungi grow in liquid culture, offering a structure that facilitates biosorption processes. Most research in this area has focused on the use of non-viable or dead fungal cells due to several practical advantages. Firstly, this method eliminates the need for a continuous supply of nutrients during sorption, simplifying operational requirements. Secondly, their deactivation allows the biosorbent to be stored for extended periods without degradation, enhancing its usability and shelf life [52].

3.2. Biosorption of PAHs

The biosorption of PAHs is a complex physicochemical process largely driven by hydrophobic interactions, π π stacking, van der Waals forces and the interaction between aromatic PAHs and functional groups present on the surface of biological materials [61]. The pH plays a critical role in modulating the ionization of surface functional groups such as carboxyl and amino groups on biosorbents, which can influence the sorption of charged contaminants like heavy metals [62]. Unlike heavy metals, which exhibit consistent ionic properties, the functional groups of organic pollutants vary according to their chemical structure, resulting in differing degrees of ionization and charge behavior under varying pH conditions [11]. However, for hydrophobic organic compounds such as phenanthrene, biosorption by inactivated bacterial biomass primarily occurs through a partitioning mechanism into hydrophobic domains of the cell wall, rather than via electrostatic interactions or ion exchange [63]. Temperature affects biosorption kinetics and thermodynamics; moderate increases in temperature can enhance the mobility of PAHs and increase sorption capacity, although excessive heat may destabilize biosorbent structures [64]. Biosorbents such as biochar, algae, and microbial biomass exhibit varying affinities for PAHs based on their surface area, porosity, and carbon content, making them promising candidates for environmentally friendly remediation technologies. A variety of sorbents have been tested and reported to be effective. Activated carbon is one of the technologies that is used to remove PAHs and its efficiency is dependent on the type of carbon, contact time, surface area, temperature and PAH concentration [65]. Positive results were reported by a study were six carcinogenic PAHs listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were mixed with distilled water and tested against three sorbents: activated carbon WG-12, mineral sorbent and quartz sand. The results present an overall decrease in concentration, with particular efficiency using activated carbon, achieving 100% removal for benzo[ghi]perylene (BghiP), 99.8% for benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkF), 97.1% for benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), 96.7% for benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbF) and dibenzo[ah]anthracene (DahA), and 90.9% for indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (IP). Mineral sorbent performed the least effectively [41]. Even though active carbon is commercially available and performs well in removal, it is not commonly used due to its high cost compared to biomass waste [66]. A study testing soybean stalk-based carbons against removal of phenanthrene (PHE), naphthalene (NAP), and acenaphthene (ACE) in aqueous solution indicates that the increase in carbon quantity and carbonisation temperature is proportional to removal. The best results appear when the preparation of stalk-based carbons is set by phosphoric acid activation at a carbonisation temperature of 700 C with a carbon concentration of 0.04 g per 32 mL. The removal efficiencies observed are 99.89% for PHE, 100% for NAP and 95.64% for ACE. The study identifies opportunities to use biomass waste for sorption purposes [67]. Another economically convenient alternative to activated carbon is activated coke [68]. To assess the adsorption properties of activated coke, petroleum coke was prepared by potassium hydroxide (KOH), before being crushed and submerged in an aqueous solution containing naphthalene (NAP), fluorene (FLU), phenanthrene (PHE), pyrene (PYR) and fluoranthene (FLA). Over 30 min, a removal through sorption of 92.6% for FLA, 93.4% for PYR, 95.2% for PHE, 99.1% for NAP, and 99.7% for FLU occurs. Moreover, the adsorption is correlated to the molecular weight of the contaminants as NAP, suggesting that there is a process of diffusive mass transfer-control, which happened faster with the initial concentration [69]. Overall, activated carbon is an effective method for PAH sorption, but the cost of operations and materials is quite high [70], leading to a search for solutions in waste materials as alternatives.

3.3. Fungal Biosorption of PAHs

Fungal biosorption of PAHs operates through a combination of physico-chemical interactions between fungal biomass and hydrophobic organic pollutants, offering an effective non-metabolic pathway for pollutant removal. The structural composition of fungal cell walls, including chitin, glucans, and melanin, hosts a variety of functional groups such as carboxyl (−COOH), hydroxyl (−OH), amino (−NH2), sulfonate (−SO3), and phosphonate/phosphate (PO43−), which act as active sorption sites [71,72]. These groups mediate PAH binding via electron donor–acceptor mechanisms and planar π π interactions with the aromatic rings of PAHs [73]. In natural environments, combined pollution is common, with the co-occurrence of PAHs and heavy metals frequently observed. The simultaneous uptake of these contaminants is often mutually influenced, as the presence of one can alter the biosorption behaviour of the other. In one study, it has been showen that Cu2+ enhances anthracene partitioning into fungal biomass, while Mn2+ inhibits it [74]. In multi-solute scenarios, adsorption sites on fungal biomass are shared among coexisting PAHs and other organic compounds, leading to competitive adsorption. This competition can effect the uptake of single-solute and alters sorption isotherms, for instance when dissolved organic matter or surfactants occupy or block π π interaction sites. Co-solutes can, in fact, occupy the same hydrophobic/ π sites or change apparent PAH solubility. Dissolved organic matter (DOM) and non-ionic surfactants can decrease the sorption of PAHs onto solid phases by competing for adsorption sites and by promoting micellar or colloidal solubilisation that maintains PAHs in the aqueous phase [75]. Moreover, multi-solute PAH systems can also show direct competition for limited aromatic domains (e.g., binary PHE/NAP systems), typically lowering single-solute capacities and changing isotherm nonlinearity [76]. PAH sorpiton to fungal mass can be observed to be near-linear and partition-dominated, Freundlich N 1 [77]. As the concentration increases, the functional groups are chemically affected and nonlinearity is predominant with either Freundlich n < 1 or Langmuir models. Pseudo-second-order (PSO) kinetics are typically used to describe the uptake of PAH onto fungal biomass. Anthracene adsorption onto ectomycorrhizal mycelia was well described by PSO kinetics, yielding rate constants of 4.13–6.27 mg g 1 and equilibrium capacities of 1.32–1.79 mg g 1 under set conditions of 25 °C and pH 6 [78]. Phenanthrene adsorption onto P. chrysosporium likewise conformed to PSO behavior, with equilibrium capacities ranging from 0.99 to 2.04 mg g 1 depending on the chemical modification of surface functional groups [77]. PSO constants vary in form and are sensitive to initial concentration ( C 0 ) and modeling convention; in general, the rate constant K is not an intrinsic constant and decreases with increasing C 0 [79]. Fungal phenolic polymers and melanin are found to have large potential metal-binding sites with oxygen-containing groups [80,81]. Hence, due to good efficiency proprieties and adsorption versatility, fungal biomass has attracted attention as a viable alternative to traditional biosorption technologies [82]. Unlike bacteria sorption that relies on surface sorption, fungal sorption is predominantly governed by partitioning, where PAHs are physically stored within the biomass. Sorption isotherms that help model and predict the sorption capacity and behavior of materials such as naphthalene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene and pyrene have been shown to be linear and non-competitive, with Freundlich N values approximating 1, indicating that partitioning, rather than surface saturation, is the dominant mechanism.
The carbon-normalised partition coefficients (Koc) of PAHs to white-rot fungi correlate linearly with the octanol–water partition coefficient (Kow), enabling predictive modeling of biosorption behavior. Quantitatively, partition coefficients (Kd) for different PAHs range from 361.0 mL/g for naphthalene to 24,140 mL/g for pyrene [83]. Additionally, exopolymeric substances (EPS) surrounding fungal hyphae enhance biosorption by physically trapping PAHs and localising lignin-degrading enzymes such as laccase and manganese peroxidase, which can further degrade adsorbed compounds [84]. Inactivated fungi often exhibit greater sorption capabilities compared to active ones, for example, In the case of BaP adsorption efficiency of inactive fungi (40.76%) is greater than live fungi (34.24%) [72]. Nevertheless, live fungi combine biosorption with biodegradation, storing up to 60–85% of PYR and 40–65% of PHE in fungal biomass prior to enzymatic breakdown [83]. Biosorption of fungi is a multifaceted process in PAH remediation, with fungi functioning as both passive sorbents and active bioreactors under diverse environmental conditions.

4. Biodegradation and Other Methods

4.1. Overview of Biodegradation

Biodegradation physical treatment intervention is most commonly categorized into the following categories: in situ and ex situ [85]. Ex situ techniques consist of excavation and transport of contaminated masses to specialized treatment or disposal facilities. In-situ methods seek to isolate or remediate contaminants in the field [86] (Figure 6). A wide range of methods are employed for the removal of contaminants, depending on the nature and extent of pollution. These include physical, thermal–chemical and biological treatments. Physical treatments involve a physical separation to remove contaminants, such as soil washing, capping, air stripping, sedimentation, and filtration [7]. There are also other extraction techniques involving solvent extraction, vacuum extraction, and electrokinetic remediation, which draw contaminants out of the affected material [87]. Thermo-chemical techniques utilize thermal processes and chemical reactions to neutralise contaminants, including thermal desorption [88], incineration [89], pyrolysis [90], chemical oxidation [91], precipitation and neutralization [92]. Biological treatment harnesses microbial activity for pollutant degradation utilizing for example bioreactors and biopiles [85]. Meanwhile, application of ex situ pollutant remediation poses a high risk while transporting and handling the pollution; it has a high cost and there is a high risk of exposure to contaminants. In situ remediation processes require a longer period of time for completion but make use of more accessible and low-cost technologies. However, they may be less efficient than the ex situ methods and need careful site assessment, monitoring and risk management [86]. One of the most promising strategies in the in-situ category is bioremediation, as it uses biological factors in order to remediate the environment. Leveraging the metabolic process of living organisms is an alternative approach to environmental clean-up by utilising their natural ability to degrade, transform, or remove pollutants from contaminated sites. It offers a cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative to traditional remediation methods [7]. The strategy leverages the metabolic pathways of organisms to break down and remove hazardous substances, including hydrocarbons, heavy metals and pesticides (Table 4 and Table 5). In microbial biodegradation, certain bacteria, fungi, or even algae are selected for their ability to degrade specific toxins (PAHs) (Figure 7). Different microbial communities have distinct optimal pH ranges: many bacteria prefer neutral to slightly alkaline conditions, while fungi can tolerate more acidic environments. A similar principle applies to temperature, as optimal temperatures can enhance the degradation of specific pollutants [93]. The most commonly employed in situ bioremediation strategies are biostimulation and bioaugmentation. When nutrient availability is limited, biostimulation becomes a key approach. It targets areas that are deprived and aims to stimulate indigenous organisms by adding supplementation of nutrition through phosphorous, nitrogen and carbon sources, providing favourable environmental conditions to promote growth. Furthermore, if the indigenous microflora lack biocompatibility to degrade pollutants, it is possible, through bioaugmentation, to introduce specialised organisms that are provided with a compatible metabolic pathway that enables degradation. As these microorganisms proliferate, they break down the pollutants into less harmful compounds through processes such as biodegradation, biotransformation, or mineralization. Biostimulation and bioaugmentation techniques can be used separately or in combination, depending on the site, the environmental conditions and the pollutants that are targeted [94]. Although these methods are human-driven interventions, they are generally considered safe, as they enhance nutrient availability in ways that mimic natural processes. The treatments themselves do not persist or accumulate in the environment. Moreover, in cases where external microorganisms are introduced, they are typically selected from species closely related to the native microbiota and their populations tend to decline naturally once the pollutant source is depleted [95]. Extended studies have been conducted on fungal and bacterial species with regard to their natural ability for hydrocarbon detoxification [96,97,98,99,100,101].
Figure 6. Bioremediation strategies ex and in situ.
Figure 6. Bioremediation strategies ex and in situ.
Fermentation 11 00573 g006
Figure 7. Pathways for PAH degradation by bacteria and fungi. Based on [102]; figure created by the authors.
Figure 7. Pathways for PAH degradation by bacteria and fungi. Based on [102]; figure created by the authors.
Fermentation 11 00573 g007
Table 4. Biological agents and processes for pollutants bioremediation: effectiveness and references.
Table 4. Biological agents and processes for pollutants bioremediation: effectiveness and references.
PollutantOrganismEnzyme/ProcessEffectivenessReferences
Benzo[a]pyrene,
Pyrene,
Chrysene,
Fluoranthene,
Naphthalene,
Phenanthrene,
Anthracene
Mycobacterium gilvum MI, Novosphingobium pentaromativorans sp. novRing-hydroxylating dioxygenases (RHDs), Dehydrogenases, Monooxygenases88.2–99.9 % after 8 daysSohn et al., 2004 [103]
Phenanthrene,
Pyrene,
Benzo[a]pyrene,
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Mycobacterium gilvum MI, Mycobacterium sp. ZL7, Rhodococcus rhodochrous Q3Ring-hydroxylating dioxygenases (RHDs), Dehydrogenases, Monooxygenasesconsortium H6 (Q3:ZL7:MI = 1:2:2) 59% within 8 daysZhou et al., 2023 [104]
PyrenePseudomonas aeruginosa strain ASU-B6not specified92% after 15 daysMawad et al., 2024 [105]
Hexavalent
chromium (Cr(VI))
Geobacter sulfurreducensExtracellular protein-mediated reduction; intracellular accumulation99% of 100 mg/L Cr(VI) using a cell density of 5.8 × 10 8 cells/mL. 99% of 200 mg/L Cr(VI) using 11.4 × 10 8 cells/mL.Elmeihy et al., 2021 [106]
Cadmium ( Cd 2 + )Pseudomonas aeruginosaBioaccumulation and BiosorptionUp to 94.7%Chellaiah, 2018 [107]
Hexavalent
chromium (Cr(VI))
Priestia megaterium strain BM.1Bioreduction and adsorption on hydrochar97% removal of Cr(VI) (initially 60 mg/L)Wu et al., 2025 [108]
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)Sphingomonas chlorophenolicaPentachlorophenol hydroxylase, Tetrachlorohydroquinone dehalogenase, 2,6-Dichlorohydroquinone dioxygenaseNot specifiedCopley, 2000 [109]
Perchloroethylene,
Trichloroethylene,
Dichloroethene,
Vinyl chloride
Dehalococcoides sppReductive dehalogenases (RDases)Not specifiedVainberg et al., 2009 [110]
Anthracene,
Acenaphthene,
Fluoranthene,
Fluorene
Aspergillus nigerReductive dehalogenases (RDases)ter 30 days: 77.8%, 65%, 60.9%, 52.5%Manjunatha et al., 2025 [111]
Phenanthrene,
Pyrene
Podoscypha elegans FTG4Laccase, Lignin peroxidase (LiP), Manganese peroxidase (MnP)50.6% of PHE, 48% of PYR, for 50 mg/kg, 99% of PHE, 98.9% of PYR for 20 mg/LAgrawal et al., 2021 [112]
Zinc ion ( Zn 2 + ),
Chromium ion (CR3+),
Lead ion (Pb2+)
Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Trametes versicolorbiosorptionP. c adsorbs Cr3+ medium at concentrations of 0.5, 1 mg L 1 . T. v adsorbs Pb2+ at concentrations of 0.25, 1, 2 mg L 1 Solis Pacheco et al., 2015 [113]
Table 5. Biological agents and processes for pollutant bioremediation: effectiveness and references.
Table 5. Biological agents and processes for pollutant bioremediation: effectiveness and references.
PollutantOrganismEnzyme/ProcessEffectivenessReferences
Cadmium (II),
manganese (II),
zinc (II) ions
Ganoderma lucidum heteropolysaccharides (GLHP)biosorption98.2%, 80.6%, 82.8%Marolt et al., 2024 [114]
CadmiumAspergillus nigerbiosorption82.2%Amini et al., 2009 [115]
CarbamatesAscochyta sp. CBS 237.37not specified36–94.8%Kaur and Balomajumder, 2019 [116]
Parathion,
Terbufos,
Azinphos-methyl,
Phosmet,
Tribufos,
Trichlorfon
Bjerkandera adusta 8258, Pleurotus ostreatus 7989, Phanerochaete chrysosporium 3641Cytochrome P450 monooxygenases50–96%Jauregui et al., 2003 [117]
Methyl parathion
(O,O-dimethyl-O-4-nitrophenyl
phosphorothioate)
Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus obliquus, Nannochloropsis spp., Anabaena spp., Spirulina spp.electrostatic attraction and complexation24–98%Satpati et al., 2023 [118]
Naphthalene,
Phenanthrene,
Anthracene,
Fluoranthene,
Benzo[a]pyrene
Aspergillus nigerbiosorption82.2%Amini et al., 2009 [115]
PhenolChlorella sp., Scenedesmus sp., Spirulina sp., Chlamydomonas sp.Phenol hydroxylase, Catechol 1,2-dioxygenase (C12O), Catechol 2,3-dioxygenase (C23O), Laccases and peroxidases, Polyphenol oxidaseChlorella sp.: up to 90%, Scenedesmus sp.: 70–85%Al-Dahhan et al., 2018 [119] Radziff et al., 2021 [120]

4.2. Biodegradation Against PAHs Through Bacteria

Microbial activity plays a primary role in the degradation process; the compounds are transformed into metabolites that are less complex and harmful for the environment [12]. Various microorganisms can degrade PAHs, including specialized prokaryotic bacteria and eukaryotic organisms such as fungi. Bacteria have proven to be very effective in the remediation of petrochemical waste. The primary mechanism of PAH degradation by bacteria relies on enzyme-driven activation and oxidation, facilitating oxygen fixation [121]. BaP is considered the most dangerous and carcinogenic and Sphingomonas paucimobilis is found to be effective in its degradation. In one study, a decrease of BaP of 5% in liquid culture was shown after 168 h [122]. From a polluted site, Aitken et al. were able to collect 11 strains of indigenous bacteria with the ability to degrade BAP, including 3 species belonging to the genus Pseudomonas, as well as Agrobacterium, Bacillus, Burkholderia and Sphingomonas species [123]. It has been shown that soil with a high quantity of PAHs contains more bacteria per gram compared to soil with a lower amount of PAHs. Using already specialised bacteria that are indigenous is a favourable approach to decontamination and several of these organisms use contaminants as sources of energy and carbon [124]. Pseudomonas sp., Alcaligenes sp., Rhodococcus sp., Beijerinckia sp. are reported to be able to degrade high molecular weight PAHs that have three or more benzene rings [125]. A limiting factor in the context of bacteria remediation is accessibility to oxygen for bacteria that need aerobic condition to survive; for this reason, techniques such as bioventing with injection of oxygen are more suitable in this context, or alternatively allowing waste water to enter the plant while being aerated [126].

4.3. Fungal Biodegradation Against PAHs

Some fungi possess the ability to thrive in harsh environments, whether terrestrial or aquatic, making them ideal candidates for bioremediation. Psathyrella species for example are able to live in arctic environments and in the presence of toxic pollution [127]. The use of fungi for remediation is called mycoremediation [128]. White rot fungi are a distinct group of fungi that are recognized to degrade a wide range of pollutants, including PAHs, through their enzyme production for lignin degradation [129]. What makes this technology particularly appealing is its cost-effectiveness (Table 6) [130]. Unlike bacteria, which often require complex and costly nutritional sources, fungi can flourish on substrates sourced from agricultural waste, making their application both practical and sustainable [131]. Fungi have been successfully utilised in remediating both soil and water contamination. Fungal diversity in wastewater treatment systems enhances efficiency across a range of industries such as pharmaceuticals and it is present in textile and distillery activities, demonstrating the strong potential of fungi as a powerful tool for tackling industrial pollution [132]. Fungal PAH metabolism can be classified into two major types: those mediated by non-ligninolytic fungi and those mediated by ligninolytic fungi [133]. The initial step in PAH metabolism by non-ligninolytic fungi involves the oxidation of the PAH through a cytochrome P450 monooxygenase enzyme-mediated reaction, resulting in the formation of an arene oxide [134]. White rot fungi harness the power of their lignin-modifying enzymes (LMEs) to break down lignin during wood decomposition. The key enzymatic groups; lignin peroxidases (LiPs), manganese-dependent peroxidases (MnPs), and laccases, are not only pivotal in natural wood degradation but also demonstrate extraordinary versatility in environmental remediation [135]. These enzymes enable white rot fungi to degrade a broad spectrum of organic pollutants, including persistent contaminants like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, synthetic dyes, and various chlorinated and phenolic compounds. Most recently, studies have reported enzymes such as feruloyl esterase (EC 3.1.1.73), aryl-alcohol oxidase (EC 1.1.3.7), quinone reductases (EC 1.6.5.5), lipases (EC 3.1.1.3), xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) and catechol 2, 3-dioxygenase (EC 1.13.11.2) that indirectly facilitate the degradation of pollutants [136,137]. LiPs directly oxidize specific PAHs, making ligninolytic fungi unique among eukaryotes in their ability to break down fused-ring aromatics, a process once believed to be exclusive to bacteria [138]. This enzyme is able to target and break C-C and C-O bonds in lignin but also plays a crucial role as a catalyst for the oxidation of several non-aromatic and aromatic compounds; therefore, it allows the degradation of pollutants such as PAHs and many more, like phenolic compounds and textile dyes. Manganese Peroxides (MnP), like LiP, are heme-containing enzymes; they possess a high level of oxidation towards Mn(II) to Mn(III). Mn(III) produces a reactive radical able to tackle the aromatic rings with high molecular weight in PAHs. Laccase is a copper enzyme able to oxidase less complex PAHs molecules with low molecular weight. In order to augment the degradation efficiency of more complex PAHs with more than four rings, a highly hydrophobic and thermally stable electron shuttle is needed to act as mediator in the degradation process [132,139,140]. The overall process of PAH oxidation generates distinct intermediates. It begins with hydroxylation and oxidation of the aromatic rings catalysed by extracellular lignin enzymes or intracellular monooxygenases with production of arene oxides, dihydrodiols and hydroxylated PAHs [141]. These catalyse oxidation of aromatic rings into quinones, dihydrodiols, or diphenols, which are further cleaved into intermediates like catechol or protocatechuate. This process enables fungi such as Phanerochaete chrysosporium and Pleurotus ostreatus to transform and partially mineralize PAHs [102]. The production and mechanisms of enzyme synthesis are highly species-dependent; however, their synergistic interactions enable the remediation of a diverse array of environmental toxins. Pleurotus ostreatus, in low and high nitrogen conditions, is able to mineralise and metabolise PYR, FLU, PHE and ANT [142]. In one study, G. lucidum was found to be effective in PAH remediation. It has been shown to degrade 99.65% of 20 mg/L PHE and 99.58% of PYR in mineral salt broth after 30 days of incubation at 27 °C. In the PHE-containing broth, G. lucidum produced a maximum of 10,788.00 U/L laccase, 3283.00 U/L lignin peroxidase, and 47,444.00 U/L manganese peroxidase. In the PYR-containing broth, the fungus reached maximum enzyme production levels of 10,166.00 U/L laccase, 3613.00 U/L lignin peroxidase, and 50,977.00 U/L manganese peroxidase [96]. A report showed mineralisation after 21 days of 50% of PYR, 68% of ANT and 63% of PHE by Pleurotus ostreatus, with increased degradation of 75%, 80% and 75%, respectively, by adding supplementation of Tween 40 [99]. Schizophyllum commune ability of PAHs degradation is tested in artificial marine water (AMW) solution with concentration of 50 ppm of PHE, PYR and BaP in aerobic and anaerobic treatments. Positive results of 25%, 18% and 13% were found for PHE, PYR, and BaP, respectively, after 10 days under anaerobic conditions [143]. Fungi’s adaptability to various environmental conditions and ability to degrade a wide range of PAHs, even in low-nutrient settings, make them particularly advantageous for bioremediation. Additionally, fungi can penetrate and colonise contaminated substrates, enhancing their efficiency in pollutant degradation. These characteristics position fungi as a valuable tool for the bioremediation of PAH-contaminated environments.

5. Discussion

This review of biofiltration, biosorption and biodegradation allows us to outline a set of design considerations for fungal-based PAH remediation systems. Influent water quality strongly shapes system performance; laboratory studies generally report effective degradation at influent concentrations between 20 and 50 mg/L, particularly for low- to medium-molecular-weight compounds such as phenanthrene and pyrene. In contrast, high-molecular-weight PAHs exhibit lower removal efficiencies under similar conditions, reflecting their limited solubility and bioavailability. Performance can also be constrained in multi-solute scenarios, where adsorption sites are competitively occupied or in waters containing high levels of dissolved organic matter (DOM). Optimal conditions for sustaining fungal metabolism and enzymatic activity include maintaining pH values between 6 and 8 and temperatures in the range of 20–30 °C. With respect to PAH filtration, fungal living membranes remain under-explored. Current applications are either biologically inactive or focus on pollutants other than PAHs. Current approaches involve lignocellulosic carrier matrices that act as both structural supports and nutrient reservoirs, particularly when derived from low-cost agricultural residues. To ensure long-term operation, effluent PAH concentrations must be continuously monitored, while hydraulic performance should be assessed through flux measurements, where significant declines indicate the need for cleaning or replacement. Microbial partnerships play an important role. Co-cultivation of fungi with bacteria has repeatedly been shown to enhance degradation efficiencies, in some cases by 10–50%, by combining initial bacterial transformation with fungal oxidative breakdown. Biological remediation for contaminant capture and degradation, particularly for PAHs, shows considerable promise as a sustainable environmental regenerative solution. The integration of specific aspects from filtration, sorption and degradation through fungal membrane systems presents an opportunity for a comprehensive remediation method (Table 7). While current bioremediation technologies offer selective specialisation, holistic approaches that address the complete lifecycle of contaminants in aquatic environments remain underdeveloped. White-rot fungi emerge as ideal candidates for membrane-based filtration materials due to their naturally occurring entangled mycelial network structures, while their inherent role as decomposers in natural ecosystems facilitates localised degradation capabilities. These characteristics establish a robust foundation for developing systematic remediation processes utilizing fungal mycelium as a multifunctional filtration medium that simultaneously captures, retains, and degrades PAH contaminants. Combining three methods through the production of pure fungal membranes leverages the properties of the biological matrix and constructs the filtration medium directly from selected living organisms, such as fungal mycelium. The process allows for a more precise understanding and control of the microbial ecology within the system. This approach fundamentally transforms common biofiltration methods by eliminating external microbial community deposition on inert filter substrates. Instead, the living fungal matrix itself serves as both the structural filtration medium and the active biological agent. This proactive approach consists of integrating the membrane composition and microbial functionality as fundamental parts of the design of the filtration system. By unravelling the relation between organism and environment conditions, such as contaminants, temperature, pH and identifying the optimal compositions of microbial consortia, the bioremediation design allows for a robust and efficient system. The control over the microbial ecology allows us to deliberately engineer the biological components for targeted pollutant removal. This biocentric methodology offers potential for adaptive responses to changing environmental conditions, as the living matrix can be modified to meet new challenges.
Taken together, these considerations move fungal-based remediation beyond descriptive case studies toward actionable design principles, bridging laboratory research and engineered living water treatment systems. They also provide a foundation for advancing the spectrum of Engineered Living Materials (ELMs). Insights into how biological systems can be harnessed for remediation inform the engineering of ELMs by optimising embedded biological components for performance, adaptability, and self-organization. In this way, PAH remediation serves as both a testbed and a conceptual bridge to single organisms or consortia of multifunctional living materials capable of dynamically interacting with their environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.C. and M.T.; methodology, C.C.; validation, M.T., C.C. and P.A.; investigation, C.C.; resources, C.C.; data curation, C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.C.; writing—review and editing, C.C., P.A. and M.T.; visualization, C.C.; supervision, P.A. and M.T.; project administration, P.A.; funding acquisition, P.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Union’s HORIZON-EIC-2021-PATHFINDER CHALLENGES programme under the project FUNGATERIA, grant agreement No. 101071145.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of the global research community whose collective work has laid the foundation for this review.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Martin Tegelaar was employed by the company Tegelaar Research Consultancy. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mojiri, A.; Zhou, J.L.; Ohashi, A.; Ozaki, N.; Kindaichi, T. Comprehensive Review of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Water Sources, Their Effects and Treatments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 696, 133971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Patel, A.B.; Shaikh, S.; Jain, K.R.; Desai, C.; Madamwar, D. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Sources, Toxicity, and Remediation Approaches. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 562813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Smol, M.; Włodarczyk-Makuła, M. The Effectiveness in the Removal of PAHs from Aqueous Solutions in Physical and Chemical Processes: A Review. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2017, 37, 292–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Badawy, M.I.; Ghaly, M.Y.; Gad-Allah, T.A. Advanced Oxidation Processes for the Removal of Organophosphorus Pesticides from Wastewater. Desalination 2006, 194, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, S.; Luo, J.; Hang, X.; Zhao, S.; Wan, Y. Removal of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Nanofiltration Membranes: Rejection and Fouling Mechanisms. J. Membr. Sci. 2019, 582, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hussain, A.; Kumari, R.; Sachan, S.G.; Sachan, A. Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology: Advancement and Drawbacks. In Microbial Ecology of Wastewater Treatment Plants; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sutar, H.; Kumar, D. A Review on: Bioremediation. Int. J. Res. Chem. Environ. 2012, 2, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kadri, T.; Rouissi, T.; Kaur Brar, S.; Cledon, M.; Sarma, S.; Verma, M. Biodegradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by Fungal Enzymes: A Review. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 2017, 51, 52–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dinakarkumar, Y.; Ramakrishnan, G.; Gujjula, K.R.; Vasu, V.; Balamurugan, P.; Murali, G. Fungal Bioremediation: An Overview of the Mechanisms, Applications and Future Perspectives. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol. 2024, 6, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Folwell, B.D.; McGenity, T.J.; Whitby, C. Biofilm and Planktonic Bacterial and Fungal Communities Transforming High-Molecular-Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 2288–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Torres, E. Biosorption: A Review of the Latest Advances. Processes 2020, 8, 1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Haritash, A.K.; Kaushik, C.P. Biodegradation Aspects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): A Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 169, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, Y.; Tao, S. Global Atmospheric Emission Inventory of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) for 2004. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 812–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fernández, P.; Vilanova, R.M.; Martínez, C.; Appleby, P.; Grimalt, J.O. The Historical Record of Atmospheric Pyrolytic Pollution over Europe Registered in the Sedimentary PAH from Remote Mountain Lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 1906–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Marvin, C.; Tomy, G.T.; Thomas, P.J.; Holloway, A.C.; Sandau, C.D.; Idowu, I.; Xia, Z. Considerations for Prioritization of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds as Environmental Contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 14787–14789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Abdel-Shafy, H.I.; Mansour, M.S.M. A Review on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Source, Environmental Impact, Effect on Human Health and Remediation. Egypt. J. Pet. 2016, 25, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Camarillo, M.; Stringfellow, W.; Jain, R. Drinking Water Security for Engineers, Planners, and Managers: Integrated Water Security Series; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2014; p. 241. [Google Scholar]
  18. Samer, M. Biological and Chemical Wastewater Treatment Processes. In Wastewater Treatment Engineering; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bai, X.; Dinkla, I.J.T.; Muyzer, G. Microbial Ecology of Biofiltration Used for Producing Safe Drinking Water. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 4813–4829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ejairu, U.; Aderamo, A.T.; Olisakwe, H.C.; Esiri, A.E.; Adanma, U.M.; Solomon, N.O. Eco-Friendly Wastewater Treatment Technologies (Concept): Conceptualizing Advanced, Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Designs for Industrial and Municipal Applications. Compr. Res. Rev. Eng. Technol. 2024, 2, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gerrity, D.; Arnold, M.; Dickenson, E.; Moser, D.; Sackett, J.D.; Wert, E.C. Microbial Community Characterization of Ozone-Biofiltration Systems in Drinking Water and Potable Reuse Applications. Water Res. 2018, 135, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ma, B.; LaPara, T.M.; Hozalski, R.M. Microbiome of Drinking Water Biofilters Is Influenced by Environmental Factors and Engineering Decisions but Has Little Influence on the Microbiome of the Filtrate. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 11526–11535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vignola, M.; Werner, D.; Wade, M.J.; Meynet, P.; Davenport, R.J. Medium Shapes the Microbial Community of Water Filters with Implications for Effluent Quality. Water Res. 2018, 129, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lu, R.; Hong, B.; Wang, Y.; Cui, X.; Liu, C.; Liu, Y.; Wu, X.; Ruan, R.; Zhang, Q. Microalgal Biofilm Cultivation on Lignocellulosic Based Bio-Carriers: Effects of Material Physical Characteristics on Microalgal Biomass Production and Composition. Chem. Eng. J. 2025, 510, 161656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Baker, R.W. Membrane Technology and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hatt, B.E.; Fletcher, T.D.; Deletic, A. Treatment Performance of Gravel Filter Media: Implications for Design and Application of Stormwater Infiltration Systems. Water Res. 2007, 41, 2513–2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lazim, S.M.; Khaleefa Ali, S.A. Treatment of Water from Irrigation Drainage by Multimedia Filtration. J. Eng. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 24, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kawamura, S. Integrated Design and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tarikuzzaman, M. A Review on Activated Carbon: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications. Eur. J. Adv. Eng. Technol. 2023, 10, 114–123. [Google Scholar]
  30. Duan, J.; Gregory, J. Coagulation by Hydrolysing Metal Salts. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2003, 100–102, 475–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pismenskaya, N.; Nikonenko, V. Ion-Exchange Membranes and Processes. Membranes 2021, 11, 814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, L.K.; Vaccari, D.A.; Li, Y.; Shammas, N.K. Chemical Precipitation. In Physicochemical Treatment Processes; Wang, L.K., Hung, Y.T., Shammas, N.K., Eds.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 141–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Magic-Knezev, A.; Wullings, B.; Van der Kooij, D. Polaromonas and Hydrogenophaga Species Are the Predominant Bacteria Cultured from Granular Activated Carbon Filters in Water Treatment. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 1457–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Weber-Shirk, M.L.; Dick, R.I. Physical—Chemical Mechanisms in Slow Sand Filters. J. AWWA 1997, 89, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chaudhary, D.S.; Vigneswaran, S.; Ngo, H.H.; Shim, W.G.; Moon, H. Biofilter in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2003, 20, 1054–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Smol, M.; Włodarczyk-Makuła, M.; Mielczarek, K.; Bohdziewicz, J.; Włóka, D. The Use of Reverse Osmosis in the Removal of PAHs from Municipal Landfill Leachate. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2016, 36, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Keyvan Hosseini, P.; Liu, L.; Keyvan Hosseini, M.; Bhattacharyya, A.; Miao, J.; Wang, F. Treatment of a Synthetic Decanted Oily Seawater in a Pilot-Scale Hollow Fiber Membrane Filtration Process: Experimental Investigation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 441, 129928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Smol, M.; Maria, W.M. Effectiveness in the Removal of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons From Industrial Wastewater by Ultrafiltration Technique. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2012, 38, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Richard, D.E.; Dwyer, D.F. Aerated Biofiltration for Simultaneous Removal of Iron and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Groundwater. Water Environ. Res. 2001, 73, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Flanagan, K.; Branchu, P.; Boudahmane, L.; Caupos, E.; Demare, D.; Deshayes, S.; Dubois, P.; Meffray, L.; Partibane, C.; Saad, M.; et al. Field Performance of Two Biofiltration Systems Treating Micropollutants from Road Runoff. Water Res. 2018, 145, 562–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Smol, M.; Włodarczyk-Makuła, M.; Mielczarek, K.; Bohdziewicz, J. Comparison of the Retention of Selected PAHs from Municipal Landfill Leachate by RO and UF Processes. Desalin. Water Treat. 2014, 52, 3889–3897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Macedonio, F.; Ali, A.; Poerio, T.; El-Sayed, E.; Drioli, E.; Abdel-Jawad, M. Direct Contact Membrane Distillation for Treatment of Oilfield Produced Water. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2014, 126, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chandra, D.; Mishra, A.; Trakroo, M.D.; Chauhan, R.S.; Mishra, S.K. Impact of Mycofiltration on Water Quality. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2022, 31, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mehta, A.; Dubey, R.; Kumar, S. Mycofiltration: A Step Towards Sustainable Environment. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1524–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sarwar, A.; Nayyar, B.G.; Irshad, H.; Anwar, P.; Olihk, N.; Ajmal, M. Mycofiltration of Heavy Metals (Pb, Cd, Hg) from Aqueous Solution by Living Biomass of Two Mushrooms Pleurotus Ostreatus and Agaricus Bisporus as Biosorbents. J. Water Chem. Technol. 2023, 45, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Obayagbona, O.N.; Dunkwu-Okafor, A.; Odigie, O. Mycofiltration of Urban Derived Raw Stormwater Using Lentinus Squarrosulus. Bio-Research 2024, 22, 2336–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mnkandla, S.M.; Otomo, P.V. Effectiveness of Mycofiltration for Removal of Contaminants from Water: A Systematic Review Protocol. Environ. Evid. 2021, 10, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hai, F.I.; Yamamoto, K.; Fukushi, K. Development of a Submerged Membrane Fungi Reactor for Textile Wastewater Treatment. Desalination 2006, 192, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Isik, Z.; Arikan, E.B.; Bouras, H.D.; Dizge, N. Bioactive Ultrafiltration Membrane Manufactured from Aspergillus carbonarius M333 Filamentous Fungi for treatment of real textile wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2019, 5, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Parasnis, M.S.; Deng, E.; Yuan, M.; Lin, H.; Kordas, K.; Paltseva, A.; Frimpong Boamah, E.; Judelsohn, A.; Nalam, P.C. Heavy Metal Remediation by Dry Mycelium Membranes: Approaches to Sustainable Lead Remediation in Water. Langmuir 2024, 40, 6317–6329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Gu, H.; Lou, J.; Wang, H.; Yang, Y.; Wu, L.; Wu, J.; Xu, J. Biodegradation, Biosorption of Phenanthrene and Its Trans-Membrane Transport by Massilia Sp. WF1 and Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Legorreta-Castañeda, A.; Lucho-Constantino, C.; Beltrán-Hernández, R.; Coronel-Olivares, C.; Vázquez-Rodríguez, G. Biosorption of Water Pollutants by Fungal Pellets. Water 2020, 12, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chojnacka, K. Biosorption and Bioaccumulation—The Prospects for Practical Applications. Environ. Int. 2010, 36, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Aksu, Z. Application of Biosorption for the Removal of Organic Pollutants: A Review. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 997–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, J.; Chen, C. Biosorption of Heavy Metals by SaccharomycesCerevisiae: A Rev. Biotechnol. Adv. 2006, 24, 427–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schiewer, S.; Volesky, B. Biosorption Processes for Heavy Metal Removal. In Environmental Microbe-Metal Interactions; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000; Chapter 14; pp. 329–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Naja, G.M.; Murphy, V.; Volesky, B. Biosorption, Metals. In Encyclopedia of Industrial Biotechnology; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Smoczyński, L.; Pierożyński, B.; Mikołajczyk, T. The Effect of Temperature on the Biosorption of Dyes from Aqueous Solutions. Processes 2020, 8, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. de Rome, L.; Gadd, G.M. Use of Pelleted and Immobilized Yeast and Fungal Biomass for Heavy Metal and Radionuclide Recovery. J. Ind. Microbiol. 1991, 7, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yesilada, O.; Cing Yıldırım, S.; Birhanlı, E.; Apohan, E.; Asma, D.; Boran, F. The Evaluation of Pre-Grown Mycelial Pellets in Decolorization of Textile Dyes during Repeated Batch Process. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 26, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mogashane, T.M.; Maree, J.P.; Mokoena, L. Adsorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Wastewater Using Iron Oxide Nanomaterials Recovered from Acid Mine Water: A Review. Minerals 2024, 14, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mohammed, A.H.; Shartooh, S.M.; Trigui, M. Biosorption and Isotherm Modeling of Heavy Metals Using Phragmites Australis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, D.; Lu, S.; Song, X.; Zhang, J.; Huo, Z.M.; Zhao, H. Synergistic and Simultaneous Biosorption of Phenanthrene and Iodine from Aqueous Solutions by Soil Indigenous Bacterial Biomass as a Low-Cost Biosorbent. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 39274–39283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Vahabisani, A.; An, C. Use of Biomass-Derived Adsorbents for the Removal of Petroleum Pollutants from Water: A Mini-Review. Environ. Syst. Res. 2021, 10, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gupta, V.K.; Gupta, B.; Rastogi, A.; Agarwal, S.; Nayak, A. A Comparative Investigation on Adsorption Performances of Mesoporous Activated Carbon Prepared from Waste Rubber Tire and Activated Carbon for a Hazardous Azo Dye—Acid Blue 113. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 186, 891–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Rafatullah, M.; Sulaiman, O.; Hashim, R.; Ahmad, A. Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Low-Cost Adsorbents: A Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 177, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kong, H.; He, J.; Gao, Y.; Han, J.; Zhu, X. Removal of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Aqueous Solution on Soybean Stalk-based Carbon. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 1737–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wießner, A.; Remmler, M.; Kuschk, P.; Stottmeister, U. The Treatment of a Deposited Lignite Pyrolysis Wastewater by Adsorption Using Activated Carbon and Activated Coke. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 1998, 139, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yuan, M.; Tong, S.; Zhao, S.; Jia, C.Q. Adsorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Water Using Petroleum Coke-Derived Porous Carbon. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 181, 1115–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sarkar, M.; Das, M.; Manna, S.; Acharya, P. Removal/Reduction of Organic Pollutants from Aqueous Environment. Rocz. Ochr. Środowiska 2003, 5, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lu, T.; Zhang, Q.L.; Yao, S.J. Application of Biosorption and Biodegradation Functions of Fungi in Wastewater and Sludge Treatment. In Fungal Applications in Sustainable Environmental Biotechnology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 65–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Xiao, L.; Zhao, X.; Yao, J.; Lu, Q.; Feng, X.; Wu, S. Biodegradation and Adsorption of Benzo[a]Pyrene by Fungi-Bacterial Coculture. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 283, 116811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Rathankumar, A.K.; Saikia, K.; Ponnusamy, S.K.; del Rayo Sánchez-Carbente, M.; Vaidyanathan, V.K. Rhamnolipid-Assisted Mycoremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Trametes Hirsuta Coupled with Enhanced Ligninolytic Enzyme Production. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2020, 70, 1260–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Ma, X.k.; Ling Wu, L.; Fam, H. Heavy Metal Ions Affecting the Removal of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Fungi with Heavy-Metal Resistance. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 9817–9827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yu, H.; Huang, G.h.; An, C.j.; Wei, J. Combined Effects of DOM Extracted from Site Soil/Compost and Biosurfactant on the Sorption and Desorption of PAHs in a Soil–Water System. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 190, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Wu, Z.; Sun, Z.; Liu, P.; Li, Q.; Yang, R.; Yang, X. Competitive Adsorption of Naphthalene and Phenanthrene on Walnut Shell Based Activated Carbon and the Verification via Theoretical Calculation. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 10703–10714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gu, H.; Luo, X.; Wang, H.; Wu, L.; Wu, J.; Xu, J. The Characteristics of Phenanthrene Biosorption by Chemically Modified Biomass of Phanerochaete Chrysosporium. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 11850–11861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Huang, Y.; Zhang, S.Y.; Lv, M.J.; Xie, S.G. Biosorption Characteristics of Ectomycorrhizal Fungal Mycelium for Anthracene. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2010, 23, 378–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bullen, J.; Saleesongsom, S.; Weiss, D.J. A Revised Pseudo-Second Order Kinetic Model for Adsorption, Sensitive to Changes in Sorbate and Sorbent Concentrations. Langmuir 2021, 37, 3189–3201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gadd, G.M. Heavy Metal Accumulation by Bacteria and Other Microorganisms. Experientia 1990, 46, 834–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gadd, G.M. Interactions of Fungi with Toxic Metals. In The Genus Aspergillus: From Taxonomy and Genetics to Industrial Application; Powell, K.A., Renwick, A., Peberdy, J.F., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1994; pp. 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kapoor, A.; Viraraghavan, T.; Cullimore, D.R. Removal of Heavy Metals Using the Fungus Aspergillus Niger. Bioresour. Technol. 1999, 70, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chen, B.; Wang, Y.; Hu, D. Biosorption and Biodegradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Aqueous Solutions by a Consortium of White-Rot Fungi. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 179, 845–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Raghukumar, C.; Shailaja, M.; Singh, S.K. Removal of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Aqueous Media by the Marine Fungus NIOCC # 312: Involvement of Lignin-Degrading Enzymes and Exopolysaccharides. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 2006, 35, 373–379. [Google Scholar]
  85. Hamby, D. Site Remediation Techniques Supporting Environmental Restoration Activities—A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 1996, 191, 203–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kuppusamy, S.; Palanisami, T.; Megharaj, M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Naidu, R. Ex-Situ Remediation Technologies for Environmental Pollutants: A Critical Perspective. In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 236; De Voogt, P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 236, pp. 117–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Reddy, K.; Cameselle, C. Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  88. Lee, S.H.; Kim, S.O.; Lee, S.W.; Kim, M.S.; Park, H. Application of Soil Washing and Thermal Desorption for Sustainable Remediation and Reuse of Remediated Soil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vidonish, J.; Zygourakis, K.; Masiello, C.; Sabadell, G.; Alvarez, P. Thermal Treatment of Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soils: A Review of Technology Innovation for Sustainable Remediation. Engineering 2016, 2, 426–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Song, W.; Vidonish, J.E.; Kamath, R.; Yu, P.; Chu, C.; Moorthy, B.; Gao, B.; Zygourakis, K.; Alvarez, P.J.J. Pilot-Scale Pyrolytic Remediation of Crude-Oil-Contaminated Soil in a Continuously-Fed Reactor: Treatment Intensity Trade-Offs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 2045–2053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Han, C.; Zhu, X.; Xiong, G.; Gao, J.; Wu, J.; Wang, D.; Wu, J. Quantitative Study of Situ Chem. Oxid. Remediat. Coupled Therm. Desorption. Water Res. 2023, 239, 120035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Waris, A.A.; Athar, T.; Nisar, M. Recent Advances in Chemical Methods for Remediation of Heavy Metals Contaminated Soils: A Review. Emergent Life Sci. Res. 2018, 4, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Oro, C.E.D.; Saorin Puton, B.M.; Venquiaruto, L.D.; Dallago, R.M.; Tres, M.V. Effective Microbial Strategies to Remediate Contaminated Agricultural Soils and Conserve Functions. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tyagi, M.; da Fonseca, M.M.R.; de Carvalho, C.C. Bioaugmentation and Biostimulation Strategies to Improve the Effectiveness of Bioremediation Processes. Biodegradation 2011, 22, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kakde, P.; Sharma, J. Microbial Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soil: Structural Complexity, Degradation Dynamics and Advanced Remediation Techniques. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2024, 18, 2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Agrawal, N.; Verma, P.; Shahi, S. Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Phenanthrene and Pyrene) by the Ligninolytic Fungi Ganoderma Lucidum Isolated from the Hardwood Stump. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2018, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Brooijmans, R.J.W.; Pastink, M.I.; Siezen, R.J. Hydrocarbon-degrading Bacteria: The Oil-spill Clean-up Crew. Microb. Biotechnol. 2009, 2, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gupte, A.; Tripathi, A.; Patel, H.; Rudakiya, D.; Gupte, S. Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAHs): A Perspective. Open Biotechnol. J. 2016, 10, 363–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Marquez-Rocha, F.; Hernández-Rodríguez, V.; Vazquez-Duhalt, R. Biodegradation of Soil-Adsorbed Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by the White Rot Fungus Pleurotus Ostreatus. Biotechnol. Lett. 2000, 22, 469–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Matsubara, M.; Lynch, J.M.; De Leij, F.A.A.M. A Simple Screening Procedure for Selecting Fungi with Potential for Use in the Bioremediation of Contaminated Land. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2006, 39, 1365–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Singh, H. Mycoremediation: Fungal Bioremediation, 1st ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Aydin, S.; Karaçay, H.; Gökçe, S.; Shahi, A.; Ince, B.; Ince, O. Aerobic and Anaerobic Fungal Metabolism and Omics Insights for Increasing Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Biodegradation. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2016, 31, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sohn, J.; Kwon, K.K.; Kang, J.H.; Jung, H.B.; Kim, S.J. Novosphingobium Pentaromativorans Sp Nov., a High-Molecular-Mass Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Degrading Bacterium Isolated from Estuarine Sediment. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2004, 54, 1483–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Zhou, H.; Gao, X.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Coulon, F.; Cai, C. Enhanced Bioremediation of Aged Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Using Immobilized Microbial Consortia Combined with Strengthening Remediation Strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mawad, A.M.M.; Aldaby, E.S.E.; Madany, M.M.Y.; Dawood, M.F.A. The Application of PAHs-Degrading PseudomonasAeruginosa Mitigate Phytotoxic Impact Pyrene Barley (Hordeumvulgare L.) Broad Bean (Viciafaba L.) Plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2024, 215, 108959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Elmeihy, R.; Shi, X.C.; Tremblay, P.L.; Zhang, T. Fast Removal of Toxic Hexavalent Chromium from an Aqueous Solution by High-Density Geobacter Sulfurreducens. Chemosphere 2021, 263, 128281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Chellaiah, E.R. Cadmium (Heavy Metals) Bioremediation by Pseudomonas Aeruginosa: A Minireview. Appl. Water Sci. 2018, 8, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wu, M.; Ouyang, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Liu, J.; Yin, H. Mechanisms in Hexavalent Chromium Removal from Aquatic Environment by the Modified Hydrochar-Loaded Bacterium Priestia Megaterium Strain BM.1. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Copley, S. Evolution of a Metabolic Pathway for Degradation of a Toxic Xenobiotic: The Patchwork Approach. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2000, 25, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Vainberg, S.; Condee, C.W.; Steffan, R.J. Large-Scale Production of Bacterial Consortia for Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Groundwater. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 36, 1189–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Manjunatha, B.K.; Vamshee, V.K.; Poojitha, N.G.; Kiran, R.J.; Mythili, S.T.; Divakara, R.; Sreenivasa, R.A.; Vidya, S.M. Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Acenaphthene, Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene) by Aspergillus Niger HQ170509.1 Fungus. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 22, 12567–12582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Agrawal, N.; Barapatre, A.; Shahi, M.P.; Shahi, S.K. Biodegradation Pathway of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Ligninolytic Fungus Podoscypha Elegans Strain FTG4 and Phytotoxicity Evaluation of Their Metabolites. Environ. Process. 2021, 8, 1307–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Solís Pacheco, J.; Santana, M.; Aguilar Uscanga, M.G.; Cavazos Garduño, A.; Serrano Niño, J.; Gómez, H.; Aguilar Uscanga, B.; Solís Pacheco, J.; Santana, M.; Aguilar Uscanga, M.G.; et al. Ability of Phanerochaete Chrysosporium and Trametes Versicolor to Remove Zn2+, CR3+, Pb2+ Metal Ions. Terra Latinoam. 2015, 33, 189–198. [Google Scholar]
  114. Marolt, G.; Kralj, T.; Slapničar, M.; Gregori, A. Potential of Ganoderma Lucidum Heteropolysaccharides for Heavy Metals Removal from Water Solutions; Slovenski Kemijski Dnevi: Portorož, Slovenia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  115. Amini, M.; Younesi, H.; Bahramifar, N. Statistical Modeling and Optimization of the Cadmium Biosorption Process in an Aqueous Solution Using Aspergillusniger. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2009, 337, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. kaur, P.; Balomajumder, C. Simultaneous Biodegradation of Mixture of Carbamates by Newly Isolated Ascochyta Sp. CBS 237.37. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 169, 590–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Jauregui, J.; Valderrama, B.; Albores, A.; Vazquez-Duhalt, R. Microsomal Transformation of Organophosphorus Pesticides by White Rot Fungi. Biodegradation 2003, 14, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Satpati, G.G.; Gupta, S.; Biswas, R.K.; Choudhury, A.K.; Kim, J.W.; Davoodbasha, M. Microalgae Mediated Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Strategies, Advancement and Regulations. Chemosphere 2023, 344, 140337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Al-Dahhan, M.; Al-Ani, F.; Obeid, A. Biodegradation of Phenolic Components in Wastewater by Micro Algae: A Review. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 162, 05009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Radziff, S.B.M.; Ahmad, S.A.; Shaharuddin, N.A.; Merican, F.; Kok, Y.Y.; Zulkharnain, A.; Gomez-Fuentes, C.; Wong, C.Y. Potential Application of Algae in Biodegradation of Phenol: A Review and Bibliometric Study. Plants 2021, 10, 2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Cébron, A.; Norini, M.P.; Beguiristain, T.; Leyval, C. Real-Time PCR Quantification of PAH-ring Hydroxylating Dioxygenase (PAH-RHDα) Genes from Gram Positive and Gram Negative Bacteria in Soil and Sediment Samples. J. Microbiol. Methods 2008, 73, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Story, S.; Kline, E.; Hughes, T.A.; Riley, M.; Hayasaka, S. Degradation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Sphingomonas Paucimobilis Strain EPA505. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2004, 47, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Aitken, M.D.; Stringfellow, W.T.; Nagel, R.D.; Kazunga, C.; Chen, S.H. Characteristics of Phenanthrene-Degrading Bacteria Isolated from Soils Contaminated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Can. J. Microbiol. 1998, 44, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Tarekegn, M.; Zewdu, F.; Ishetu, A. Microbes Used as a Tool for Bioremediation of Heavy Metal from the Environment. Cogent Food Agric. 2020, 6, 1783174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Cerniglia, C.E. Biodegradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Biodegradation 1992, 3, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. 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] [PubMed]
  127. Robichaud, K.; Stewart, K.; Labrecque, M.; Hijri, M.; Cherewyk, J.; Amyot, M. An Ecological Microsystem to Treat Waste Oil Contaminated Soil: Using Phytoremediation Assisted by Fungi and Local Compost, on a Mixed-Contaminant Site, in a Cold Climate. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 672, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Stamets, P. Delivery Systems for Mycotechnologies, Mycofiltration and Mycoremediation. WO WO200206 5836A2, 2002.
  129. Hacıoğlu, B.; Dupaul, G.; Paladino, G.; Edman, M.; Hedenström, E. Unlocking the Biodegradative Potential of Native White-Rot Fungi: A Comparative Study of Fiberbank Organic Pollutant Mycoremediation. Bioengineered 2024, 15, 2396642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Juwarkar, A.A.; Singh, S.K.; Mudhoo, A. A Comprehensive Overview of Elements in Bioremediation. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2010, 9, 215–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Abatenh, E.; Gizaw, B.; Tsegaye, Z.; Wassie, M.; Abatenh, E.; Gizaw, B.; Tsegaye, Z.; Wassie, M. The Role of Microorganisms in Bioremediation—A Review. Open J. Environ. Biol. 2017, 2, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Malik, S.; Bora, J.; Nag, S.; Sinha, S.; Mondal, S.; Rustagi, S.; Hazra, R.; Kumar, H.; Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; et al. Fungal-Based Remediation in the Treatment of Anthropogenic Activities and Pharmaceutical-Pollutant-Contaminated Wastewater. Water 2023, 15, 2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Al-Hawash, A.; Alkooranee, J.; Zhang, X.; Ma, F. Fungal Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2018, 6, 8–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Sutherland, J.; Rafii, F.; Khan, A.; Cerniglia, C. Mechanisms of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Degradation, Microbial Transformation and Degradation of Toxic Organic Chemical. , Environ Health Perspect 1995, 15, 269. [Google Scholar]
  135. Cerniglia, C.E.; Sutherland, J.B. Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Ligninolytic and Non-Ligninolytic Fungi. In Fungi in Bioremediation, 1st ed.; Gadd, G.M., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; pp. 136–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Özer, A.; Ay Sal, F.; Belduz, A.; Kirci, H.; Canakci, S. Use of Feruloyl Esterase as Laccase-Mediator System in Paper Bleaching. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2020, 190, 721–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Pothiraj, C.; Kanmani, P.; Balaji, P. Bioconversion of Lignocellulose Materials. Mycobiology 2006, 34, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Hammel, K.E. Mechanisms for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Degradation by Ligninolytic Fungi. Environ. Health Perspect. 1995, 103, 41–43. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  139. Deshmukh, R.; Khardenavis, A.A.; Purohit, H.J. Diverse Metabolic Capacities of Fungi for Bioremediation. Indian J. Microbiol. 2016, 56, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Latif, W.; Ciniglia, C.; Iovinella, M.; Shafiq, M.; Papa, S. Role of White Rot Fungi in Industrial Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Pozdnyakova, N.N. Involvement of the Ligninolytic System of White-Rot and Litter-Decomposing Fungi in the Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Biotechnol. Res. Int. 2012, 2012, 243217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Bezalel, L.; Hadar, Y.; Cerniglia, C. Mineralization of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by the White Rot Fungus Pleurotus Ostreatus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 292–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zain ul Arifeen, M.; Ma, Y.; Wu, T.; Chu, C.; Liu, X.; Jiang, J.; Li, D.; Xue, Y.R.; Liu, C.H. Anaerobic Biodegradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) by Fungi Isolated from Anaerobic Coal-Associated Sediments at 2.5 km below the Seafloor. Chemosphere 2022, 303, 135062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Bioremediation through biofiltration, biosorption, and biodegradation.
Figure 1. Bioremediation through biofiltration, biosorption, and biodegradation.
Fermentation 11 00573 g001
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram for systematic review of Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases.
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram for systematic review of Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases.
Fermentation 11 00573 g002
Figure 3. PAHs sources and dispersion.
Figure 3. PAHs sources and dispersion.
Fermentation 11 00573 g003
Figure 4. Chemical and structural analysis of 16 PAHs with chemical abbreviations, with B2 meaning probable human carcinogen (based on sufficient animal evidence, but inadequate or no human evidence) and D meaning not classifiable in terms of human carcinogenicity.
Figure 4. Chemical and structural analysis of 16 PAHs with chemical abbreviations, with B2 meaning probable human carcinogen (based on sufficient animal evidence, but inadequate or no human evidence) and D meaning not classifiable in terms of human carcinogenicity.
Fermentation 11 00573 g004
Figure 5. Membrane filtration and methods for microfiltration pores ranging from 0.1 to 10 µm (least selective), ultrafiltration pores ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 µm, nanofiltration pores ranging from 0.001–0.01 µm, and reverse osmosis pores of less than 0.001 µm (most selective).
Figure 5. Membrane filtration and methods for microfiltration pores ranging from 0.1 to 10 µm (least selective), ultrafiltration pores ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 µm, nanofiltration pores ranging from 0.001–0.01 µm, and reverse osmosis pores of less than 0.001 µm (most selective).
Fermentation 11 00573 g005
Table 1. Physical filtration methods, their energy efficiency limitations, and references.
Table 1. Physical filtration methods, their energy efficiency limitations, and references.
Physical FiltrationEnergy EfficiencyMethodsLimitationsReferences
Membrane filtrationEnergy intensive in reverse osmosis (RO); moderate for ultrafiltration/microfiltrationSemi-permeable membranes to separate contaminantsHigh operational costs due to membrane fouling and frequent replacementBaker, 2023 [25]
Gravel and multimedia filtrationEnergy efficientPhisical entrapment of through the porous bed,Ineffective towards ions or molecules dissolved in water, the lifespan is dictated by physical cloggingHatt et al., 2007 [26] M. Lazim, 2020 [27]
Slow and rapid sand filtrationEnergy efficientWater passes through layers of gravel, sand, and anthraciteLimited ability to remove very fine particles and dissolved substancesKawamura, 2000 [28]
Activated carbon filtrationEnergy efficient in use, energy intensive in productionAdsorbs contaminants onto the porous surface of activated carbonHigh cost, limited lifespan; requires frequent regeneration or replacementTarikuzzaman, 2023 [29]
Table 2. Chemical filtration methods, their energy efficiency, limitations, and references.
Table 2. Chemical filtration methods, their energy efficiency, limitations, and references.
Chemical FiltrationEnergy EfficiencyMethodsLimitationsReferences
Coagulation
and flocculation
followed by filtration
Moderately energy-intensiveCoagulants like alum or ferric chloride neutralize particle charges, forming larger aggregates (flocs) that are filtered outChemical costs and sludge disposal issues; requires precise dosageGregory & Duan, 2003 [30]
Ion exchange filtrationSystem related. In dilute streams there is a higher energy consumption per unit ion removedIon-exchange membrane fundamentalsConcentration polarisation, low current efficiency with complex ions, scaling/fouling, membrane heterogeneityPismenskaya & Nikonenko, 2021 [31]
Chemical precipitationModerately energy-intensiveContaminants are converted into insoluble precipitates through chemical reactions and then filtered or settled outHigh sludge production; requires proper chemical handlingWang, 2005 [32]
OxidationModerately/high energy-intensiveAdvanced oxidation processes (AOPs) using engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) as catalysts. Risk of forming halogenated or toxic oxidation productsMight require large surface areaPismenskaya & Nikonenko, 2021 [31]
Table 3. Comparative overview of relevant fungal biofilm and mycelial membrane studies with possible implications for PAH removal applications.
Table 3. Comparative overview of relevant fungal biofilm and mycelial membrane studies with possible implications for PAH removal applications.
Fungus/MatrixMediaContaminantEffectivenessRelevance to PAH FiltrationReferences
Ganoderma sp.
dried
fungal membrane
Cross-flow filtrationPb2+85–90 %structural analogueParasnis et al., 2024; [50]
Mixed myceliumMycofiltration bed (e.g., wood chips)Bacteria, pathogens>95functional modelChandra et al., 2022; [43] Mehta et al., 2017; [44]
Coriolus versicolor fungal membraneSynthetic waste water97% TOC and 99% color removalTextile dyestructural analogue/potential for PAH captureHai et al., 2006; [48]
Aspergillus carbonarius
fungal membrane
Synthetic waste waterTextile dye91% decolorisation and 73.2% COD removalstructural analogue/potential for PAH captureIsik et al., 2019; [49]
Table 6. Comparison of bioremediation treatment costs [130].
Table 6. Comparison of bioremediation treatment costs [130].
TreatmentApproximate Cost (£25/Tonne Soil)
Biological5–170
Chemical12–600
Physical20–170
Solidification/stabilisation17–171
Thermal30–750
Table 7. Advantageous aspects to employ fungal membrane in an integrated process of biofiltration, biosorption and bioremediation.
Table 7. Advantageous aspects to employ fungal membrane in an integrated process of biofiltration, biosorption and bioremediation.
AspectFungal Membrane FiltrationFungal BiosorptionFungal Biodegradation
Pollutant rangePotential to filter microbes and organic particlesBinds metals, dyes, hydrocarbons, complex organicsDegrades complex pollutants
Mechanism typeFunctional groups on fungal cell wallsPhysical entrapment of through the membraneExtracellular enzymes
Scalability & maintenancePotential for in locus degradation therefore reduce fouling, improving durabilityDepends on production process of membrane. Potential to reuse biomass, low costScalable for liquid and solid phases
Environmental tolerancePotentially more resilientCan tolerate harsh conditionsCan tolerate harsh conditions
Substrate growth and costPotentially can grow on low-cost substrates and self-regenerating membranesLow-cost biomass from industrial wasteCan grow on agro-industrial waste
Synergy potentialPotentially can be integrated in a consortia with bacteriaCompatible with integrated remediationHigh synergy with bacteria and plants
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

Colmo, C.; Tegelaar, M.; Ayres, P. Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Aqueous Environments: A Review of Biofiltration, Biosorption, and Biodegradation Strategies Using Living Fungal Mycelium. Fermentation 2025, 11, 573. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11100573

AMA Style

Colmo C, Tegelaar M, Ayres P. Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Aqueous Environments: A Review of Biofiltration, Biosorption, and Biodegradation Strategies Using Living Fungal Mycelium. Fermentation. 2025; 11(10):573. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11100573

Chicago/Turabian Style

Colmo, Claudia, Martin Tegelaar, and Phil Ayres. 2025. "Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Aqueous Environments: A Review of Biofiltration, Biosorption, and Biodegradation Strategies Using Living Fungal Mycelium" Fermentation 11, no. 10: 573. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11100573

APA Style

Colmo, C., Tegelaar, M., & Ayres, P. (2025). Bioremediation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Aqueous Environments: A Review of Biofiltration, Biosorption, and Biodegradation Strategies Using Living Fungal Mycelium. Fermentation, 11(10), 573. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11100573

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