Next Article in Journal
Isolation of an Acidophilic Cellulolytic Bacterial Strain and Its Cellulase Production Characteristics
Previous Article in Journal
Physical and Chemical Properties of Silver-Containing Nanosorbent Obtained from Rice Straw Biochar
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Biofungicides Containing Microorganisms Such as Pythium oligandrum and Bacillus subtilis on Yield, Morphological Parameters, and Pathogen Suppression in Six Winter Pea Cultivars
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/agriculture13071289
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Biobeds, a Microbial-Based Remediation System for the Effective Treatment of Pesticide Residues in Agriculture

by
Patricia Mussali-Galante
1,
María Luisa Castrejón-Godínez
2,
José Antonio Díaz-Soto
1,
Ángela Patricia Vargas-Orozco
1,
Héctor Miguel Quiroz-Medina
2,
Efraín Tovar-Sánchez
3 and
Alexis Rodríguez
1,*
1
Centro de Investigación en Biotecnología, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Av. Universidad 1001, Col. Chamilpa, C.P., Cuernavaca 62209, Mexico
2
Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Av. Universidad 1001, Col. Chamilpa, C.P., Cuernavaca 62209, Mexico
3
Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Conservación, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Av. Universidad 1001, Col. Chamilpa, C.P., Cuernavaca 62209, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(7), 1289; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071289
Submission received: 2 May 2023 / Revised: 16 June 2023 / Accepted: 21 June 2023 / Published: 23 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contamination and Bioremediation of Agricultural Soils)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pesticides are chemical molecules employed to protect crops from pests in agriculture. The use of pesticides significantly enhances crop yields and helps to guarantee the quality of farm products; due to this, each year, millions of tons of pesticides are employed in crop fields worldwide. However, the extensive use of pesticides has been related to environmental pollution, mainly in soils and water bodies. The presence of pesticides in the environment constitutes a menace to biodiversity, soil fertility, food supply, and human health. Activities related to pesticide use in crops, such as the handling and pesticide dissolution before application, the filling and cleaning of aspersion equipment and machinery, accidental spills in crop fields, and the inadequate disposal of pesticide residues have been identified as important punctual pesticide pollution sources. Therefore, avoiding releasing pesticide residues into the soil and water is crucial to mitigating the environmental pollution associated with agricultural practices. Biobeds are biological systems that have been proposed as feasible, low-cost, and efficient alternatives for punctual pesticide pollution mitigation. Biobeds were first described as trenches packed with a mixture of 50% wheat straw, 25% soil, and 25% peat, covered with a grass layer; this composition is known as a “biomixture”. In biobeds, the biomixture absorbs the pesticide residues and supports the development of different microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, needed for pesticide degradation in the system. The effectiveness of a biobed systems lies in the high pesticide retention in the biomixture and the degradation potential of the microorganisms growing in the system. In this review, 24 studies published in the last five years (2018–2022) related to pesticide biodegradation in biobed systems are analyzed, emphasizing alternative biomixture composition usage, microbiological strategies, and the key physicochemical parameters for efficient pesticide degradation in the biobed systems. The availability of robust scientific evidence about the simple applicability, low cost, and effectiveness of biobeds for pesticide residue treatment is crucial to increasing the use of biobeds by farmers in different agricultural regions around the world.

1. Introduction

The acceleration of human population growth imposes tremendous pressure on natural resources and on the agricultural systems necessary to supply raw materials and foodstuffs [1,2,3,4]. Modern agriculture employs several chemical compounds to increase productivity and avoid the crop losses caused by pests. Among these agrochemicals, pesticides have a primary role [5,6]. Pesticides are chemical substances widely employed for the control of different crop pests in agricultural areas, to avoid decreases in the quality and yield of farm products during food storage, transportation, and commercialization processes. Pesticides also have important applications in the control of vectors for different diseases in livestock and humans [7,8]. Hence, pesticide usage greatly benefits human societies worldwide [9]. However, the intensive application of pesticides is related to adverse effects on the environment [10], biodiversity [11], soil health and fertility [12], food supply, and human health [13,14]. Thus, almost all processes involving pesticides represent a risk to environmental health [8].
Pesticide residues have been identified in all environmental compartments, soil, water, and air [15]. It is estimated that only a small proportion of the total pesticides employed in agricultural areas reaches the targets in crops, with the remaining percentage dispersed through the environment. Pollution caused by pesticides is an important concern in several regions around the world [16,17]. Moreover, in various less developed countries, many obsolete, unused, or expired pesticides are stored, constituting an environmental risk that endangers environmental and human health [18,19,20,21]. The release of pesticides into the environment generates different adverse effects such as reducing the overall soil, water, and air quality, threats to wildlife and biodiversity, and the contamination of food destined for livestock and humans, with acute and chronic toxic effects on humans, among the most relevant [17,22,23,24,25,26].
Pesticides can reach soils and water bodies because of their production and extensive scale application in agricultural systems. Spills, leaks, wastewater, and inappropriate waste disposal in the pesticide manufacturing industry have been identified as an environmental pollution sources [27,28]). However, operations related to pesticide dissolution before application, the filling and cleaning of aspersion equipment and machinery, and accidental spills in crop fields have also been identified as important punctual pesticide pollution sources [29]. The pesticides and their degraded metabolites released from producing factories reach the soil and both surface water and groundwater bodies, threatening aquatic environments and human health [30] through the presence of pesticides in food and drinking water [31]. The adverse impacts of pesticide pollution on the environment and human health make it necessary to implement adequate strategies for the treatment of pesticide residues and the remediation of polluted sites [32,33].
Microbial-mediated bioremediation has been proposed as a cost-competitive, efficient, adaptable, and safe strategy for the treatment of different pollutants [34], including pesticides [35,36,37]. Biobeds are one of the microbial-mediated bioremediation approaches proposed for the treatment of pesticide wastes. These systems were developed in Sweden for the control and treatment of pesticide pollution caused by the environmental release of effluents derived from the washing of equipment and machinery employed for pesticide application in crop fields, as well as the inadequate disposal of pesticide residues, accidental spills in the handling and application of pesticides, and the residual water from different pesticide formulation plants and agro-industries [38,39,40,41,42]. This technology has been adopted in many countries and successfully applied for the biodegradation of different pesticide residues [41,42,43,44,45,46]. In this review, we evaluate the key parameters for efficient pesticide degradation in biobed systems, recent studies, the approaches to pesticide biodegradation in biobed systems, and the current challenges and future perspectives for biobeds’ implementation and effectiveness.

2. Release of Pesticide Residues into the Environment

Both small and high-scale agricultural activity involve the use and disposal of pesticides and represent significant pollution sources. Pesticide punctual pollution events are generated because of the activities related to the use of different pesticides in crop fields. The release and dispersion of pesticide residues into the environment represent a high risk for ecosystems and human health on a global scale [47,48].
Three critical points can generate contamination by pesticides during agricultural activity. The first occurs when the pesticide application devices are filled; here, highly concentrated pesticide solutions can be spilled. The second point is when the pesticides are spread in the crop field; after application, pesticides can reach the surrounding environment. The third point is during the handling and washing of the application devices when a high amount of residual water with low-concentration pesticide remnants is generated. Improper handling of these residues causes soil and water pollution by direct disposal, leaching, or runoff processes [31,49,50,51]. Avoiding pesticide release into the soil and water is a crucial issue in mitigating the environmental pollution associated with agricultural practices, and biobeds have been proposed as a feasible alternative for punctual pesticide pollution mitigation.

3. What Are Biobeds?

Biobeds are biological systems used to treat pesticide residues derived from the operations related to the application of pesticides in crop fields. Their use helps minimize pesticide delivery into the environment, as well as protecting soil and water from pesticide pollution [52,53]. Biobed technology was developed in Sweden in the 1990s by Torstenson and Castillo (1997) [54], as a low-cost and efficient alternative to mitigate pesticide pollution from specific punctual sources. In the original proposal, biobeds had a simple design. The system was a trench packed with a mixture of 50% wheat straw, 25% soil, and 25% peat (biomixture), covered with a grass lid. The biomixture has the function of absorbing pesticide residues and serving as a support for the development of different microorganisms, mainly bacteria and fungi, needed for pesticide degradation in the system (Figure 1).
Biobeds were fast adopted in Swedish agriculture to treat effluents with different pesticide residues [55]. After that, biobed systems were integrated into several countries of the European Union, and subsequently, experimental devices were established in several countries around the world [56]. In 2016, the number of installed biobed systems in the European Union was around 9000, located mainly in France (4500), Sweden (750), and the United Kingdom (450), while in the context of Latin America, 1500 biobed systems were installed in Guatemala, and additional experimental scale biobeds are located in Africa, Asia, and North America [57]. The biobed design has been modified according to the climatic characteristics of the regions in which it is located and the availability of the materials for the biomixture, including different lignocellulosic materials instead of wheat straw, or compost instead of peat, as some examples (Figure 2).
The biobeds’ pesticide treatment capacity is related to the design, surface, scale, and biomixture composition. The water-holding capacity of the biomixture is related to the components that integrate it. For example, Henriksen et al. (2003) [58] determined an absorption between 1.6 and 5.2 L·kg−1 of biomixture (wheat straw, soil, and peat; 2:1:1) for the herbicides isoproturon and mecoprop. Foog et al. (2004) [59] determined the maximum water-holding in the system for efficient pesticide dissipation was 1121 L/m2 for a biobed (1.5 m deep) packed with a biomixture composed of wheat straw, soil, compost (2:1:1). Recently, Lescano et al. (2022) [41] treated 200 L of wastewater with the presence of different pesticides in a pilot biobed system (1000 L capacity) packed with a biomixture of soil and millet stubble (1:1).
On the other hand, the climatic conditions of each region can affect the efficiency of pesticide dissipation in these systems. The most important climatic factors that modify the effectiveness of pesticide dissipation in a biobed are the environmental temperature and precipitation/moisture. At low environmental temperatures, the degradation efficiency is reduced; in some regions, low temperatures can freeze the system [60]. On the other hand, high levels of precipitation can generate an imbalance in the water content of the system so that the efficiency and speed of dissipation of pesticides are reduced and can generate pesticide leaching events [60]. Finally, climatic conditions affect the integrity of the biomixture; in temperate climates, the biomixture should be replaced every five to eight years [55], but in areas with tropical climates, the biomixture should be replaced in six months to two years [52,61]. These facts must be taken in count for the biobeds systems’ implementation and adequate pesticide residues treatment.

4. Key Factors in Biobeds’ Effectiveness

4.1. Biomixture

The composition of the biomixture is a key factor for the efficiency of pesticide degradation in biobed systems; so, each component (wheat straw, soil, and peat) plays an important role [62]. For example, wheat straw is a lignocellulosic substrate that acts as an adsorbent for pesticides in the system, serves as physical support for the development of microbial communities, provides essential nutrients for the growth of fungi and bacteria, and stimulates the production of ligninolytic enzymes, such as laccases and peroxidases, reported to be highly efficient in the degradation of different pesticides. The soil supplies microorganisms to the system and stimulates the microbial activity that mediates the degradation of the pesticides, while peat is a porous material that increases pesticide retention in the biobed system, regulates the moisture, and reduces the pH, factors that favor pesticide dissipation [63,64,65,66].
In the biomixture, wheat straw can be replaced by other lignocellulosic substrates, depending on the availability of these materials in a particular country where biobed systems are applied. For example, Karanasios et al. (2010) [67] reported the use of different low-cost lignocellulosic materials, such as sunflower crop residues, olive leaves, grape stalks, orange peels, corn cobs, and spent mushroom substrate for the degradation of mixtures of pesticides in biobed systems. In this study, the alternative substrates favored the retention of pesticides in the system, and comparable pesticide half-life values, concerning those observed in the biobeds with the presence of wheat straw, were documented.
In another study, Diez et al. (2013) [68] complemented the biomixture composition with the addition of lignocellulosic materials, such as pine sawdust (25%) and barley husk (25%), for the degradation of the pesticides carbendazim, isoproturon, and chlorpyrifos. The systems that contained wheat straw/barley husk (25%/25%) showed higher degradation percentages for carbendazim and chlorpyrifos after 90 days compared to the systems with only wheat straw (50%) and wheat straw/pine sawdust (25%/25%).
In a similar study, Urrutia et al. (2013) [66] evaluated the addition of lignocellulosic materials such as barley husk, oat husk, and sawdust to biobed biomixtures for the treatment of the pesticides atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and isoproturon. Among the three lignocellulosic materials, oat husk was the best substitute for wheat straw, with similar pesticide degradation rates compared to the biomixture that included just wheat straw. In contrast, barley husk and sawdust can be added to the biomixtures in combination with wheat straw but not as the sole lignocellulosic material in the biomixture composition.
Gongora-Echeverría et al. (2017) [69] evaluated the suitability of wheat straw substitution in biobed systems, employing different materials of high availability in southeastern Mexico such as compost, sisal fibers, corn stoves, and seaweed in combination with soil for the treatment of a pesticide mixture composed of 2,4-dichloro phenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D, 1.08 mg/cm3 of mixture), atrazine (2.5 mg/cm3 of mixture), carbofuran (0.23 mg/cm3 of mixture), diazinon (0.34 mg/cm3 of mixture), and glyphosate (0.36 mg/cm3 of mixture), mimicking the composition of pesticide effluents generated by farmers in Yucatan, Mexico. In all evaluated biomixtures, the five pesticides’ dissipation was over 99% after 41 days.
Peat is an important component in biobed biomixtures; however, in some regions, this material has low availability or high cost. So, in biomixtures, peat has been substituted by alternative material or just eliminated from the biomixture composition [70,71]. Among the alternative materials to peat for biobed mixtures, compost [72,73,74,75,76] or vermicompost [43,77,78,79] are notable for being the most reported.
Various agro-industrial wastes have been employed in the biomixture composition in biobed systems to treat fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides from different chemical families. They include spent coffee grounds [80], coir [80], cotton crop residues [81,82], garden wastes [83,84], livestock manure [80,85], olive leaves [68,86,87], pine bark [80], and sewage sludge [88]. Spent mushroom substrates and biochar have also been incorporated into the biomixture composition as complementary materials in pesticide dissipation [38,39,42,70,89,90,91].

4.2. Microorganisms

In the biobed systems, the microbiota colonizing the biomixture are responsible for the pesticide degradation. Microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi may use pesticide molecules such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, and energy sources for their growth. The efficient pesticide degradation by microorganisms is related to their great genetic plasticity, the production of diverse pesticide-degrading enzymes, fast growth, and adaptability to living in polluted environments [89].
The materials that integrate the biomixture retain the pesticide molecules in the biobeds and serve as a habitat for the development of different soil autochthonous microorganisms [92]. In biobeds, the presence of lignocellulosic materials reduces the pH in the system generating an environment that favors the growth and development of lignin-degrading fungi, such as different species of white-rot fungi [45]. White-rot fungi are organisms broadly reported in the biodegradation of several organic pollutants, including pesticides from different chemical families [93,94,95,96,97,98]. Fungi can produce extracellular enzymes, such as peroxidases, laccases, and the cytochrome P450 complex, implicated in pesticide degradation [99,100,101]. On the other hand, the presence of peat in the biomixture also favors the development of white-rot fungi in biobeds; however, in biomixtures without peat, the pesticide degradation is mediated mainly by the bacterial community [45]. Bacteria may act in synergy with fungi to enhance the pesticide and derived metabolites degradation; so, they can also produce different pesticide-degrading enzymes, such as dehalogenases, hydrolases, oxidoreductases, oxygenases, and esterases [102,103,104,105,106].
In biobed systems, the biomixture supports the development of broad microbial diversity, and recent studies have evaluated such microbial complexity. For example, through a metagenomics approach, Bergsveinson et al. (2018) [107] assessed the bacterial and fungal diversity in four biobed systems employed for treating pesticide rinsates with differential composition and pesticide concentrations. As a result of the study, around 440 bacterial genera and an average of 285 fungal genera were identified in each biobed system. In a similar study, Góngora-Echeverría et al. (2018) [108] identified several archaea (23), bacteria (598), and fungi (64) species in lab-scale biobed systems with the presence of a mixture of commercial pesticide formulates (2,4-D, atrazine, carbofuran, diazinon, and glyphosate). In addition, Russell et al. (2021) [109] evaluated the bacterial diversity in a two-cell biobed system. After the treatment of pesticide residues, in cell one, 81 bacterial species from 58 genera were identified, while in cell two, 36 bacterial species from 33 genera were identified. The most representative bacterial genera in both biobed cells were Afipia, Sphingopyxis, and Pseudomonas.
The development of a great diversity of microorganisms in the biobed systems is crucial for the efficient treatment of pesticide residues. However, the metabolic activities of the indigenous microbiota do not always guarantee total pesticide degradation. Due to this, bioaugmentation strategies have been employed to enhance pesticide biodegradation efficiency in biobed systems. This strategy is based on the addition of selected endogenous or exogenous microorganisms, such as specific fungi and bacterial strains, or the use of characterized or non-characterized microbial consortia [45,52]. The key characteristics for selecting microorganisms for a bioaugmentation strategy include pesticide resistance, high pesticide degradation efficiency, fast growth, and simple culture in lab conditions [110,111]. Examples of microorganisms used in biobed bioaugmentation strategies include uncharacterized microbial consortia, archaea species, bacteria of different phyla such as Actinobacteria (Streptomyces spp.), Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and mainly Proteobacteria (Achromobacter ssp., Bordetella ssp., Pseudomonas ssp., and Variovorax ssp.), and white-rot fungi from different classes (Aphelidiomycetes and Pezizomycetes) and species (Trametes versicolor and Stereum hirsutum).

4.3. Physicochemical Parameters

Pesticide dissipation effectiveness in biobed systems is strongly related to the biomixture composition and the metabolic activity of the different microorganisms; however, other key parameters include the pre-incubation time, moisture, temperature, and pesticide concentration in the system. Fernández-Alberti et al. (2012) [112] evaluated the effect of the biomixture pre-incubation time and moisture on chlorpyrifos (insecticide) degradation. In the study, the biomixture was composed of wheat straw, peat, and soil (2:1:1), pre-incubation took place (25 ± 1 °C) over 0, 15, and 30 days, and three water-holding-capacity percentages (WHC 40%, 60%, and 80%) were evaluated. The best condition for chlorpyrifos degradation (>70%) was 15 days pre-incubation and 60% WHC. Pre-incubation favors the microbial community proliferation in the biomixture, while at a high moisture (60% WHC), the ligninolytic enzyme activity in the biomixture increases.
In a similar study, Tortella et al. (2012) [113] evaluated the effect of the biomixture maturity and concentration on the chlorpyrifos degradation; the biomixture (wheat straw, peat and soil, 2:1:1) was pre-incubated over 0, 15, and 30 days; after that time, three chlorpyrifos concentrations (200, 320, and 480 mg·kg−1) were added to the biomixture. The biomixture’s maturity did not affect the chlorpyrifos degradation; all the biomixtures showed degradation percentages above 50%. However, increasing the chlorpyrifos concentration reduced the degradation efficiency and the hydrolytic and phenoloxidase activities in the systems. More recently, Kumari et al. (2019) [114] evaluated the effect of pre-incubation, pesticide concentration, and moisture on the degradation process of azoxystrobin (fungicide) and imidacloprid (insecticide) in biobed systems, employing biomixtures that included rice straw/corn cobs, peat, and compost (2:1:1). Ten days of biomixture pre-incubation before pesticide application reduced by 5–9 times the degradation rate of the insecticide imidacloprid, while the increase in the WHC from 60% to 80% had a positive effect on the degradation rates of both pesticides, reducing their half-life time. However, increases in the concentration of the pesticides from 30 to 100 mg·kg−1 reduced the degradation rates of both pesticides.
Cordova-Méndez et al. (2021) [46] evaluated the effect of moisture and temperature on the dissipation of five pesticides, two insecticides: carbofuran and diazinon, and three herbicides: atrazine, 2,4-D, and glyphosate; five temperatures (5, 15, 25, 35, and 45 °C) and five water holding capacity percentages (20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%) were evaluated. The increasing temperature positively affected the dissipation of the five pesticides evaluated; the highest dissipation percentages were observed at temperatures of 35 and 45 °C. However, the increase in the water-holding percentages did not show a significant improvement in pesticide dissipation. The observed increase in pesticide dissipation was related to higher microbial activity at higher temperatures. According to the reviewed studies, for efficient pesticide treatment in biobed systems, physicochemical parameters, such as the preincubation time, moisture, temperature, and pesticide concentration in the system, must be optimized.

4.4. Analysis of the Biobeds’ Treated Effluents

According to the biobed design, the systems are isolated from the soil through an impermeable layer, and it has been proposed that treated effluents ending from biobed systems could be reused for crop irrigation [115]. However, leachate analysis in biobed systems is essential to guarantee the efficiency of the treatment process and avoid releasing pesticides into the environment, causing soil and water pollution. In this sense, Henriksen et al. (2003) [58] evaluated the dissipation of the herbicides mecoprop and isoproturon in a biobed system. To determine the pesticide dissipation, the concentration of both herbicides in the leachate was assessed after a year, the concentrations of isoproturon and mecoprop were of 1.4% and 13%, respectively, of the initial dose (8 g), and the presence of a higher concentration of mecoprop in the biobed leachate was associated with its lower retention in the biobed biomixture.
The excessive effluent load in the biobed systems could be a limiting factor for pesticide retention and dissipation efficiency, causing the release of leachates with pesticide concentration above the limits established in the regulations. Foog et al. (2004) [59] evaluated the effect of reducing the effluent loads in a biobed system (1.5 m deep) over the concentration of pesticides in leachates. They observed that a reduction from 1175 to 688 L/m2 of biomixture decreased the pesticide concentration in leachate from <0.32% to <0.006%, while a decrease to 202 L/m2 reduced the pesticide concentration to <0.0001%; according to their results, the maximum water holding in the system for efficient pesticide dissipation was 1121 L/m2. In another study, Spliid et al. (2006) [116] evaluated the presence of pesticides in leachates from a biobed system. The concentrations of 21 pesticides (5 g each in the mixture) were assessed through LC-MS/MS; after 593 days of treatment, only the herbicide bentazone showed a significant presence in leachates (14% of the original dose), ten pesticides were not detected in leachates, and the ten remaining pesticides showed reductions below 2% of the initial dose. The authors concluded that the biobeds were effective in retaining and degrading pesticides, generating effluents with lower pesticide concentrations.
More recently, Karas et al. (2015) [38] evaluated the risk associated with the environmental release of the biobed-depurated wastewater, the leachates containing fungicides from pilot biobed systems. The leachates included traces of fungicides (diphenylamine, imazalil, ortho-phenylphenol, and thiabendazole); acute effects were evaluated in aquatic organisms, such as the crustacean Daphnia magna and the fish Oncorhynchus mykiss, while chronic effects were assessed in the fish Oncorhynchus mykiss, the algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, and sediment-dwelling invertebrates such as Chironomus sp. The biobed-depurated effluents with diphenylamine, imazalil, and ortho-phenylphenol did not show either an acute or chronic exposure risk in any bioindicator organism; only the effluents with thiabendazole showed an acute exposure risk for Daphnia magna and a chronic exposure risk for Oncorhynchus mykiss. In the same study, the treatment of fungicides using bioaugmentation with fungicide-degrader bacteria generated effluents that showed no acute or chronic exposure risk for the organisms evaluated. The authors conclude that biobed-treated effluents do not represent an environmental risk and can be safely disposed.

5. Recent Studies of Pesticide Biodegradation in Biobed Systems

5.1. Fungicides

Table 1 shows the key information related to recent studies on the treatment of fungicides in biobed systems. Eleven studies published over the last five years were identified. These studies assessed the dissipation of ten fungicide compounds from eight different chemical families. Among the most studied fungicides were metalaxyl (54.5%) and carbendazim (27.3%). In the biobed systems, 11 different biomixture compositions were evaluated, just one with the conventional composition: wheat straw, peat, and soil (50:25:25). Alternative biomixture compositions included the use of diverse components, such as coconut fiber (18.2%), corn cobs (18.2%), rice straw (18.2%), vine shoots/branches (18.2%), and millet stubble (9.1%), which act as lignocellulosic materials substituted for wheat straw, and compost (45.5%), vermicompost (9.1%), and spent mushroom substrate (9.1%), which acted as a peat substitute.
In most of the reviewed studies (81.8%), the microbial community in charge of the fungicide dissipation was supplemented by the soil included in the biomixture composition (the soil’s indigenous microbial community). Only one study characterized the microbial community at the group level, including Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Acidobacteria as the most representative phyla [79]. In the study carried out by Castro-Gutiérrez et al. (2019) [117], a bioaugmentation strategy with the white rot fungus Trametes versicolor was used for the dissipation of the fungicides metalaxyl and carbendazim.
Table
Table 1. Degradation of fungicide residues in biobed systems.
Table 1. Degradation of fungicide residues in biobed systems.
Chemical FamilyFungicideBiomixture (%)MicroorganismsConcentration
(mg·kg−1)		Degradation (%)Degradation Time (Days)Analytical
Determination		Reference
AcylalanineAgriculture 13 01289 i001
Metalaxyl		Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community9.5 †503HPLC-DAD[42]
Vine branches, garden compost, and soil (40:40:20)Soil’s indigenous microbial community131.647150HPLC-UV[74]
Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community2880100HPLC[39]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (45:13:42)Trametes versicolor309716UHPLC-MS/MS[117]
Vine shoots, vermicompost, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community504815HPLC-DAD[74]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, soil (50:25:25), and antibiotic oxytetracycline (10 mg·kg−1)Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Acidobacteria3010016UHPLC-MS/MS[79]
BenzimidazolesAgriculture 13 01289 i002
Carbendazim		Millet stubble and soil (50:50)Soil’s indigenous microbial community1.149960HPLC-MS[41]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (45:13:42)Trametes versicolor409716UHPLC-MS/MS[117]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, soil (50:25:25), and antibiotic oxytetracycline (10 mg·kg−1)Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Acidobacteria4010016UHPLC-MS/MS[79]
Agriculture 13 01289 i003
Thiabendazole		Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community2.3 †5045HPLC-DAD[42]
CarboxamidesAgriculture 13 01289 i004
Carboxin		Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community5.14 †503.7HPLC-DAD[42]
5210020HPLC[39]
Agriculture 13 01289 i005
Fluxapyroxad		Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community8.7 †50143HPLC-DAD[42]
3430100HPLC[39]
ChloronitrilesAgriculture 13 01289 i006
Chlorothalonil		Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community8.1 †503HPLC-DAD[42]
ImidazolesAgriculture 13 01289 i007
Imazalil		Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community75 †5029HPLC-DAD[42]
Methoxt-acrylatesAgriculture 13 01289 i008
Azoxystrobin		Rice straw, compost, and soil (40:20:20)Soil’s indigenous microbial community100 †8245HPLC-MS[75]
Corn cobs, compost, and soil (40:20:20)69
Rice straw, compost, and soil (40:20:20)Soil’s indigenous microbial community30 †94.828HPLC[114]
Rice straw, peat, and soil (40:40:20)98.5
Corn cobs, compost, and soil (40:20:20)98.4
Corn cobs, peat, and soil (40:20:20)95.3
PhenylpyrrolesAgriculture 13 01289 i009
Fludioxonil		Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community3.2 †5079HPLC-DAD[42]
Wheat straw, spent mushroom substrate, and soil (25:50:25)Uncharacterized bacterial consortium105042.4HPLC[39]
20
150
TriazolesAgriculture 13 01289 i010
Tebuconazole		Wheat straw, peat, and soil (50:25:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community0.0945100168UHPLC-MS/MS[118]
Vine shoots, vermicompost, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community501315HPLC-DAD[43]
† = Dose (mg·L−1). HPLC/UHPLC = high-performance liquid chromatography/ultra high-performance liquid chromatography. DAD = diode array detector. UV = ultraviolet-visible detector. MS = mass spectrometry. MS/MS = tandem mass spectrometry.
According to the identified studies, the fungicide dissipation efficiency in the biobed systems ranged from 13% to 100%. Tebuconazole (50 mg·kg−1) showed the lowest degradation rate, with only 13% after 15 days in a biobed system employing a biomixture composed of vine shoots, vermicompost, and soil (25:50:25) [43]. While the dissipation of the fungicides metalaxyl (30 mg·kg−1) [79], carbendazim (40 mg·kg−1) [79] and carboxin (52 mg·kg−1) [39] reached 100% in 16–20 days. For 54.5% of the reviewed studies, the observed fungicide dissipation was over 90%.

5.2. Herbicides

Table 2 shows information related to the recent studies on treating herbicides in biobed systems. Twelve studies published in the period between 2018 and 2022 were identified. In these studies, the dissipation of five herbicide compounds belonging to four chemical families was studied; atrazine (58.3%), glyphosate (50%), and 2,4-D (25%) were the most represented herbicides. The studies reported the use of 16 different biomixture compositions. In addition to the conventional wheat straw/stubble (25%), the reported biomixtures included in their composition alternative lignocellulosic materials, such as corn husk/stover (25%), rice straw (18.8%), alfalfa straw (12.5%), millet stubble (6.3%), seaweed (6.3), sisal (Agave sisalana fibers) (6.3%), and coconut fiber (6.3%). In seven (43.5%) of the biomixtures reported, peat or any alternative peat substitute was included in the composition, while in the remaining biomixtures, compost (38%), river waste (12.5%), rice husk ashes (6.3%), and wheat straw biochar (6.3%) were included in the biomixture composition as alternative materials to peat.
In five (41.7%) of the twelve reviewed studies, the soil indigenous microbial community carried out herbicide dissipation in the biobed systems. In four studies (33.3%), the main microbial (archaea, bacteria, and fungi) groups present in the biobeds were identified, and in three studies, a microbial bioaugmentation strategy was employed. Córdova-Mendez et al. (2021) [46] identified the presence of white-rot fungi growing on the biomixtures (corn husk and soil; 50:50) used for the treatment of the herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and 2,4-D. Concerning the bioaugmentation strategies, Castro-Gutiérrez et al. (2019) [117] evaluated the use of the white-rot fungi Trametes versicolor as an inoculant in the biomixture (coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil; 45:13:42) for the treatment of herbicide atrazine (40 mg·kg−1), observing a dissipation of 68.4% in 16 days. In addition, Kumari et al. (2022) [76] evaluated the use of a bacterial consortium previously characterized as efficient in atrazine degradation as an inoculant for the biobed system in the dissipation of a mixture of atrazine and fipronil (50 mg·L−1). Employing three biomixture compositions, the atrazine dissipation ranged between 94 and 98% after 60 days.
According to the identified studies, the fungicide dissipation efficiency in the biobed systems ranged from 68% to 100%. The herbicide atrazine (40 mg·kg−1) showed the lowest dissipation, 68% in 16 days, in a biobed system with a biomixture composed of coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (45:13:42) [79], while the highest dissipation ranges were observed for glyphosate [108,119,120].
Table
Table 2. Degradation of herbicide residues in biobed systems.
Table 2. Degradation of herbicide residues in biobed systems.
Chemical FamilyHerbicideBiomixture (%)MicroorganismsConcentration
(mg·kg−1)		Degradation (%)Degradation Time (Days)Analytical
Determination		Reference
Organophosphates (glycines)Agriculture 13 01289 i011
Glyphosate		Millet stubble and soil (50:50)Soil’s indigenous microbial community9.69960HPLC-MS[38]
Corn husk and soil (50:50)White-rot fungi0.89920GC-ECD-NPD[46]
Alfalfa straw and soil (50:50) + Eisenia fetidaSoil’s indigenous microbial community10009090HPLC-UV[121]
Alfalfa straw, river waste, and soil (50:25:25) + Eisenia fetida
Wheat stubble and soil (50:50) + Eisenia fetida100
Wheat straw and soil (50:50)A total of 21 species of bacteria, Pseudomonas nitroreducens, Rhodospirillales order, and Pseudomonas sp.50 †9015GC-ECD-NPD[119]
Alfalfa straw and soil (50:50)Soil’s indigenous microbial community10008563HPLC-UV[120]
Alfalfa straw, river waste, and soil (50:25:25)100
Wheat stubble and soil (50:50)
Wheat stubble, river waste, and soil (50:25:25)
Corn stover and soil (50:50)A total of 23 species of archaea, 598 species of bacteria, and 64 species of fungi1800 †10041GC-ECD[108]
Seaweed, compost, and soil (25:25:50)
Corn stover, compost, and soil (25:25:50)
Corn stover, sisal, and soil (25:25:50)
Phenoxy-carboxylatesAgriculture 13 01289 i012
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)		Wheat stubble and soil (50:50)Soil’s indigenous microbial community120010030HPLC-UV[122]
Corn husk and soil (50:50)White-rot fungi22,2509920GC-ECD[46]
Corn stover and soil (50:50)A total of 23 species of archaea, 598 species of bacteria, and 64 species of fungi5400 †8841GC-ECD[108]
Seaweed, compost, and soil (25:25:50)
Corn stover, compost, and soil (25:25:50)
Corn stover, sisal, and soil (25:25:50)
TriazinesAgriculture 13 01289 i013
Atrazine		Millet stubble and soil (50:50)Soil’s indigenous microbial community0.689920HPLC-MS[41]
Rice straw, compost, and soil (25:25:50)Atrazine degrading microbial consortium
Bacillus megaterium		50 †9860HPLC-MS/MS[76]
Rice straw, compost + rice husk ash, and soil (50:25:25)94
Rice straw, compost + straw biochar, and soil (50:25:25)98
Corn husk and soil (50:50)White-rot fungi11169920GC-ECD-NPD[46]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (45:13:42)Trametes versicolor4068.416UHPLC-MS/MS[117]
Corn stover and soil (50:50)A total of 23 species of archaea, 598 species of bacteria, and 64 species of fungi12,5009141GC-ECD[108]
Seaweed, compost, and soil (25:25:50)
Corn stover, compost, and soil (25:25:50)
Corn stover, sisal, and soil (25:25:50)
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (bioaugmented) (45:13:42)Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria407016UHPLC-MS/MS[79]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, soil, and antibiotic oxytetracycline (45:13:42)
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (bioaugmented + oxytetracycline) (45:13:42)72
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (45:13:42)68
Wheat straw, peat, and andisol topsoil (50:25:25)Actinobacteria, bacteria and fungi509330HPLC[123]
Agriculture 13 01289 i014
Prometryn		Millet stubble and soil (50:50)Soil’s indigenous microbial community4.19960HPLC[41]
UreasAgriculture 13 01289 i015
Linuron		Coconut fiber, compost, and soil (50:25:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community6410014HPLC-MS[73]
† = Dose (mg·L−1). HPLC/UHPLC = high-performance liquid chromatography/ultra high-performance liquid chromatography. GC = gas chromatography. ECD = electron-capture detector. NPD = nitrogen phosphorus detector. UV = ultraviolet-visible detection. MS = mass spectrometry. MS/MS = tandem mass spectrometry.

5.3. Insecticides

Regarding the dissipation of insecticide compounds in biobed systems, 15 studies were identified from 2018 to 2022 (Table 3). These studies describe the dissipation of seven insecticide compounds belonging to five chemical families in biobed systems. The most evaluated insecticides were carbofuran, imidacloprid, and chlorpyrifos, with four studies each. In these studies, 25 biomixture compositions were evaluated, highlighting the use of alternative materials substituted for the conventional components of biomixture (wheat straw and peat). Lignocellulosic materials, such as corn husk/stover/straw (28%), coconut fiber (20%), rice straw (16%), corn cobs (8%), vine shoots/branches (8%), cereal brand (4%), millet stubble (4%), and seaweed (4%), were employed instead of wheat straw, while materials such as compost/vermicompost (60%) were the main substitutes for peat.
The soil indigenous microbial community carried out the dissipation of the insecticide compounds in the biobed systems (46.7%). In three studies (20%), the microbial community was characterized, and in five studies (33.3%), a bioaugmentation strategy was employed to enhance the insecticide dissipation in biobeds. All the insecticides evaluated reached high dissipation percentages in biobed systems, including carbofuran (98–100%), imidacloprid (22–100%), chlorpyrifos (6–100%), diazinon (98–100%), phosmet (91–99%), fipronil (80–86%), and cypermethrin (95–97%). A lower dissipation was observed for chlorpyrifos (50 mg·L−1), 6% after 28 days in a biomixture composed of wheat straw, peat, and soil (50:25:25) inoculated with Streptomyces spp. [124] in comparison to the study of Diez et al. (2018) [123], in which the dissipation of chlorpyrifos (50 mg·kg−1) reached 100% after 30 days in a biomixture with the same composition but with the presence of a microbial community of actinobacteria, bacteria, and fungi.
Overall, carbofuran (carbamates) and diazinon (organophosphates) showed higher dissipation ranges in the studies included in Table 3. Carbofuran (20 mg·kg−1) was dissipated at 100% after 16 days in biomixtures composed of coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (45:13:42) bioaugmented with Pseudomonas sp. and Sphingobium sp. and the presence of the antibiotic oxytetracycline [117], while diazinon (50 mg·L−1) was dissipated at 100% after 240 days in a biomixture composed of wheat straw, peat, and soil (50:25:25), inoculated with Streptomyces spp. [124]. However, the same insecticide at a higher dose (1718 mg·L−1) reached dissipation ranges of 98–99% after just 41 days in a biomixture including materials such as corn stover/seaweed/sisal, compost, and soil (25:25:50) [108].
Table
Table 3. Degradation of insecticide residues in biobed systems.
Table 3. Degradation of insecticide residues in biobed systems.
Chemical FamilyInsecticideBiomixture (%)MicroorganismsConcentration
(mg·kg−1)		Degradation (%)Degradation Time (Days)Analytical
Determination		Reference
CarbamatesAgriculture 13 01289 i016
Carbofuran		Corn husk and soil (50:50)White-rot fungi5119941GC-MS[46]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (45:13:42)Trametes versicolor309916UHPLC-MS/MS[117]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil + oxytetracycline (45:13:42)
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil + bacterial bioaugmentation (45:13:42)
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil + oxytetracycline and bacterial bioaugmentation (45:13:42)
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil (45:13:42)Proteobacteria, firmicutes, actinobacteria, and acidobacteria3010016UHPLC[79]
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil + oxytetracycline (45:13:42)
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil bioaugmentation (45:13:42)Proteobacteria (pseudomonas and sphingobium)
Coconut fiber, garden compost, and soil + oxytetracycline and bacterial bioaugmentation (45:13:42)
Corn stover and soil (50:50)A total of 23 species of archaea, 598 species of bacteria, and 64 species of fungi11459820GC-ECD-NPD[108]
Seaweed, compost, and soil (25:25:50)
Corn stover, compost and soil (25:25:50)
Corn stover, sisal and soil (25:25:50)
NeonicotinoidsAgriculture 13 01289 i017
Imidacloprid		Millet stubble and soil (50:50)Soil’s indigenous microbial community94060HPLC-MS[41]
Rice straw, compost, and soil (40:40:20)Soil’s indigenous microbial community100 †10045HPLC-MS/MS[76]
Corn cob, compost, and soil (40:40:20)
Rice straw, compost and soil (40:40:20)Soil’s indigenous microbial community207028HPLC[114]
Rice straw, peat, and soil (40:40:20)74
Corn cobs, peat, and soil (40:40:20)84
Corn cobs, compost, and soil (40:40:20)90
Vine shoots, vermicompost, and soil (25:50:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community502215HPLC-DAD[43]
OrganophosphatesAgriculture 13 01289 i018
Chlorpyrifos		Cereal bran, peat, and soil (50:25:25 MB1)Abortiporus biennis609250GC-ECD[125]
Cereal bran, peat, and soil (50:25:25 MB2)6421GC-MS
Vine branches, compost, and soil (40:40:20)Soil’s indigenous microbial community26.332126HPLC-UV[74]
Wheat straw, peat, and soil (50:25:25)Streptomyces spp.50 †628HPLC[124]
Wheat straw, peat, and soil (50:25:25)Actinobacteria, bacteria, and fungi5010030HPLC[123]
Agriculture 13 01289 i019
Diazinon		Corn husk and soil (50:50)White-rot fungi7669935GC-MS[46]
Wheat straw, peat, and soil (50:25:25)Streptomyces spp.50 †100240HPLC[124]
Corn stover and soil (50:50)A total of 23 species of archaea, 598 species of bacteria, and 64 species of fungi1718 †9941GC-ECD-NPD[108]
Seaweed, compost, and soil (25:25:50)99
Corn stover, compost, and soil (25:25:50)99
Corn stover, sisal, and soil (25:25:50)98
Agriculture 13 01289 i020
Phosmet		Corn straw, peat, and soil (50:25:25 SB)Soil’s indigenous microbial community359190UHPLC-MS/MS[79]
Corn straw, pine litter, and soil (50:25:25 PB)96
Corn straw, vermicompost, and soil (50:25:25 VB)99
Organophosphate mixtureCoconut fiber, compost, and farm soil (50:25:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community12568.5128UHPL-MS[72]
PhenylpyrazoleAgriculture 13 01289 i021
Fipronil		Rice straw, compost + rice husk ash, and soil (50:25:25)Soil’s indigenous microbial community50 †8060HPLC-MS/MS[76]
Rice straw, compost + wheat straw biochar, and soil (50:25:25)84
Compost, wheat straw biochar, and soil (50:25:25)86
PyrethroidAgriculture 13 01289 i022
Cypermethrin		Clay and Acacia concinna 10% (90:10)Bordetella petrii I GV 34, Bordetella petrii II GV 36, and Achromobacter xyloxidans GV 4750 †9532GC-MS[126]
Clay and sawdust 5% (95:5)97
† = Dose (mg·L−1). HPLC/UHPLC = high-performance liquid chromatography/ultra high-performance liquid chromatography. GC = gas chromatography. ECD = electron-capture detector. NPD = nitrogen phosphorus detector. UV = ultraviolet-visible detection. MS = mass spectrometry. MS/MS = tandem mass spectrometry.

5.4. Characteristics and Risk Profiles of the Pesticides Treated in Biobeds

In the present review, the studies reported the treatment of 22 pesticide molecules through biobed systems. The identified pesticides included ten fungicides, five herbicides, and seven insecticides. The characteristics and risk profiles of these pesticides are shown in Table 4. According to their solubility in water, most of the pesticides have low (59.1%) or moderate (22.7%) solubility; only the fungicide metalaxyl, the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate, and the insecticide imidacloprid presented high solubility in water. Regarding their persistence in soils, most of the pesticides did not show great persistence (77.3%); only the fungicides fludioxonil and fluxapyroxad and the insecticides imidacloprid and fipronil were persistent, while the fungicide thiabendazole and the insecticide chlorpyrifos were very persistent. The leachability of pesticides is a significant environmental concern. The pesticides included in the present review had low or moderate leachability (86.3%); only the pesticides, Azoxystrobin (fungicide), 2,4-D (herbicide), and imidacloprid (insecticide) had high leachability capacity and therefore a greater risk for the contamination of underground water bodies. Likewise, most pesticides presented a low bioaccumulation potential (72.7%) or at the threshold for concern (27.3%).
According to their acute, oral, and dermal toxicity in rats, the WHO classifies pesticides into five groups. Most pesticides in the present review are classified as slightly or moderately hazardous (77.3%), and only one, carbofuran, is a highly hazardous pesticide. However, despite not presenting high levels of acute danger in mammals, these pesticides have other characteristics that threaten the environment and human health. All the identified pesticides have different degrees of toxicity in model organisms such as birds (50%), fish (90.9%), crustaceans, such as Daphnia magna (59.1%), pollinators, such as bees (45.5%), and earthworms (36.4%), grouping them as xenobiotics with a high ecotoxicological risk. On the other hand, the acute and chronic effects in mammals (40.9%) of these pesticides, which can be moderate or high, also have proven or possible reproductive/development effects (72.7%), endocrine disruptor profiles (54.5%), and confirmed or possible carcinogenic effects (22.7%). In the case of pesticides such as chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and phosmet, they are inhibitors of the acetylcholinesterase enzyme, while the herbicide 2,4-D and the insecticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, fipronil, and phosmet generate neurotoxic effects in mammals; these are the reason why these pesticides are a threat to human health. All these compounds have characteristics that make them a risk for environmental and human health. Preventing their release to the environment (soil and water) from agricultural practices is crucial.

6. Conclusions

Biobed systems have been proposed as an alternative for reducing pesticide pollution in crop fields. These treatment systems have become relevant worldwide due to their effectiveness, simplicity, and adaptability, thus generating alternative designs and including diverse materials in biomixture composition. Most studies in the field have evaluated alternative materials in order to substitute wheat straw and peat in the biobed biomixture. Lignocellulosic materials such as coconut fiber, corn husk/stover/straw, corn cobs, and rice straw were the most reported materials substituted for wheat straw. At the same time, compost was the most common substitute for peat. Moreover, for efficient pesticide treatment in biobed systems, physicochemical parameters, such as the preincubation time, moisture, temperature, and pesticide concentration in the system, must be considered to optimize the degradation process.
Among the reviewed studies, pesticide dissipation was mainly carried out by the soil’s indigenous microbial community, which was included in the biomixture composition. However, in recent studies, metagenomic approaches have been included in characterizing the microbial community in biobed systems, identifying complex mixtures of different archaea, bacteria, and fungi species. Recently, to enhance pesticide dissipation in biobed systems, bioaugmentation with selected fungi and bacteria has been carried out with promising results. The dissipation of ten fungicide compounds, five herbicides, and seven insecticides in biobed systems was found among the reviewed studies. Overall, biobed systems lead to a high level of pesticide dissipation, above 90%, including the dissipation of pesticides of emerging concern such as glyphosate, highly hazardous pesticides such as carbofuran, and highly persistent pesticides such as atrazine. However, only some studies evaluated the dissipation of the mixtures of multiple pesticide compounds. Future research in pesticide dissipation through biobed systems must include bioaugmentation strategies with effective pesticide-degrader microorganisms to assess the dissipation of complex pesticide mixtures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.M.-G., M.L.C.-G. and A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.C.-G., J.A.D.-S., Á.P.V.-O., H.M.Q.-M. and A.R.; writing—review and editing, M.L.C.-G., E.T.-S., P.M.-G. and A.R.; funding acquisition, A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT is its acronym in Spanish), through the project “Bioremediation of agricultural soils contaminated by glyphosate through bacterial biodegradation and the treatment of its residues” grant number 315903.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pawlak, K.; Kołodziejczak, M. The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pereira, P.; Barceló, D.; Panagos, P. Soil and water threats in a changing environment. Environ. Res. 2020, 186, 109501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Maja, M.M.; Ayano, S.F. The impact of population growth on natural resources and farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change in low-income countries. Earth Syst. Environ. 2021, 5, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Molajou, A.; Afshar, A.; Khosravi, M.; Soleimanian, E.; Vahabzadeh, M.; Variani, H.A. A new paradigm of water, food, and energy nexus. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gomes, H.D.O.; Menezes, J.M.C.; da Costa, J.G.M.; Coutinho, H.D.M.; Teixeira, R.N.P.; do Nascimento, R.F. A socio-environmental perspective on pesticide use and food production. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 197, 110627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mandal, A.; Sarkar, B.; Mandal, S.; Vithanage, M.; Patra, A.K.; Manna, M.C. Impact of agrochemicals on soil health. In Agrochemicals Detection, Treatment and Remediation, Pesticides and Chemical Fertilizers; Prasad, M.N.V., Ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 161–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abubakar, Y.; Tijjani, H.; Egbuna, C.; Adetunji, C.O.; Kala, S.; Kryeziu, T.L.; Ifemeje, J.C.; Patrick-Iwuanyanwu, K.C. Pesticides, history, and classification. In Natural Remedies for Pest, Disease and Weed Control; Chukwuebuka Egbuna, C., Sawicka, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rani, L.; Thapa, K.; Kanojia, N.; Sharma, N.; Singh, S.; Grewal, A.S.; Srivastav, A.L.; Kaushal, J. An extensive review on the consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 283, 124657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maksymiv, I. Pesticides: Benefits and hazards. J. Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpath. Nat. Univ. 2015, 2, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Castrejón-Godínez, M.L.; Rodríguez, A.; Sánchez-Salinas, E.; Mussali-Galante, P.; Tovar-Sánchez, E.; Ortiz-Hernández, M.L. Soils Contaminated with Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs): Current Situations, Management, and Bioremediation Techniques: A Mexican Case Study. In Pesticides Bioremediation; Siddiqui, S., Meghvansi, M.K., Chaudhary, K.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 413–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brühl, C.A.; Zaller, J.G. Biodiversity decline as a consequence of an inappropriate environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Tripathi, S.; Srivastava, P.; Devi, R.S.; Bhadouria, R. Influence of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides on soil health and soil microbiology. In Agrochemicals Detection, Treatment and Remediation, Pesticides and Chemical Fertilizers; Agrochemicals detection, treatment and remediation; Prasad, M.N.V., Ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 25–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sharma, A.; Kumar, V.; Shahzad, B.; Tanveer, M.; Sidhu, G.P.S.; Handa, N.; Kohli, S.K.; Yadav, P.; Bali, A.S.; Parihar, R.D.; et al. Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Dhananjayan, V.; Jayanthi, P.; Jayakumar, S.; Ravichandran, B. Agrochemicals Impact on Ecosystem and Bio-monitoring. In Resources Use Efficiency in Agriculture; Kumar, S., Meena, R.S., Jhariya, M.K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 349–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Phat, C.; Ty, B.; Kuok, F.; Andrews, E.M.; Kurniawan, W.; Hinode, H. Residual Pesticides. In Water and Life in Tonle Sap Lake; Yoshimura, C., Khanal, R., Sovannara, U., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shalaby, S.; Abdou, G. The influence of soil microorganisms and bio-or-organic fertilizers on dissipation of some pesticides in soil and potato tubers. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2010, 50, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tudi, M.; Ruan, H.D.; Wang, L.; Lyu, J.; Sadler, R.; Connell, D.; Chu, C.; Phung, D.T. Agriculture development, pesticide application and its impact on the environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Dollimore, L.; Schimpf, W. Obsolete pesticide stocks–the past 25 years, lessons learned and observations for the future. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2013, 24, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vijgen, J.; Weber, R.; Lichtensteiger, W.; Schlumpf, M. The legacy of pesticides and POPs stockpiles—A threat to health and the environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 31793–31798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Alshemmari, H. Inventories and assessment of POPs in the State of Kuwait as a basis for Stockholm Convention implementation. Emerg. Contam. 2021, 7, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mit, N.; Cherednichenko, O.; Mussayeva, A.; Khamdiyeva, O.; Amirgalieva, A.; Begmanova, M.; Tolebaeva, A.; Koishekenova, G.; Zaypanova, S.; Pilyugina, A.; et al. Ecological risk assessment and long-term environmental pollution caused by obsolete undisposed organochlorine pesticides. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2021, 56, 490–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Chitara, M.K.; Singh, R.P.; Gupta, P.K.; Mishra, D.; Jatav, S.S.; Sharma, S.; Jatav, H.S. The risk associated with crop ecosystem management and pesticides pollution. In Ecosystem Services: Types, Management and Benefits; Jatav, H.S., Rajput, V.D., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 151–163. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bhandari, G.; Atreya, K.; Scheepers, P.T.; Geissen, V. Concentration and distribution of pesticide residues in soil: Non-dietary human health risk assessment. Chemosphere 2020, 253, 126594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, S.P.; Singh, M.K. Soil pollution and human health. In Plant Responses to Soil Pollution; Singh, P., Singh, S.K., Prasad, S.M., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Morin-Crini, N.; Lichtfouse, E.; Liu, G.; Balaram, V.; Ribeiro, A.R.L.; Lu, Z.; Stock, F.; Carmona, E.; Teixeira, M.R.; Picos-Corrales, L.A.; et al. Worldwide cases of water pollution by emerging contaminants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2022, 20, 2311–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Narayanan, M.; Kandasamy, S.; He, Z.; Kumarasamy, S. Ecological impacts of pesticides on soil and water ecosystems and its natural degradation process. In Pesticides in the Natural Environment; Singh, P., Singh, S., Sillanpää, M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 23–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sarker, S.; Akbor, M.A.; Nahar, A.; Hasan, M.; Islam, A.R.M.T.; Siddique, M.A.B. Level of pesticides contamination in the major river systems: A review on South Asian countries perspective. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tao, Y.; Liu, J.; Xu, Y.; Liu, H.; Yang, G.; He, Y.; Xu, J.; Lu, Z. Suspecting screening “known unknown” pesticides and transformation products in soil at pesticide manufacturing sites. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 808, 152074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bagheri, A.; Emami, N.; Damalas, C.A. Farmers’ behavior towards safe pesticide handling: An analysis with the theory of planned behavior. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 751, 141709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Islam, M.A.; Amin, S.N.; Rahman, M.A.; Juraimi, A.S.; Uddin, M.K.; Brown, C.L.; Arshad, A. Chronic effects of organic pesticides on the aquatic environment and human health: A review. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2022, 18, 100740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Syafrudin, M.; Kristanti, R.A.; Yuniarto, A.; Hadibarata, T.; Rhee, J.; Al-Onazi, W.A.; Algarmi, T.S.; Almarri, A.H.; Al-Mohaimeed, A.M. Pesticides in drinking water—A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Boudh, S.; Singh, J.S. Pesticide contamination: Environmental problems and remediation strategies. In Emerging and Eco-Friendly Approaches for Waste Management; Bharagava, R., Chowdhary, P., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 245–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kalyabina, V.P.; Esimbekova, E.N.; Kopylova, K.V.; Kratasyuk, V.A. Pesticides: Formulants, distribution pathways and effects on human health–a review. Toxicol. Rep. 2021, 8, 1179–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wang, X.; Sial, M.U.; Bashir, M.A.; Bilal, M.; Raza, Q.U.A.; Ali Raza, H.M.; Rehim, A.; Geng, Y. Pesticides xenobiotics in soil ecosystem and their remediation approaches. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rajmohan, K.S.; Chandrasekaran, R.; Varjani, S. A review on occurrence of pesticides in environment and current technologies for their remediation and management. Indian J. Microbiol. 2020, 60, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Raffa, C.M.; Chiampo, F. Bioremediation of agricultural soils polluted with pesticides: A review. Bioengineering 2021, 8, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Karimi, H.; Mahdavi, S.; Asgari Lajayer, B.; Moghiseh, E.; Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Astatkie, T. Insights on the bioremediation technologies for pesticide-contaminated soils. Environ. Geochem. Health 2022, 44, 1329–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Karas, P.; Metsoviti, A.; Zisis, V.; Ehaliotis, C.; Omirou, M.; Papadopoulou, E.S.; Menkissoglou-Spiroudi, U.; Manta, S.; Komiotis, D.; Karpouzas, D.G. Dissipation, metabolism and sorption of pesticides used in fruit-packaging plants: Towards an optimized depuration of their pesticide-contaminated agro-industrial effluents. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 530, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Papazlatani, C.V.; Karas, P.A.; Tucat, G.; Karpouzas, D.G. Expanding the use of biobeds: Degradation and adsorption of pesticides contained in effluents from seed-coating, bulb disinfestation and fruit-packaging activities. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rezende, S.; Cesio, M.V.; Archondo, L.; Russi, C.; Martínez, P.; Rivero, A.; Besil, N. Pilot study of biobeds application for the remediation of citrus agro-industrial wastewaters. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lescano, M.; Fussoni, N.; Vidal, E.; Zalazar, C. Biodegradation of pesticide-contaminated wastewaters from a formulation plant employing a pilot scale biobed. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 150758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Papazlatani, C.V.; Karas, P.A.; Lampronikou, E.; Karpouzas, D.G. Using biobeds for the treatment of fungicide-contaminated effluents from various agro-food processing industries: Microbiome responses and mobile genetic element dynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 823, 153744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Romero, E.; Delgado-Moreno, L.; Nogales, R. Pesticide dissipation and enzyme activities in ungrassed and grassed biomixtures, composed of winery wastes, used in biobed bioremediation systems. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2019, 230, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Carniel, L.S.C.; Niemeyer, J.C.; de Oliveira Filho, L.C.I.; Alexandre, D.; Gebler, L.; Klauberg-Filho, O. Are there any risks of the disposal of pesticide effluents in soils? Biobed system meets ecotoxicology ensuring safety to soil fauna. Ecotoxicology 2020, 29, 1409–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pinto, A.P.; Lopes, M.E.; Dordio, A.; Castanheiro, J.E.F. Bioaugmentation an effective strategy to improve the performance of biobeds: A review. In Agrochemicals Detection, Treatment and Remediation; Prassad, M.N.V., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 207–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Córdova-Méndez, E.A.; Góngora-Echeverría, V.R.; González-Sánchez, A.; Quintal-Franco, C.; Giácoman-Vallejos, G.; Ponce-Caballero, C. Pesticide treatment in biobed systems at microcosms level under critical moisture and temperature range using an Orthic Solonchaks soil from southeastern Mexico amended with corn husk as support. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 772, 145038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Özkara, A.; Akyıl, D.; Konuk, M. Pesticides, environmental pollution, and health. In Environmental Health Risk-Hazardous Factors to Living Species; Larramendy, M.L., Soloneski, S., Eds.; Intech Open: London, UK, 2016; pp. 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Tang, F.H.; Lenzen, M.; McBratney, A.; Maggi, F. Risk of pesticide pollution at the global scale. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dhananjayan, V.; Jayakumar, S.; Ravichandran, B. Conventional methods of pesticide application in agricultural field and fate of the pesticides in the environment and human health. In Controlled Release of Pesticides for Sustainable Agriculture; Rakhimol, K.R., Sabu, T., Tatiana, V., Jayachandran, K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Le Cor, F.; Slaby, S.; Dufour, V.; Iuretig, A.; Feidt, C.; Dauchy, X.; Banas, D. Occurrence of pesticides and their transformation products in headwater streams: Contamination status and effect of ponds on contaminant concentrations. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 788, 147715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Brhich, A.; Ait Sidi Brahim, M.; Merzouki, H.; Chatoui, R.; Merzouki, M. Fate and impact of pesticides: Environmental and human health issues. In Nutrition and Human Health; Chatoui, H., Merzouki, M., Moummou, H., Tilaoui, M., Saadaoui, N., Brhich, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dias, L.D.A.; Gebler, L.; Niemeyer, J.C.; Itako, A.T. Destination of pesticide residues on biobeds: State of the art and future perspectives in Latin America. Chemosphere 2020, 248, 126038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Delgado-Moreno, L.; Bazhari, S.; Nogales, R.; Romero, E. Innovative application of biobed bioremediation systems to remove emerging contaminants: Adsorption, degradation and bioaccesibility. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 990–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Torstensson, L.; Castillo, M. Use of biobeds in Sweden to minimize environmental spillages from agricultural spraying equipment. Pestic. Outlook 1997, 8, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
  55. Torstensson, L. Experiences of biobeds in practical use in Sweden. Pestic. Outlook 2000, 11, 206–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Castillo, M.D.P.; Torstensson, L.; Stenström, J. Biobeds for environmental protection from pesticide use—A review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 6206–6219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Biobeds.org. The International Biobed Site. 2022. Available online: https://bricksite.com/biobed (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  58. Henriksen, V.V.; Helweg, A.; Spliid, N.H.; Felding, G.; Stenvang, L. Capacity of model biobeds to retain and degrade mecoprop and isoproturon. Pest Manag. Sci. 2003, 59, 1076–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Fogg, P.; Boxall, A.B.; Walker, A.; Jukes, A. Leaching of pesticides from biobeds: Effect of biobed depth and water loading. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 6217–6227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Castillo, M.D.P.; Torstensson, L. Biobeds-Biotechnology for environmental protection from pesticide pollution. In Methods and Techniques for Cleaning-Up Contaminated Sites; Annable, M.D., Teodorescu, M., Hlavinek, P., Diels, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2008; pp. 145–151. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cooper, R.J.; Fitt, P.; Hiscock, K.M.; Lovett, A.A.; Gumm, L.; Dugdale, S.J.; Rambohul, J.; Williamson, A.; Noble, L.; Beamish, J.; et al. Assessing the effectiveness of a three-stage on-farm biobed in treating pesticide contaminated wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 874–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Saez, J.M.; Bigliardo, A.L.; Raimondo, E.E.; Briceño, G.E.; Polti, M.A.; Benimeli, C.S. Lindane dissipation in a biomixture: Effect of soil properties and bioaugmentation. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 156, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Castillo, M.D.P.; Torstensson, L. Effect of biobed composition, moisture, and temperature on the degradation of pesticides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 5725–5733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. De Wilde, T.; Spanoghe, P.; Debaer, C.; Ryckeboer, J.; Springael, D.; Jaeken, P. Overview of on-farm bioremediation systems to reduce the occurrence of point source contamination. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Karanasios, E.; Karpouzas, D.G.; Tsiropoulos, N.G. Key parameters and practices controlling pesticide degradation efficiency of biobed substrates. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2012, 47, 589–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Urrutia, C.; Rubilar, O.; Tortella, G.R.; Diez, M.C. Degradation of pesticide mixture on modified matrix of a biopurification system with alternatives lignocellulosic wastes. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 1361–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Karanasios, E.; Tsiropoulos, N.G.; Karpouzas, D.G.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, U. Novel biomixtures based on local Mediterranean lignocellulosic materials: Evaluation for use in biobed systems. Chemosphere 2010, 80, 914–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Diez, M.C.; Tortella, G.R.; Briceño, G.; Castillo, M.D.P.; Díaz, J.; Palma, G.; Altamirano, C.; Calderón, C.; Rubilar, O. Influence of novel lignocellulosic residues in a biobed biopurification system on the degradation of pesticides applied in repeatedly high doses. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Góngora-Echeverría, V.R.; Martin-Laurent, F.; Quintal-Franco, C.; Giácoman-Vallejos, G.; Ponce-Caballero, C. Agricultural effluent treatment in biobed systems using novel substrates from southeastern Mexico: The relationship with physicochemical parameters of biomixtures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 9741–9753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Gao, W.; Liang, J.; Pizzul, L.; Feng, X.M.; Zhang, K.; del Pilar Castillo, M. Evaluation of spent mushroom substrate as substitute of peat in chinese biobeds. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2015, 98, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yarpuz-Bozdogan, N.; Bozdogan, A.M.; Daglioglu, N.; Sagliker, H. Determination of the effect of agricultural wastes alternative to peat in biobed. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2020, 29, 9906–9913. [Google Scholar]
  72. Masís-Mora, M.; Lizano-Fallas, V.; Tortella, G.; Beita-Sandí, W.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C.E. Removal of triazines, triazoles and organophophates in biomixtures and application of a biopurification system for the treatment of laboratory wastewaters. Chemosphere 2019, 233, 733–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Acosta-Sánchez, A.; Soto-Garita, C.; Masís-Mora, M.; Cambronero-Heinrichs, J.C.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C.E. Impaired pesticide removal and detoxification by biomixtures during the simulated pesticide application cycle of a tropical agricultural system. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 195, 110460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vischetti, C.; Monaci, E.; Casucci, C.; De Bernardi, A.; Cardinali, A. Adsorption and degradation of three pesticides in a vineyard soil and in an organic biomix. Environments 2020, 7, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kumari, A.; Kumari, U.; Gupta, S.; Singh, N. Azoxystrobin and imidacloprid degradation in biobed setup under laboratory conditions. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2021, 103, 2292–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kumari, U.; Banerjee, T.; Narayanan, N.; Yadav, S.; Singh, N. Ash and biochar mixed biomixtures to degrade co-applied atrazine and fipronil in bio-augmented biobeds. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Delgado-Moreno, L.; Nogales, R.; Romero, E. Biodegradation of high doses of commercial pesticide products in pilot-scale biobeds using olive-oil agroindustry wastes. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 204, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Delgado-Moreno, L.; Nogales, R.; Romero, E. Wastes from the olive oil production in sustainable bioremediation systems to prevent pesticides water contamination. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 14, 2471–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dias, L.D.A.; Itako, A.T.; Gebler, L.; Tolentino Júnior, J.B.; Pizzutti, I.R.; Fontana, M.E.; Janish, B.D.; Niemeyer, J.C. Pine litter and vermicompost as alternative substrates for biobeds: Efficiency in pesticide degradation. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fenoll, J.; Garrido, I.; Hellín, P.; Flores, P.; Vela, N.; Navarro, S. Use of different organic wastes as strategy to mitigate the leaching potential of phenylurea herbicides through the soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 4336–4349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Kravvariti, K.; Tsiropoulos, N.G.; Karpouzas, D.G. Degradation and adsorption of terbuthylazine and chlorpyrifos in biobed biomixtures from composted cotton crop residues. Pest Manag. Sci. 2010, 66, 1122–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lemerhyeratte, A.; Zougagh, M.; El Mouden, O.I.; Salghi, R.; Bazzi, L.; Hormatallah, A.; Zine, S. Biobed system to reduce four pesticide organophosphorus point contamination at farm level. Orient. J. Chem. 2010, 26, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ruiz-Hidalgo, K.; Chin-Pampillo, J.S.; Masís-Mora, M.; Carazo-Rojas, E.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C.E. Optimization of a fungally bioaugmented biomixture for carbofuran removal in on-farm biopurification systems. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016, 227, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Castro-Gutiérrez, V.; Masís-Mora, M.; Carazo-Rojas, E.; Mora-López, M.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C.E. Impact of oxytetracycline and bacterial bioaugmentation on the efficiency and microbial community structure of a pesticide-degrading biomixture. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 11787–11799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cessna, A.J.; Knight, J.D.; Ngombe, D.; Wolf, T.M. Effect of temperature on the dissipation of seven herbicides in a biobed matrix. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2017, 97, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. El Bakouri, H.; Morillo, J.; Usero, J.; Vanderlinden, E.; Vidal, H. Effectiveness of acid-treated agricultural stones used in biopurification systems to avoid pesticide contamination of water resources caused by direct losses: Part I. Equilibrium experiments and kinetics. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5084–5091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Karanasios, E.; Tsiropoulos, N.G.; Karpouzas, D.G.; Ehaliotis, C. Degradation and adsorption of pesticides in compost-based biomixtures as potential substrates for biobeds in Southern Europe. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9147–9156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rojas, R.; Morillo, J.; Usero, J.; Vanderlinden, E.; El Bakouri, H. Adsorption study of low-cost and locally available organic substances and a soil to remove pesticides from aqueous solutions. J. Hydrol. 2015, 520, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Briceño, G.; Tortella, G.; Rubilar, O.; Palma, G.; Diez, M.C. Advances in Chile for the treatment of pesticide residues: Biobeds technology. In Bioremediation in Latin America: Current Research and Perspectives; Alvarez, A., Polti, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kumari, U.; Banerjee, T.; Singh, N. Evaluating ash and biochar mixed biomixtures for atrazine and fipronil degradation. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 23, 101745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Karas, P.A.; Makri, S.; Papadopoulou, E.S.; Ehaliotis, C.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, U.; Karpouzas, D.G. The potential of organic substrates based on mushroom substrate and straw to dissipate fungicides contained in effluents from the fruit-packaging industry–Is there a role for Pleurotus ostreatus? Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 124, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Adak, T.; Mahapatra, B.; Swain, H.; Patil, N.B.; Gowda, G.B.; Annamalai, M.; Pokhare, S.S.; Meena, K.S.; Rath, P.C.; Jena, M. Indigenous biobed to limit point source pollution of imidacloprid in tropical countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 272, 111084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Mohapatra, D.; Rath, S.K.; Mohapatra, P.K. Bioremediation of insecticides by white-rot fungi and its environmental relevance. In Mycoremediation and Environmental Sustainability; Prasad, R., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 181–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chandra, P.; Enespa. Fungal Enzymes for Bioremediation of Contaminated Soil. In Recent Advancement in White Biotechnology through Fungi; Yadav, A., Singh, S., Mishra, S., Gupta, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 189–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Singh, R.K.; Tripathi, R.; Ranjan, A.; Srivastava, A.K. Fungi as potential candidates for bioremediation. In Abatement of Environmental Pollutants; Singh, P., Kumar, A., Borthakur, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kathiravan, A.; Gnanadoss, J.J. White-rot fungi-mediated bioremediation as a sustainable method for xenobiotic degradation. Environ. Exp. Biol. 2021, 19, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tomer, A.; Singh, R.; Singh, S.K.; Dwivedi, S.A.; Reddy, C.U.; Keloth, M.R.A.; Rachel, R. Role of fungi in bioremediation and environmental sustainability. In Mycoremediation and Environmental Sustainability; Prasad, R., Nayak, S.C., Kharwar, R.N., Dubey, N.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Vaksmaa, A.; Guerrero-Cruz, S.; Ghosh, P.; Zeghal, E.; Hernando-Morales, V.; Niemann, H. Role of fungi in bioremediation of emerging pollutants. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1070905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Singh, N.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, B. Role of fungal enzymes for bioremediation of hazardous chemicals. In Recent Advancement in White Biotechnology through Fungi; Yadav, A., Singh, S., Mishra, S., Gupta, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhuo, R.; Fan, F. A comprehensive insight into the application of white rot fungi and their lignocellulolytic enzymes in the removal of organic pollutants. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 778, 146132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Lin, S.; Wei, J.; Yang, B.; Zhang, M.; Zhuo, R. Bioremediation of organic pollutants by white rot fungal cytochrome P450: The role and mechanism of CYP450 in biodegradation. Chemosphere 2022, 301, 134776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ortiz-Hernández, M.L.; Sánchez-Salinas, E.; Dantán-González, E.; Castrejón-Godínez, M.L. Pesticide biodegradation: Mechanisms, genetics and strategies to enhance the process. In Biodegradation-Life of Science; Chamy, R., Rosenkranz, F., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013; pp. 251–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Kumar, S.; Kaushik, G.; Dar, M.A.; Nimesh, S.; López-Chuken, U.J.; Villarreal-Chiu, J.F. Microbial degradation of organophosphate pesticides: A review. Pedosphere 2018, 28, 190–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kumar, S.S.; Ghosh, P.; Malyan, S.K.; Sharma, J.; Kumar, V. A comprehensive review on enzymatic degradation of the organophosphate pesticide malathion in the environment. J. Environ. Sci. Health C 2019, 37, 288–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Dave, S.; Das, J. Role of microbial enzymes for biodegradation and bioremediation of environmental pollutants: Challenges and future prospects. In Bioremediation for Environmental Sustainability; Saxena, G., Kumar, V., Shah, M.P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 325–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Saravanan, A.; Kumar, P.S.; Vo, D.V.N.; Jeevanantham, S.; Karishma, S.; Yaashikaa, P.R. A review on catalytic-enzyme degradation of toxic environmental pollutants: Microbial enzymes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bergsveinson, J.; Perry, B.J.; Sheedy, C.; Braul, L.; Reedyk, S.; Gossen, B.D.; Yost, C.K. Identifying the core bacterial and fungal communities within four agricultural biobeds used for the treatment of pesticide rinsates. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 125, 1333–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Góngora-Echeverría, V.R.; Quintal-Franco, C.; Arena-Ortiz, M.L.; Giácoman-Vallejos, G.; Ponce-Caballero, C. Identification of microbial species present in a pesticide dissipation process in biobed systems using typical substrates from southeastern Mexico as a biomixture at a laboratory scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 628, 528–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Russell, J.N.; Perry, B.J.; Bergsveinson, J.; Freeman, C.N.; Sheedy, C.; Nilsson, D.; Braul, L.; Yost, C.K. Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analysis reveals enrichment for xenobiotic-degrading bacterial specialists and xenobiotic-degrading genes in a Canadian prairie two-cell biobed system. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2021, 13, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Cycoń, M.; Mrozik, A.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Bioaugmentation as a strategy for the remediation of pesticide-polluted soil: A review. Chemosphere 2017, 172, 52–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Magan, N.; Gouma, S.; Fragoeiro, S.; Shuaib, M.E.; Bastos, A.C. Bacterial and fungal bioremediation strategies. In Microbial Biodegradation and Bioremediation; Das, S., Dash, H.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Fernández-Alberti, S.; Rubilar, O.; Tortella, G.R.; Diez, M.C. Chlorpyrifos degradation in a biomix: Effect of pre-incubation and water holding capacity. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2012, 12, 785–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Tortella, G.R.; Rubilar, O.; Castillo, M.; Cea, M.; Mella-Herrera, R.; Diez, M.C. Chlorpyrifos degradation in a biomixture of biobed at different maturity stages. Chemosphere 2012, 88, 224–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Kumari, A.; Singh, N.; Ramakrishnan, B. Parameters affecting azoxystrobin and imidacloprid degradation in biobed substrates in the North Indian tropical environment. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2019, 54, 843–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Basford, B. BIOBEDS. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2010, 21, 78–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Spliid, N.H.; Helweg, A.; Heinrichson, K. Leaching and degradation of 21 pesticides in a full-scale model biobed. Chemosphere 2006, 65, 2223–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Castro-Gutiérrez, V.; Masís-Mora, M.; Carazo-Rojas, E.; Mora-López, M.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C.E. Fungal and bacterial co-bioaugmentation of a pesticide-degrading biomixture: Pesticide removal and community structure variations during different treatments. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2019, 230, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Veiga-Bernardelli, P.; Nagel-Hassemer, M.; Gebler, L. Introduction of advanced oxidative pre-treatment in the biobed reactor system in the final disposal process of pesticide effluents. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 86, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Lescano, M.R.; Masin, C.E.; Rodríguez, A.R.; Godoy, J.L.; Zalazar, C.S. Earthworms to improve glyphosate degradation in biobeds. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 27023–27031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Góngora-Echeverría, V.; García-Escalante, R.; Rojas-Herrera, R.; Giácoman-Vallejos, G.; Ponce-Caballero, C. Pesticide bioremediation in liquid media using a microbial consortium and bacteria-pure strains isolated from a biomixture used in agricultural areas. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 200, 110734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Lescano, M.R.; Pizzul, L.; Castillo, M.D.P.; Zalazar, C.S. Glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid degradation in biomixtures based on alfalfa straw, wheat stubble and river waste. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 228, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Fernandez, M.E.; Morel, M.R.; Clebot, A.C.; Zalazar, C.S.; Ballari, M.M. Effectiveness of a simple biomixture for the adsorption and elimination of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) herbicide and its metabolite, 2,4-dichlorophenol (2,4-DCP), for a biobed system. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 106877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Diez, M.C.; Leiva, B.; Gallardo, F. Novel insights in biopurification system for dissipation of a pesticide mixture in repeated applications. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 21440–21450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Rivero, A.; Gérez, N.; Jesús, F.; Niell, S.; Pia-Cerdeiras, M.; Heinzen, H.; Cesio, M.V. Unambiguous evaluation of chlorpyrifos and TCP bioremediation in laboratory and field experiments. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2022, 102, 6845–6857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Briceño, G.; Vergara, K.; Schalchli, H.; Palma, G.; Tortella, G.; Fuentes, M.S.; Diez, M.C. Organophosphorus pesticide mixture removal from environmental matrices by a soil S treptomyces mixed culture. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 21296–21307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Odukkathil, G.; Vasudevan, N. Bacteria amended clay biochar composite biobed system to treat agriculture runoff. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 269, 110694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Gustafson, D.I. Groundwater ubiquity score: A simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. Int. J. 1989, 8, 339–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals; World Health Organization. The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; 92p. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240005662 (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  129. Hertfordshire University. PPDB: Pesticide Properties DataBase; University of Hertfordshire: Hatfield, UK, 2017; Available online: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/ (accessed on 12 June 2023).
Agriculture 13 01289 g001 550
Figure 1. Biobed system design and main characteristics.
Figure 1. Biobed system design and main characteristics.
Agriculture 13 01289 g001
Agriculture 13 01289 g002 550
Figure 2. Biobed systems designs in different countries. (A) Conventional design (Sweden), (B) indirect system design (United Kingdom), (C) direct system (United Kingdom), (D) three-cell biofilter (Belgium), (E) phytobac design (France), and (F) barrel small design (Guatemala).
Figure 2. Biobed systems designs in different countries. (A) Conventional design (Sweden), (B) indirect system design (United Kingdom), (C) direct system (United Kingdom), (D) three-cell biofilter (Belgium), (E) phytobac design (France), and (F) barrel small design (Guatemala).
Agriculture 13 01289 g002
Table
Table 4. Characteristics and risk profiles of the pesticides included in the review.
Table 4. Characteristics and risk profiles of the pesticides included in the review.
Characteristics Risk Profile
PesticideWater Solubility 1Persistence in Soil 2Leachability 3Bioaccumulative Potential 4Acute Toxicity 5Ecotoxicity 6Human Health 7
Fungicides
MetalaxylHighModerately persistentModerateLowModerately hazardousModerate acute toxicity in birds, fish, and Daphnia magna
Moderate chronic toxicity in Daphnia magna and earthworms		Moderate acute toxicity in mammals
Moderate chronic toxicity in mammals
CarboxinModerateNot persistentModerateLowSlightly hazardousModerate acute and chronic toxicity in birds, fish, Daphnia magna, and earthwormsModerate chronic toxicity in mammals and possible reproduction/development effects
ImazalilModerateModerately persistentLowLowModerately hazardousHigh chronic toxicity in fishEndocrine disrupter and reproduction/development effects
AzoxystrobinLowModerately persistentHighLowUnlikely to present acute hazardModerate acute toxicity in fish, Daphnia magna, bees, and earthworms
Moderate chronic toxicity in fish, Daphnia magna, and earthworms		Moderate chronic toxicity in mammals and possible reproduction/development effects
CarbendazimLowModerately persistentModerateLowUnlikely to present acute hazardHigh chronic toxicity in fish, Daphnia magna, and earthwormsEndocrine disrupter and reproduction/development effects
ChlorothalonilLowNot persistentLowThreshold for concernUnlikely to present acute hazardHigh acute and chronic toxicity in fish and Daphnia magnaCarcinogen, endocrine disrupter, and reproduction/development effect
FludioxonilLowPersistentLowThreshold for concernUnlikely to present acute hazardHigh acute and chronic toxicity in fish and Daphnia magnaPossible carcinogen and possible reproduction/development effects
FluxapyroxadLowPersistentModerateLowSlightly hazardousHigh chronic toxicity in fishPossible carcinogen and possible reproduction/development effects
TebuconazoleLowModerately persistentModerateLowModerately hazardousHigh chronic toxicity in birds and fishEndocrine disrupter and reproduction/development effects
ThiabendazoleLowVery persistentModerateLowSlightly hazardousHigh chronic toxicity in fishModerate chronic toxicity in mammals, possible carcinogen, and possible reproduction/development effects
Herbicides
2,4 DHighNot persistentHighLowModerately hazardousModerate acute toxicity in birds, fish, bees, and earthworms
Moderate chronic toxicity in birds, fish, and earthworms		Endocrine disrupter, reproduction/development effects, and neurotoxicant.
GlyphosateHighNot persistentLowLowSlightly hazardousModerate chronic toxicity in birds, fish, and earthwormsPossible carcinogen, possible endocrine disrupter, and possible reproduction/development effects
LinuronModerateModerately persistentModerateLowSlightly hazardousModerate acute toxicity in birds, fishes, Daphnia magna, bees, and earthworms
Moderatechronic toxicity in birds, fish, Daphnia magna, and earthworms		High chronic toxicity in mammals and high reproduction/development effects
AtrazineLowModerately persistentModerateLowSlightly hazardousModerate acute toxicity in fish, Daphnia magna, and earthworms
Moderate chronic toxicity in fish and Daphnia magna		Endocrine disrupter
PrometrynLowModerately persistentLowLowSlightly hazardousHigh chronic toxicity in fishEndocrine disrupter
Insecticides
ImidaclopridHighPersistentHighLowSlightly hazardousHigh acute toxicity in birds and bees
High chronic toxicity in birds		Reproduction/development effects
CarbofuranModerateNot persistentModerateLowHighly hazardousHigh acute toxicity in birds, Daphnia magna, and bees
High chronic toxicity in fish and Daphnia magna		High acute toxicity in mammals, endocrine disrupter, and reproduction/development effects
DiazinonModerateNot persistentLowThreshold for concernSlightly hazardousHigh acute toxicity in birds, Daphnia magna, and bees
High chronic toxicity in Daphnia magna		Endocrine disrupter, acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor, and neurotoxicant
ChlorpyrifosLowVery persistentLowThreshold for concernSlightly hazardousHigh acute toxicity in birds, fish, Daphnia magna, and bees
High chronic toxicity in birds, fish, Daphnia magna, and earthworms		High acute and chronic toxicity in mammals, endocrine disrupter, reproduction/development effects, acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor, and neurotoxicant
CypermethrinLowNot persistentLowThreshold for concernSlightly hazardousHigh acute toxicity in fish, Daphnia magna, and bees
High chronic toxicity in Daphnia magna		High acute toxicity in mammals and endocrine disrupter
FipronilLowPersistentModerateThreshold for concernSlightly hazardousHigh acute toxicity in birds and bees
High chronic toxicity in birds and fish		High acute and chronic toxicity in mammals and neurotoxicant
PhosmetLowNot persistentLowLowSlightly hazardousHigh acute toxicity in Daphnia magna and bees
High chronic toxicity in fish and Daphnia magna		Reproduction/development effects, acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor, and neurotoxicant
1 Water solubility (20 °C; mg·L−1): low (≤50), moderate (50–500), and high (>500). 2 Persistence in soil: soil aerobic degradation in days: not persistent (<30), moderately persistent (30–100), persistent (100–365), and very persistent (>365). 3 Leachability: Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS Index) [127]): low (<1.8), moderate (1.8–2.8), and high (>2.8). 4 Bioaccumulative potential: bio-concentration factor (kg−1): low (<100), threshold for concern (100–5000), and high (>5000). 5 Acute toxicity: risk associated with acute exposure according to the WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard (WHO, 2020 [128]), LD50 (mg·kg−1 body weigh) in rats: unlikely to present acute hazard (U) (oral and dermal 5000 of higher); slightly hazardous (III), oral and dermal > 2000; moderately hazardous (II), oral 50–2000 and dermal 200–2000; highly hazardous (Ib), oral 5–200 and dermal 50–200; extremely hazardous (Ia), oral < 5 and dermal < 50. 6 Ecotoxicity: acute and chronic toxicity doses are specific to each model organism; information was taken from the Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB, Hertfordshire University, UK) [129], available at http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/ (accessed on 15 June 2023). 7 Human health: acute oral effects on mammals (dose mg·kg−1): low (>2000), moderate (100–2000), and high (<100); chronic effects on mammals (dose mg·kg−1d−1): low (>200), moderate (10–200), and high (<10).
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

Mussali-Galante, P.; Castrejón-Godínez, M.L.; Díaz-Soto, J.A.; Vargas-Orozco, Á.P.; Quiroz-Medina, H.M.; Tovar-Sánchez, E.; Rodríguez, A. Biobeds, a Microbial-Based Remediation System for the Effective Treatment of Pesticide Residues in Agriculture. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1289. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071289

AMA Style

Mussali-Galante P, Castrejón-Godínez ML, Díaz-Soto JA, Vargas-Orozco ÁP, Quiroz-Medina HM, Tovar-Sánchez E, Rodríguez A. Biobeds, a Microbial-Based Remediation System for the Effective Treatment of Pesticide Residues in Agriculture. Agriculture. 2023; 13(7):1289. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071289

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mussali-Galante, Patricia, María Luisa Castrejón-Godínez, José Antonio Díaz-Soto, Ángela Patricia Vargas-Orozco, Héctor Miguel Quiroz-Medina, Efraín Tovar-Sánchez, and Alexis Rodríguez. 2023. "Biobeds, a Microbial-Based Remediation System for the Effective Treatment of Pesticide Residues in Agriculture" Agriculture 13, no. 7: 1289. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071289

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