INTRODUCTION:

Xenobiotic substances, synthetic chemicals foreign to specific ecological systems, pose a significant threat to both human health and the environment. This article explores the impact of xenobiotics on cellular communication pathways and the subsequent consequences for growth, development, and physiological functions. Understanding the persistence and bioaccumulation of these substances in ecosystems is crucial for devising effective remediation strategies. This article embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted threat posed by xenobiotics, delving into their intricate interplay with cellular communication pathways and the ensuing ramifications on growth, development, and physiological functions. Xenobiotics, once introduced, exhibit a remarkable resilience, resisting conventional degradation mechanisms and persisting in environmental matrices over extended periods. From bacterial biodegradation to thermal and non-thermal procedures, the diverse arsenal of remediation strategies will be meticulously dissected, offering a roadmap for researchers, policymakers, and environmental practitioners grappling with the challenges posed by xenobiotic contamination¹.

Sources and Pathways of Xenobiotics:

Xenobiotics encompass a broad spectrum of substances, including drugs, industrial chemicals, naturally occurring toxins, and environmental contaminants. Industries contribute significantly to the release of xenobiotics into the environment, elevating the risk of exposure for both humans and other organisms; sources of xenobiotics given in the Table-1^2,3.

Table 1: Sources of xenobiotics as a contaminant.

S.No.	Sources	Contaminations
1	Pharmaceutical Contributions	The disposal of unused medications, excretion of pharmaceutical residues by humans and animals, and incomplete removal during wastewater treatment contribute to the introduction of pharmaceutical xenobiotics into water bodies.
2	Industrial Discharges	Ranging from solvents and plasticizers to heavy metals, are routinely discharged into water bodies and air; these introduces xenobiotics into the environment on a scale that can have far-reaching consequences.
3	Naturally Occurring Toxins	Certain plant secondary metabolites and microbial toxins, when introduced into foreign ecological systems, can disrupt normal biological processes.
4	Environmental Contaminants	Agricultural activities contribute significantly to the dissemination of these substances, as the application of agrochemicals can lead to runoff, contaminating water bodies and soil.
5	Atmospheric Deposition	Atmospheric deposition, involving the settling of particles containing pollutants, introduces xenobiotics into ecosystems far from their original sources

Implications for Exposure and Bioaccumulation:

The bioaccumulation and biomagnification of these substances within food chains create a complex scenario where even organisms not in direct contact with xenobiotics face heightened concentrations.

1. Human Exposure: Inhalation of airborne xenobiotics, ingestion of contaminated water and food, and dermal contact with polluted soil all contribute to the multifaceted avenues through which humans are exposed to these synthetic intruders.

2. Ecological Consequences: Organisms at lower trophic levels, initially exposed to xenobiotics, accumulate these substances in their tissues. As predators feed on these organisms, the xenobiotics concentrate, magnifying in concentration at each successive trophic level.

3. Challenges in Risk Assessment: This involves not only identifying the sources of contamination but also unravelling the intricate routes through which these substances propagate within and across different environmental compartments.

4. Necessity for Targeted Remediation Strategies: The advent of novel technologies, such as biochar synthesis from abundant feedstocks like Maize Stover and Rice Husk, offers a promising avenue for targeted xenobiotic removal^4,5

Challenges in Xenobiotic Remediation:

Traditional and modern environmental remediation technologies face challenges in effectively eliminating xenobiotics.

1. Complexity of Xenobiotic Mixtures: The synergistic or antagonistic interactions between different xenobiotics further complicate the remediation landscape, requiring a nuanced and adaptable approach.

2. Resistance to Conventional Degradation: Innovative strategies are needed to overcome the resistance posed by xenobiotics to traditional remediation methodologies.

3. Economic Viability of Remediation Technologies: The implementation of certain methods, such as advanced oxidation processes or cutting-edge filtration technologies, may prove economically impractical for widespread application, particularly in regions with limited financial resources.

4. Scale and Site-Specific Challenges: Site-specific challenges, such as the presence of diverse environmental matrices and varying climatic conditions, necessitate adaptable strategies that can be tailored to the unique characteristics of each remediation site^6,7,8.

5. Inadequacy of Traditional Adsorption Techniques: The diverse nature of xenobiotic compounds requires tailored adsorption materials to ensure effective removal.

6. Need for Sustainable and Green Technologies: Green and sustainable technologies, capable of minimizing secondary environmental effects, are essential to ensure that the remediation process aligns with broader environmental conservation goals.

7. Integration of Biological and Non-Biological Approaches: The development of innovative technologies, such as composite biochar synthesized from abundant feedstocks like Maize Stover and Rice Husk, offers a promising avenue^9,10.

Biochar Synthesis from Maize Stover and Rice Husk:

Maize Stover and Rice Husk, being abundantly generated worldwide, present themselves as promising and cost-effective feedstocks for large-scale biochar synthesis. However, the efficacy of virgin Maize Stover and Rice Husk biochar in removing certain xenobiotics may be limited¹¹.

1. Abundant and Renewable Feedstocks: Maize Stover, Rice Husk and their ubiquity across agricultural landscapes makes them easily accessible raw materials for biochar synthesis.

2. Biochar as an Environmental Cleanup Agent: The use of biochar in environmental applications has gained traction due to its potential to mitigate soil and water pollution, providing a sustainable alternative to traditional remediation methods.

3. Role of Modifiers in Biochar Enhancement: Modifiers for biochar synthesis may include natural or synthetic substances that interact synergistically with the feedstock during pyrolysis. Activated carbon, zeolites, and mineral-based additives are among the modifiers that have demonstrated efficacy in enhancing the adsorption capabilities of biochar.

4. Tailoring Biochar for Xenobiotic Remediation: The incorporation of modifiers into the biochar matrix introduces a level of customization that is crucial for addressing the diverse and dynamic nature of synthetic contaminants in our ecosystems^12,13

Composite Biochar for Enhanced Xenobiotic Remediation:

To enhance the remediation potential of Maize Stover and Rice Husk biochar, the concept of composite biochar is introduced. Modifying biochar with additional substances can enhance its adsorption properties and overall remediation efficiency.

1. Activated Carbon as a Modifier: When introduced as a modifier during the biochar synthesis process, it imparts similar characteristics to the resulting composite biochar. The enhanced surface area facilitates greater adsorption capacity, making the composite biochar a formidable agent for the removal of a broad spectrum of xenobiotics.

2. Zeolites: Zeolites, with their well-defined channels and cation exchange capacities, synergize with the carbonaceous matrix of biochar to create a composite material with enhanced selectivity for specific xenobiotics.

3. Metal Oxides for Enhanced Reactivity: The incorporation of metal oxides, such as iron oxide or manganese oxide, imparts a heightened reactivity to the composite biochar.

4. Biomass-Derived Additives: Plant-derived substances, such as tannins, contribute additional functional groups to the biochar matrix; forming bonds with specific xenobiotics, creating a composite material with tailored affinity for contaminants of interest.

5. Clay Minerals: The inclusion of clay minerals in the composite biochar matrix enhances its ability to capture and retain xenobiotics through physical and chemical interactions^14,15

Biological Approaches for Xenobiotic Degradation:

Microbes play a crucial role in xenobiotic degradation. Bacterial biodegradation, employing both wild-type and genetically engineered bacterial strains, proves to be a cost-effective approach.

1. Microbial Orchestra in Xenobiotic Degradation: Microbes, ranging from bacteria to fungi, form an intricate orchestra in the natural symphony of environmental processes.

2. Cost-Effective Strategies: This makes it a viable option for large-scale applications, such as land filling and composting, where the microbial community can be harnessed to break down xenobiotics efficiently and economically.

3. Engineered Bacterial Strains: Engineered bacterial strains, meticulously crafted to express specific enzymes or metabolic pathways, offer targeted solutions for the breakdown of particular xenobiotics.

4. Enzymatic Arsenal of Bacteria: Enzymes, produced by bacteria, catalyze the breakdown of xenobiotic compounds into simpler, less toxic by-products.

5. Environmental Conditions and Microbial Activity: Understanding the interplay between environmental parameters and microbial performance is crucial for optimizing conditions to enhance bacterial biodegradation in diverse ecosystems.

6. Synergistic Microbial Communities: Exploring the dynamics of synergistic microbial communities provides insights into how diverse microbial consortia can collectively contribute to the efficient degradation of complex xenobiotic mixtures^16,17.

Non-Biological Approaches for Xenobiotic Remediation:

Non-biological approaches for xenobiotic degradation fall into thermal and non-thermal procedures. The article categorizes and explores various non-biological methods, assessing their suitability for different types of xenobiotics.

1. Thermal Procedures:

Incineration:

It involves the controlled combustion of xenobiotics at high temperatures. This thermal process breaks down complex organic compounds into simpler forms, reducing their environmental impact and it is effective for a broad range of xenobiotics¹⁸.

Pyrolysis:

Pyrolysis, characterized by the high-temperature decomposition of xenobiotics in the absence of oxygen, offers a more controlled alternative to incineration, it leads to the production of biochar and gases. The biochar can be further utilized for adsorption and soil amendment, presenting a sustainable dimension to xenobiotic remediation.

Thermal Desorption:

This technique is particularly effective for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). However, the energy requirements and potential for soil structure alteration pose challenges, necessitating careful consideration of the specific environmental context¹⁹.

2. Non-Thermal Procedures:

Photochemical Degradation:

It harnesses the power of light, typically ultraviolet (UV) or sunlight, to initiate chemical reactions that break down xenobiotics. The effectiveness of photochemical degradation depends on factors such as light intensity, wavelength, and the presence of sensitizers, providing a versatile tool for xenobiotic remediation under controlled conditions^20,21.

Electrochemical Treatment:

It involves the application of an electric current to induce chemical reactions that degrade xenobiotics²².

Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs):

AOPs encompass a group of non-thermal techniques that generate highly reactive hydroxyl radicals to degrade xenobiotics. Methods such as ozonation, Fenton's reaction, and photocatalysis fall under this category²³.

3. Suitability Assessment for Different Xenobiotics: Each non-biological approach exhibits varying degrees of suitability for different types of xenobiotics based on their chemical structure, persistence, and reactivity.

4. Integration for Comprehensive Remediation: Sequential or simultaneous application of thermal and non-thermal procedures can address the complexities of mixed contaminant scenarios, providing a synergistic and efficient approach to environmental cleanup.

5. Environmental Considerations:

Energy consumption, potential generation of by-products, and impacts on soil or water quality are critical factors that should be assessed to ensure that the chosen remediation strategy aligns with broader sustainability goals.

6. Monitoring and Optimization:

Continuous monitoring and optimization are essential components of successful non-biological remediation strategies. Real-time monitoring of xenobiotic concentrations, by-products, and environmental parameters allows for adaptive management, ensuring that the chosen approach remains effective and environmentally responsible throughout the remediation process^24,25,26,27

CONCLUSION:

As xenobiotic contamination continues to pose a threat to ecosystems and human health, the need for sustainable and cost-effective remediation methods becomes increasingly apparent. By integrating biological and non-biological approaches, a holistic strategy can be developed to mitigate the impact of xenobiotics on our environment. The abundance and renewability of Maize Stover and Rice Husk, these materials position them as sustainable alternatives, offering a dual benefit of waste management and environmental remediation. The innate properties of biochar, characterized by high surface area and adsorption capabilities, underscore its potential as a versatile tool for xenobiotic remediation. The potential of these abundant agricultural residues, both in their individual capacities and as components of composite biochar, unfolds as a transformative solution to the persistent challenges posed by synthetic intruders in our ecosystems.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

No.

REFERENCES:

1. Embrandiri A., Kiyasudeen S.K., Rupani P.F., Ibrahim M.H. Environmental Xenobiotics and Its Effects on Natural Ecosystem. In: Singh A., Prasad S., Singh R., editors. Plant Responses to Xenobiotics. Springer; Singapore: 2016;1–18.

2. Nikolaou A., Meric S., Fatta D. Occurrence patterns of pharmaceuticals in water and wastewater environments. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007; 387:1225–1234. doi: 10.1007/s00216-006-1035-8.

3. Mathew B.B., Singh H., Biju V.G., Krishnamurthy N.B. Classification, source, and effect of environmental pollutants and their biodegradation. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol. 2017; 36:55–71. doi: 10.1615/JEnvironPatholToxicolOncol.2017015804.

4. Soucek P. Xenobiotics. In: Schwab M., editor. Encyclopedia of Cancer. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2011.

5. Kumar D., Chopra S. Xenobiotic Compounds in the Environment: Their Fate, Transport and Removal; Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference on Medical Instrumentation, Biomaterials and Signal Processing (NCMBS-20); Sonepat, India. 26–27 February 2020; 96–102.

6. Singh R. Biodegradation of xenobiotics–A way for environmental detoxification. Int. J. Dev. Res. 2017;7: 14082–14087.

7. Miller R. Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediatoin Technologies Analysis Center, USA, 1996; 1-26.

8. Soesilo JA, Wilson SR. Site Remediation Planning and Management. CRC Press, New York, 1997; 1-1437.

9. Bharadwaj A. Bioremediation of Xenobiotics: An Eco-friendly Cleanup Approach. In: Parmar V.S., Malhotra P., Mathur D., editors. Green Chemistry in Environmental Sustainability and Chemical Education, Proceedings of the ICGC 2016, New Delhi, India, 17–18 November 2016. Springer; Singapore: 2018; 1–13.

10. Solis-Gonzalez C.J., Loza-Tavera H. Alicycliphilus: Current knowledge and potential for bioremediation of xenobiotics. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019; 126:1643–1656

11. Alling V, Hale SE, Martinsen V, Mulder J, Smebye A, Breedveld GD, Cornelissen G. The role of biochar in retaining nutrients in amended tropical soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2014;155(5):671–680.

12. Cong H, Masek O, Zhao L, Yao Z, Meng H, Hu E, Ma T. Slow pyrolysis performance and energy balance of corn stover in continuous pyrolysis-based poly-generation system. Energy Fuels. 2018; 32(3): 3743–3750.

13. Moyo G, Zhiquan Hu, Meseret D. Getahun, Decontamination of xenobiotics in water and soil environment through potential application of composite maize stover/rice husk (MS/RH) biochar—a review Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.

14. Arif M, Liu G, Yousaf B, Ahmed R, Irshad S, Ashraf A, Zia-ur-Rehman M, Rashid MS. Synthesis, characteristics and mechanistic insight into the clays and clay minerals-biochar surface interactions for contaminants removal-a review. J Clean Prod. 2021;310: 127548

15. Cheng S, Chen T, Xu W, Huang J, Jiang S, Yan B. Application research of biochar for the remediation of soil heavy metals contamination: a review. Molecules. 2020; 25:3167

16. Bhatt P, Pathak VM, Joshi S, Bisht TS, Singh K, Chandra D. Major metabolites after degradation of xenobiotics and enzymes involved in these pathways, in Smart bioremedial technologies: Microbial Enzymes. 2019; 2015–2025

17. Dangi AK, Sharma B, Hill RT, Shukla P. Bioremediation through microbes: Systems biology and metabolic engineering approach. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2019; 39:79–98. doi: 10.1080/07388551.2018.1500997.

18. Ding D, Song X, Wei C, LaChance J. A review on the sustainability of thermal treatment for contaminated soils, Environ. Pollut., 2019; 253: 449–463

19. Claoston N, Samsuri AW, Husni MHA, Amran MSM. Effects of pyrolysis temperature on the physicochemical properties of empty fruit bunch and rice husk biochars. Waste Manag Res. 2014; 32(4):331–339.

20. Zhang H, Qiu D Ma R, Tang Y, Du C. Non-thermal plasma technology for organic contaminated soil remediation: a review, Chem. Eng. J. 2017;313: 157–170

21. Boreen AL, Arnold WA, McNeill K. Photodegradation of pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment: A review. Aquatic Sciences. 2003;65: 320-341.

22. Ahmad AS. Das, Ghangrekar MM. Removal of xenobiotics from wastewater by electrocoagulation: A mini-review. J. Indian Chem. Soc. 2020; 97: 493–500.

23. Adewuyi YG. Sonochemistry in environmental remediation; Combinative and hybrid sonophotochemical oxidation processes for the treatment of pollutants in water. Environmental Science and Technology, 2005; 39: 3409-3420.

24. Oliveira MD, Frihling BEF, Velasques J, Filho FJCM, Cavalheri PS, Migliolo L. Pharmaceuticals residues and xenobiotics contaminants: Occurrence, analytical techniques and sustainable alternatives for wastewater treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 705:135568. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135568

25. Mishra S, Lin Z, Pang S, Zhang W, Bhatt P, Chen S. Recent Advanced Technologies for the Characterization of Xenobiotic-Degrading Microorganisms and Microbial Communities. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021; 9:501–516. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.632059.

26. Cuerda-Correa EM, Alexandre-Franco MF, Fernández-González C. Advanced oxidation processes for the removal of antibiotics from water. An overview. Water. 2019; 12:102. doi: 10.3390/w12010102.

27. Bhatt P, Gangola S, Khati P, Kumar G. Removal of Xenobiotics from environment using microbial metabolism. Sci. India Magzine. 2017; 5:33–34.doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24814.61767.

Received on 21.02.2024 Modified on 15.05.2024

Res. J. Pharmacognosy and Phytochem. 2024; 16(3):175-179.

DOI: 10.52711/0975-4385.2024.00033