Prospects and challenges regarding biosurfactants in advancing the petroleum industry

As the global population increases, the petroleum industry is experiencing exponential increase in energy demands. However, the petroleum industry faces a myriad of problems concerning production, operation, sustainability, climate change and broader environmental implications. Traditionally, industry has relied on synthetic surfactants to address these challenges. However, owing to their toxicity, nonbiodegradability, and potential ecological leaching, the industry is increasingly shifting toward natural surfactants. Biosurfactants have numerous applications in the petroleum industry as enhanced oil recovery agents, emulsification and demulsification agents, anticorrosive agents, and biocides for sulfate-reducing bacteria. Biosurfactants are proven to be versatile, stable, and valuable biochemical tools capable of modernizing and mitigating challenges in the petroleum industry while promoting sustainability. To realize their potential, future applications and commercialization of biosurfactants require specific research and technological advancement that can increase their production. This review explores the challenges faced by the petroleum industry and the classification, properties, applications, market share, patents, and promising prospects of biosurfactants in various petroleum industry sectors.

1 Introduction

Petroleum is a critical raw material for energy production, and heating (Kashif et al., 2022; Othmani et al., 2022). Global petroleum production was projected to grow by 102.5 million barrels/day (b/d) in 2023, 103.2 million b/d in 2024, and 105.9 million b/d by 2025, whereas liquid fuel consumption was 101.9 million b/d, 102.9 million b/d and 105.1 million b/d, respectively, in those years (Renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source, 2020). This imbalance will gradually deplete oil inventories, with current reserves estimated to last 4 decades (Kashif et al., 2021).

The petroleum industry faces major challenges, including limited reservoirs, suboptimal extraction of light crude, corrosion, losses during processing, difficulty in utilizing heavy crude, and complexities in transportation, storage, and oil-spill management (Al Madan et al., 2025; Ray et al., 2025). The Russia–Ukraine conflict introduced major volatility to the global energy market. During the initial weeks of the conflict, oil prices rose by 40%, remaining 27% above prewar levels a year later (Adolfsen et al., 2022). During the initial weeks of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, prices surged substantially, with oil prices rose by 40%, remaining 27% higher than the prewar price, coal by 130%, and gas by 180% (Adolfsen et al., 2022).

Novel techniques have emerged to address the increasing petroleum demands and mitigate industrial challenges. The use of surface-active agents (surfactants) in industrial processes, such as biodegradation, emulsification, antifoaming, waterproofing, cleaning agents, and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques, is increasing exponentially, specifically due to their ability to act on the oil–water interface owing to their hydrophilic and hydrophobic moieties (Karthick et al., 2019; Myers, 2020; Manga et al., 2021; Narukulla and Sharma, 2024). The global surfactant market was valued at approximately $45.15 billion to $49.6 billion in 2024 and is expected to grow to between $68.05 billion and $72.14 billion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 4.9%–5.3% (Biosurfactants market size, share, trends, 2025).

However, synthetic surfactants are slowly polluting the environment due to their nonbiodegradable nature and high toxicity to biological entities, such as soil microbiomes, insects, aquatic species, and even humans (Manga et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2022; Li et al., 2025). According to research conducted in the South China Sea, anionic surfactants were found to comprise 57% and 43% of the surface microlayer and subsurface water, respectively (Uning et al., 2022). Moreover, Mousavi and Khodadoost (2019) reported decreased chlorophyll content in an aquatic fern plant (Azolla pinnata) exposed to sodium lauryl sulfate, a surfactant. Furthermore, anionic surfactants caused larval abnormalities and high cortisol levels in zebrafish (Rahimi et al., 2020).

Biosurfactants are a class of amphiphilic biomolecules produced on the cell surfaces of microorganisms that are observed at air−solid, liquid−solid, or polar−nonpolar media interfaces (Kourmentza et al., 2017; Markande et al., 2021; Hsu et al., 2025). Microorganisms produce these biosurfactants to improve their survival capabilities in extreme conditions by enhancing the availability of hydrophobic immiscible substrates, biofilm formation, and pathogenicity. These molecules have several attributes, including detergency, emulsification, foaming, and dispersion, and they are known to have the intrinsic property of reducing the interfacial tension (IFT). Compared with their chemical counterparts, biosurfactants have several advantages, such as bioavailability; biocompatibility; high selectivity; environmental sustainability; and tolerance to extreme temperature, pH, and salinity (Jahan et al., 2020; Mohanty et al., 2021; Hsu et al., 2025). Biosurfactants are extensively used in several industries, such as petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, mining, beverages, cosmetics, nanotechnology, textiles, agriculture, and food processing (Drakontis and Amin, 2020; Ingsel et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2025). In the petroleum industry, biosurfactants are multifunctional compounds used to efficiently eliminate oil sludge from storage tanks, facilitate microbial-enhanced oil recovery (MEOR), manage and remediate oil spills, and enable the transportation of heavy crude oil via pipelines (Drakontis and Amin, 2020; Nagtode et al., 2023; Hsu et al., 2025).

Although biosurfactants offer clear environmental advantages over conventional surfactants, there is a comparative trade-off in operational and economic parameters. Production of biosurfactants often utilizes synthetic or semi-synthetic procedures that may involve hazardous solvents, toxic acid or base catalysts, and energy-intensive downstream processing steps, leading to environmental concerns and low process efficiency (Thakur et al., 2024; Sharma and Lamsal, 2025; Hsu et al., 2025). Even though recent studies have explored the use of enzyme-assisted synthesis and green purification methods, the primary disadvantages remain their high production costs and slower reaction rates compared to their chemical counterparts. Biosurfactant production costs typically range from USD 5 to 20 per kg, whereas conventional surfactants can be produced for around USD 2 per kg (Sharma and Lamsal, 2025). Moreover, biosurfactant yields are often limited by substrate availability, fermentation conditions, and purification complexity. Hence, despite their superior biodegradability, lower toxicity, and sustainability profile, the adoption of biosurfactants in large-scale industries remains restricted, as customers are generally unwilling to pay a premium for comparable performance (Hsu et al., 2025; Sharma and Lamsal, 2025). Continued efforts in strain improvement, utilization of low-cost agro-industrial wastes, and process intensification are therefore crucial to bridge this economic gap and enhance the feasibility of biosurfactant commercialization (Hsu et al., 2025).

This review aimed to discuss the significance and categorization of biosurfactants, their distinctive properties relevant to the oil and petroleum industry, and their applications within the oil and petroleum sector.

2 Biosurfactants

Due to the disadvantages of synthetic surfactants and advancements in sustainable technology, at present, the focus is on natural and biodegradable compounds, such as biosurfactants. Biosurfactants are primarily synthesized by aerobic microorganisms in aqueous media with carbohydrates, hydrocarbons, or fats as their carbon source (Carolin et al., 2021; Farias et al., 2021; Eras-Muñoz et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2025). Their unique structure allows the biosurfactant to modulate the IFT. Biosurfactant production is a complex process that serves various ecological and physiological purposes, helping microbial communities to adapt to and survive in various environmental sectors (Mohanty et al., 2021; Eras-Muñoz et al., 2022; Ingsel et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2025). Biosurfactants are predominantly synthesized by microorganisms belonging to the Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Candida, Rhodococcus, Marinomonas, Burkholderia, Sphingomonas, Cobetia, Acinetobacter, and Lactobacillus genera (Phetcharat et al., 2019; Schultz and Rosado, 2019; Nikolova and Gutierrez, 2021; Hsu et al., 2025).

2.1 Factors influencing biosurfactant production

The yield of biosurfactant production is greatly influenced by the availability of nutrients and metabolic cues, especially the carbon and nitrogen sources and molar ratio C/N. Carbon sources (e.g., hydrocarbons, molasses, and waste oils) improve yield mainly by acting as immediate metabolic precursors of the biosurfactant’s hydrophobic tail (Solomon and Vishnu, 2025; Sharma and Lamsal, 2025). In most instances, these complex organic substrates, particularly lipids or long-chain alkanes, induce microbial processes specifically aimed at their utilization and, in the process, also result in the overproduction of the biosurfactant as a solubilizing agent as well as a detoxification process. On the other hand, nitrogen sources (ammonium compounds and peptones) facilitate microbial growth as well as the total cell concentration, indirectly enhancing the overall biosynthetic capacity. Optimal C/N ratios vary by bacterial strain and influence metabolite synthesis (Jahan et al., 2020; Mohanty et al., 2021). The C/N ratio usually behaves as a metabolic switch, such that a high C/N ratio (excess carbon, nitrogen limitation) most often redirects energy from cell growth to the production low-value agro-industrial waste streams (i.e., molasses, waste frying oils, and peptones from chicken feather or corn steep liquor) as the major C/N sources, producers can attain high yields while at the same time solving waste valorization, significantly reducing raw material expenses, environmentally friendly production, and driving the industry towards a circular bioeconomy (Sharma and Lamsal, 2025). Metabolic regulators like particular inducers like vegetable oil boost production while inhibitors EDTA and antibiotics hinder microbial growth of secondary metabolites, such as biosurfactants. This optimization has strong industrial importance for minimizing production costs and supporting sustainability (Pathania and Jana, 2020). Table 1 presents examples of biosurfactants; their microbial sources; and the effect of various carbon sources, nitrogen sources, C/N ratios and metabolic regulators on their yield.

Table 1

Table 1. Effects of various factors on biosurfactant yield.

2.2 Characterization

Biosurfactants can be anionic, cationic, or neutral in nature, depending on the presence of amine groups. The hydrophobic part of the biosurfactant typically contains a long-chain fatty acid, whereas the hydrophilic part can be a carbohydrate, cyclic peptide, amino acid, phosphate carboxyl, or alcohol (Farias et al., 2021; Nikolova and Gutierrez, 2021; Hsu et al., 2025). These surfactants can be categorized into two broad groups based on their molecular weights (low or high). Glycolipids, lipopeptides, and phospholipids are low-mass surfactants, whereas polymeric and particulate surfactants are high-mass surfactants (Silva et al., 2014; Sarubbo et al., 2022; Selva Filho et al., 2023). Figure 1 illustrates the structures of the essential biosurfactants.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Structures of the key biosurfactants.

2.3 Critical properties of biosurfactants in the petrochemical industry

Biosurfactants exhibit broad-spectrum properties owing to their unique and diverse structures.

2.3.1 Critical micelle concentration (CMC)

Minimum surfactant concentration required for effective surface and IFT reduction is the CMC, which directly affects the surface properties and performance. Biosurfactants typically have CMC values lower than those of chemical surfactants due to their complex molecular structures, enabling micelle formation at low concentrations (Chaprão et al., 2015; Santos et al., 2016; Kashif et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2025 Santosetal., 2016). Synthesized by microorganisms to adapt to various environmental conditions, biosurfactants exhibit efficient functionality at lower concentrations and are biodegradable, minimizing their environmental impact (Patowary et al., 2017; Hentati et al., 2019). Figure 2 shows the mechanism of micelle formation at the CMC point by biosurfactants.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Micelle formation steps using biosurfactant (Image prepared using Biorender.com).

2.3.2 Emulsification and demulsification

Emulsification involves creating stable mixtures of immiscible liquids, such as oil and water, facilitated by biosurfactants that reduce the IFT through their hydrophilic and hydrophobic interactions (Kashif et al., 2022; Kugaji et al., 2025). Low-molecular-weight biosurfactants, such as glycolipids and rhamnolipids, excel at emulsification and surface tension reduction, whereas high-molecular-weight biosurfactants are less effective in reducing surface tension but have high emulsification rates (Esmaeili et al., 2021; Al-Sakkaf and Onaizi, 2023). Biosurfactants also exhibit demulsification capabilities for treating waste emulsions, with applications in hydrocarbon degradation and remediation. Biosurfactants break oil-water emulsions by adsorbing at the interface, reducing surface tension, and displacing stabilizing agents such as asphaltenes or solids. This weakens electrostatic repulsion between droplets, promoting coalescence and phase separation, resulting in efficient demulsification. Chemical surfactants, however, often act through harsh solvents or surfactant exchange mechanisms and can leave toxic residues (Kugaji et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2025). Moreover, biosurfactants created by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida sphaerica efficiently demulsify motor oil and reduce surface tension (Luna et al., 2015; Gidudu and Chirwa, 2020). For instance, field trials conducted by Hu et al. (2025) revealed that di-rhamnolipid fermentate achieved 99% demulsification at 50 °C lower than conventional polyether agents. Thereby, reducing energy costs by 15.14% and annual expenses by 31.31%, along with 150,000 tons of wastewater recovery.

2.3.3 Tolerance to extreme temperature and pH

Biosurfactants tolerate extreme temperatures and pH due to their stable molecular structures, such as peptide and fatty acid chains, and microbial thermal stability from enzymes and hydrophobic regions (Mehetre et al., 2019; Kashif et al., 2022; Li et al., 2025). Biosurfactants gain their pH tolerance from charged functional groups, robust bonds, and structural adaptability to environmental changes, maintaining activity under harsh conditions (Derguine-Mecheri et al., 2018; Teixeira Souza et al., 2018; Ram et al., 2019). These properties make biosurfactants valuable in the oil and petroleum industries for enhancing oil recovery under extreme conditions. Moreover, biosurfactants maintain stability and activity from −20 °C to 200 °C and from pH 2 to 12 (de Almeida et al., 2016; Li et al., 2025).

2.3.4 Biodegradability

Biosurfactants are natural and biodegradable. Their molecular structures, including lipids, peptides, or carbohydrates, are metabolizable by microbes with specialized enzymes (Jimoh and Lin, 2018; Kashif et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2021). Emulsan polymerase, for example, inactivates emulsions by cleaving the polysaccharide backbones (Dos Santos et al., 2016). Furthermore, biosurfactants reduce the environmental impact on the petroleum industry by facilitating biodegradation of oil spills (Ali Khan et al., 2017; Selva Filho et al., 2023).

2.3.5 Dispersion

In the petrochemical industry, biosurfactants function as natural dispersants by reducing the cohesive force between similar particles to inhibit aggregation. This dispersion property enables biosurfactants to desorb the hydrophobic organic crude oil compounds from rocky surfaces, resulting in an EOR procedure (Cai et al., 2016; Cai et al., 2021; Al-Sakkaf and Onaizi, 2023).

2.4 Applications of biosurfactants in the petroleum industry

Biosurfactants offer sustainable and efficient solutions to key challenges in the petroleum sector, including oil recovery from declining reservoirs, treatment of oily waste, and transport of viscous crude. Produced by diverse microorganisms, these surface-active compounds enhance microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR), aid in bioremediation of contaminated sites, break down oil sludge, and reduce the viscosity of heavy crude for easier pipeline transport (Gidudu and Chirwa, 2020; Malkapuram et al., 2021; Sarubbo et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2025; Shaikhah et al., 2024). Some applications of biosurfactants in the petroleum industry are discussed below and summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Table 2. Biosurfactants and their applications in the petroleum industry.

2.4.1 Microbial-enhanced oil recovery (MEOR)

With an increasing population, the demand for oil production is also increasing. Oil recovery is influenced by key physical factors, including the mobility ratio (M) and the capillary number (Nc). The Nc represents the ratio of the viscous forces to the local capillary forces, defined mathematically as the product of the fluid viscosity and velocity divided by the IFT. It serves as a measure of displacement efficiency, whereby reducing the IFT and increasing the viscous forces enhances the oil mobilization and recovery efficiency (Manjunath, 2022; Shaikhah et al., 2024). The M is a dimensionless parameter that defines the ratio of the mobility of the displacing fluid to that of the displaced fluid. For M >1, the displacing fluid has a higher mobility than the displaced fluid, or the displaced fluid has a higher viscosity, which can lead to poor sweep efficiency and channeling. To ensure effective oil displacement, it is crucial to maintain M of <1, where the displacing fluid has lower mobility, preventing fingering and bypassing of the oil (Manjunath, 2022; Guo et al., 2022). If the viscosity of water is lower than that of heavy oil, water seeps into the reservoir rock instead of effectively displacing the oil, leaving significant residual oil behind and reducing the recovery efficiency (Guo et al., 2022).

Primary extraction recovers 10%–15% of the oil using natural and artificial lifts. Secondary recovery, including waterflooding and gas injection, supplements the primary methods, increasing recovery by 10%–30% but leaving >65% of the oil trapped due to capillary forces and IFT (Nasralla and Nasr-El-Din1 2014; Samba et al., 2021; Shaikhah et al., 2024). The efficiency of oil recovery (Ero) is determined by the product of the macroscopic (volumetric) displacement efficiency (Evo) and the microscopic displacement efficiency (Edo), which is expressed as follows:

$\text{Ero}=\text{Edo}\times \text{Evo}(1)$

Equation 1 indicates that the overall recovery efficiency depends on the effectiveness of displacing oil at the pore scale (microscopic efficiency) and the extent to which the injected fluid sweeps the reservoir volume (macroscopic efficiency) (Beteta et al., 2023). The EOR techniques address these limitations by employing heat, surfactants, microbial processes, or gas injections to reduce IFT, alter reservoir wettability, and mobilize hydrocarbons (Nasralla and Nasr-El-Din, 2014; Patel et al., 2015; Samba et al., 2021; Shaikhah et al., 2024). However, chemical surfactants face challenges, such as high costs, nonbiodegradability, and environmental concerns.

As a cost-effective and ecofriendly alternative, MEOR leverages microbial activities and metabolites, such as biosurfactants, to improve recovery rates, and is advantageous over chemical techniques due to its nontoxic nature and the use of inexpensive raw substrates, such as waste materials (Bachari et al., 2019; Mohsenatabar Firozjaii and Saghafi, 2020; Haq, 2021; Chen et al., 2023). Biosurfactants exhibit substantial potential in facilitating EOR through four primary mechanisms such as reducing the IFT between oil and rock surfaces, improving the porous media wettability, and inducing crude oil emulsification (Santos et al., 2016; Vishnyakov et al., 2020; Andrade et al., 2024). The MEOR techniques involving biosurfactants use three prominent strategies: 1) injection of ex situ-produced biosurfactants into oil reservoirs; 2) in situ injection of specifically chosen biosurfactant-producing microorganisms into the reservoirs; and 3) application of suitable nutrients to stimulate biosurfactant production in situ (Liu et al., 2020; Vishnyakov et al., 2020; Andrade et al., 2024).

A previous study demonstrated that when rhamnolipids are injected with controlled salinity brine, they achieved 93.10% oil recovery at 70 °C, whereas GreenZyme and brine reached 82.76% recovery at 23 °C (Udoh and Vinogradov, 2021). Similarly, Nazina et al. (2020) isolated the biosurfactant-producing microorganisms, Rhodococcus metropolis and Gordonia amicalis from Russian oil reserves, which enhanced MEOR by reducing surface tension and aiding hydrocarbon bioremediation. In a field trial in Saskatchewan, the injection of a nutrient solution boosted indigenous microbial activity and increased daily oil production by >200%, from 1.2 m³/days to 4.1 m³/days (Town et al., 2010). Figure 3 depicts the mechanisms used by biosurfactants for MEOR.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Biosurfactant mechanisms for microbial-enhanced oil recovery (MEOR).

These findings collectively highlight the effectiveness of biosurfactant-mediated MEOR can enhance oil recovery by 10%–30% compared to the older methods. Rhamnolipids and lipopeptides are highly effective under high-salinity and temperature conditions. However, scalability and reservoir heterogeneity remain key challenges that must be addressed for field-wide applications.

2.4.2 Anti-corrosion activity of the biosurfactants

Corrosion is a major issue in the petroleum industry, affecting material properties and costing >USD 60 billion annually worldwide (Groysman, 2017). Despite the protective coatings on petroleum storage tanks and pipelines, corrosion remains prevalent due to factors such as hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) gas, water accumulation (Speight, 2014; Hassan-Beck et al., 2019). Refineries face additional challenges with desalting units and crude oil distillation units, where naphthenic acid and asphaltenes contribute to fouling and corrosion (Syafaat and Ismail, 2015; Ibrahim et al., 2018). Moreover, corrosion management strategies, including protective coatings and inhibitors, incur significant costs, making biosurfactants a promising alternative due to their ecofriendly properties (Zain Md et al., 2018; Fenibo et al., 2019).

Biosurfactants are ecofriendly alternatives to traditional surfactants, which are synthetic, petroleum-derived surface-active agents such as sodium lauryl sulfate and linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, due to their natural degradation and reduced toxicity (Akbari et al., 2018; Jahan et al., 2020; Mohanty et al., 2021). In petroleum, they prevent corrosion by reducing the surface tension, making it harder for corrosive agents to adhere to the metal. They also form protective films on metal surfaces, chelate metal ions that catalyze corrosion, and exhibit antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities, reducing microbially-influenced corrosion (Kip et al., 2017; Loto, 2017; Pal and Lavanya, 2022; Rao and Mulky, 2023).

The anti-corrosion potential of a biosurfactant produced by Bacillus sp. was investigated and found to be effective for reducing the corrosion rate in carbon steel ST 37 from 5.18 × 10⁻⁵ to 2.7 × 10⁻⁵ mm per year by biofilm eradication and prevention of the attachment of Pseudomonas sp. 1 and Pseudomonas sp. 2 on the steel surface (Purwasena et al., 2019). Parthipan et al. (2018) reported that a biosurfactant inhibited corrosion by an impressive 87%, which highlights the potential of Pseudomonas spp. biosurfactants as a powerful agent to stop biofilm-induced corrosion. Further, amino acid–based surfactants such as N-dodecyl asparagine, sodium N-dodecyl tryptophan, and sodium N-dodecyl histidine have demonstrated significant copper corrosion inhibition, with efficiencies of 81%, 82%, and 88%, respectively (Fawzy et al., 2023). Similarly, the biosurfactant produced by the yeast Starmerella bombicola ATCC 222214 effectively protected metal surfaces against both atmospheric oxidation and seawater-induced corrosion (Selva Filho et al., 2025). In another study by Faccioli et al., 2025, it demonstrates that the biosurfactant synthesized by Pseudomonas cepacia CCT 6659 exhibited a corrosion inhibition efficiency of 58.02% on carbon steel.

Overall, studies demonstrate that biosurfactants derived from Bacillus and Pseudomonas species can reduce corrosion rates in steel by up to 80%–90% by forming protective films and disrupting microbial biofilms, highlighting their potential as sustainable corrosion inhibitors compared to chemical surfactants.

2.4.3 Enhanced transport of crude oil through pipelines

The growing demand for petroleum and the decline in light and medium crude oil resources have led to the extraction of heavy crude oil and bitumen, which now account for >70% of the global oil reserves. Heavy oil has an American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity of up to 20, whereas extra heavy oil/bitumen has an API gravity <10 and viscosity of ≤10⁶ mPa-s, making extraction, production, and transportation challenging due to the presence of asphaltenes, paraffin precipitation, and high viscosity. Conventional pipelining is limited to viscosities <200 cP, and brine increases the corrosion risk (Amani and Kariminezhad, 2016; Fenibo et al., 2019; Uddin et al., 2025). Techniques, such as dilution, heated pipelines, and pour point depressants, have been used to address viscosity and transportation issues but face limitations, such as cost and inefficiency. Recently, biosurfactants have emerged as an alternative that reduces viscosity, aids emulsification, and improves transportability through pipelines, even during shutdowns (Fenibo et al., 2019; Manga et al., 2021; Uddin et al., 2025).

Acinetobacter calcoaceticus PTCC1318 produced an emulsan biosurfactant, which was highly effective for reducing the surface tension of water to 24 mN m⁻¹ and the IFT of water to 3 mN m⁻¹. Moreover, this emulsan biosurfactant succeeded in tube cleaning, achieving 98% crude oil removal at 25 °C (Amani and Kariminezhad, 2016). EL-Sheshtawy and Khidr (2016) demonstrated that the biosurfactant produced by the strain Halomonas xianhensis (B2) significantly reduced the pour point of crude oil and could be used as an additive to improve the flow properties.

Both studies highlighted the that biosurfactants can effectively reduce crude oil viscosity, improve flowability, and enhance cleaning efficiency in pipelines, achieving up to 98% oil removal in laboratory setups.

2.4.4 Environmental remediation using biosurfactants

The petroleum industry generates approximately 260,000 metric tons of waste annually, including the produced water, sludge, and contaminated equipment (de Almeida et al., 2016; Selva Filho et al., 2023; Raheja et al., 2025). Environmental contamination arises from oil spills, corroded tanks and pipelines, and industrial byproducts such as pharmaceuticals, plastics, and cosmetics. Pollutants such as waxes, asphaltenes, hydrocarbons, and heavy metals persist in the environment, exerting cytogenetic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic effects (El Gheriany et al., 2020; Selva Filho et al., 2023).

Bioremediation using biosurfactants is a promising solution due to their cost-effectiveness, biodegradability, and ease of use, making them ideal for environmental cleanup. The following sections explore their applications in bioremediation.

2.4.4.1 Bioremediation of Marine environments

Oil spills have devastating effects on marine ecosystems. The hydrophobic nature of crude oil prevents it from mixing with water, forming a surface layer that blocks sunlight and oxygen (Cherrier et al., 2013; Nikolova and Gutierrez, 2021). The Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 released approximately 134 million gallons of oil, severely impacting marine life. Similarly, the 1991 Persian Gulf spill caused substantial mortality among marine species. Conventional cleanup methods, such as mechanical containment and chemical dispersants, have limitations. Conversely, biosurfactants facilitate oil displacement and enhance biodegradation rates (Nikolova and Gutierrez, 2021; da Silva Correa et al., 2022).

The biosurfactants produced by the strain P. cepacia CCT6659, which was isolated from industrial waste, dispersed 96% of the oil in seawater and increased oil biodegradation by 70%. This biosurfactant also posed low toxicity to Allium cepa crops and freshwater species, such as Poecilia vivipara and Anomalocardia brasiliana, indicating that the biosurfactant has bioremediation applications without threatening plant and aquatic species (da Silva Correa et al., 2022). Farooq et al. (2024) observed that in marine oil-spill simulations, the biosurfactant-based MELs-T dispersant reduced interfacial tension to 0.01 mN/m and had more than 90% of dispersion efficiencies which was comparable to those of Corexit 9500A, while maintaining biodegradability and low toxicity.

2.4.4.2 Bioremediation of contaminated soil

Oil spills affect marine environments, but most occur on land, hampering local vegetation. Soil acts as a sink for hydrocarbons from storage leaks, pipeline failures, and transport accidents (Devianto et al., 2020; da Silva Correa et al., 2022; Raheja et al., 2025). Low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons leach into groundwater or evaporate, whereas heavier compounds bind to the soil and degrade through organic matter. Moreover, factors, such as terrain, climate, and soil properties, influence bioremediation rates (Selva Filho et al., 2023).

These contaminants can persist for years, causing plant stress, reduced photosynthesis, altered leaf structure, and osmotic stress (Arellano et al., 2015; da Silva et al., 2024; Raheja et al., 2025). Human and animal exposure can lead to severe health effects, including cancer, asthma, and liver damage (Kim et al., 2013; Fenibo et al., 2019).

Thus, bioremediation using biosurfactants is a promising soil remediation method. Biosurfactants enhance microbial degradation by solubilizing pollutants, forming micelles, and boosting enzyme activity (Fenibo et al., 2019; Sales da Silva et al., 2020; Raheja et al., 2025). For example, a Bacillus consortium reduced hydrocarbons by 43% in 15 days, whereas P. cepacia CCT6659 achieved 95% degradation in 35–60 days (Silva et al., 2014; Elenga-Wilson et al., 2021). As illustrated in Figure 4, biosurfactants facilitate soil remediation primarily through solubilization and displacement mechanisms.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Mechanistic approaches of biosurfactant in soil remediation (Image prepared using Biorender.com).

Soil washing combines biosurfactants with water to mobilize or solubilize contaminants, enhancing pollutant removal through micelle formation and subsequent treatment (Sales da Silva et al., 2020). Biosurfactants from Bacillus cereus UCP1615 removed up to 87% of the petroleum products, whereas Azotobacter vinelandii emulsified and removed 48.89% of the hydrocarbons in 40 min (Durval et al., 2021; Devianto et al., 2020). In another study, a biosurfactantisolated from Bacillus Sp was able to remove more than 90% of the crude oil from contaminated soil within 48 h whereas only 70% of crude oil was removed with chemical surfactants, Tritonx-100 and CTAB. This study also highlighted that the mechanism of biosurfactant enhanced crude oil removal below CMC value (Suganthi and Bharathidasan, 2023). Biosurfactants offer an efficient and sustainable solution for remediating contaminated soil and water.

Studies have suggested that biosurfactant-assisted bioremediation improves hydrocarbon degradation by 40%–90% depending on microbial strain, substrate, and environmental conditions. The combined use of biosurfactants and microbial consortia significantly enhances pollutant solubilization and removal efficiency, making them highly promising for eco-friendly remediation strategies in marine and terrestrial environments.

2.4.5 Biocidal activity of biosurfactants for sulfate-reducing bacteria

Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRBs) are major contributors in oil-field souring and microbial-induced corrosion, producing H₂S and sulfide ions during secondary oil recovery. Sulfide accelerates electrochemical and anaerobic corrosion, degrades crude oil quality, and increases operating costs by plugging wells, negatively affecting the MEOR processes. Sour corrosion, which is responsible for approximately 40% of petroleum industry corrosion, is especially severe at welded joints, leading to material cracking and leakage within hours (Zuo and Wood, 2004; Korenblum et al., 2012; Parthipan et al., 2018; Sivakumar et al., 2024). SRBs utilize hydrocarbons as electron donors, and the introduction of sulfate-rich water into reservoirs intensifies souring by promoting sulfide production. Corrosion typically begins with the adhesion of biofilms, which mature and degrade metal surfaces (Zuo and Wood, 2004; Parthipan et al., 2018). Biosurfactant injection counters this by enhancing sulfide-oxidizing bacterial activity, suppressing SRBs through competitive exclusion and biosurfactant production. Biosurfactants, specially lipopeptides, are known to disrupt the cell membranes and cell walls of SRB and retard the movement of ions inside and outside of the bacteria, leading to bacterial death. The lipid components of the biosurfactants are effective in dissolving the biofilms. Rhamnolipids inhibit the growth of biofilms and microbial cells during the doubling period of bacterial cell (Sivakumar et al., 2024). Biosurfactants also adsorb onto the metal surface, forming protective films, reducing oxygen/ion diffusion and thereby changing the redox or micro-environment so that it becomes toxic for SRB growth (Faccioli et al., 2025).

El-Sheshtawy et al. (2015) reported negligible growth of SRB in the culture media at 1% Bacillus licheniformis biosurfactant concentration. The biosurfactant also stimulated 16.6% oil recovery after its application. In another study, the treatment of SRBs with a lipopeptide biosurfactant synthesized by Bacillus sp. H₂O⁻¹ resulted in significant cell-membrane alterations and intracellular leakage (Korenblum et al., 2012). These findings emphasize the potential of biosurfactants lipopeptide and rhamnolipid biosurfactants as biocidal agents against SRBs, by disrupting cell membranes and inhibiting biofilm formation, thereby mitigating sour corrosion and improving oil recovery efficiency, particularly in the petroleum sector.

3 Market trends and commercialization challenges of biosurfactants

The global biosurfactant market was valued at USD 4.41 billion in 2023 and is expected to grow to approximately USD 6.71 billion by 2032, exhibiting an annual growth rate of 5.4%. Europe led this market in 2023, holding nearly half (48.53%) of the share, mainly due to stringent environmental regulations and a growing preference for sustainable and biodegradable surfactants (Aslam et al., 2024; Biosurfactants market size, share, trends, 2025). In the United States, the biosurfactant industry is also set to expand substantially, with its market expected to reach approximately USD 1.24 billion by 2032, driven by rising demand across the industrial, pharmaceutical, and oil recovery sectors. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the market has seen an even greater shift toward ecofriendly alternatives, with increasing regulatory support and wider industrial applications driving this growth (Aslam et al., 2024).

Key companies involved in biosurfactant production include Jeneil Biotech, Soliance, Saraya, MG Intobio, Evonik, and AGAE Technologies, which are primarily based in North America, Asia–Pacific, and Europe. Evonik’s new facility in Slovakia is notably the world’s first dedicated plant for producing high-quality rhamnolipid biosurfactants, placing Evonik in a leading position due to its proprietary fermentation-based manufacturing processes (Evonik, 2024). Other companies, including AGAE Technologies, Jeneil Biotech, Biofuture, and TensioGreen, are actively scaling up rhamnolipid production for diverse applications, such as EOR, crude oil emulsification, and cleaning oil storage tanks (Wisjnuprapto et al., 2011; de Almeida et al., 2016; Aslam et al., 2024). Between 2017 and 2023, patent activity related to biosurfactants significantly increased, particularly within cosmetics, environmental applications, bioprocess innovations, and the petroleum industry, highlighting growing innovation and commercial interest (Nasser et al., 2024).

Despite its promising market growth, scaling biosurfactant from laboratory to commercial scale remains challenging. High production costs, largely due to expensive raw materials, inadequate bioprocess engineering, and limited microbial strain improvement, are significant barriers. For example, synthetic surfactants typically cost approximately 1–4 USD/kg, whereas biosurfactants, such as sophorolipids, cost approximately 34 USD/kg. Although such costs may be admissible in high-value, low-volume markets, such as pharmaceuticals or cosmetics, they pose a major hurdle in cost-sensitive industries, such as petroleum. Operational costs for biosurfactant production are primarily driven by raw materials (10%–80%), consumables (1%–50%), utilities (1%–30%), labor (5%–30%), facility maintenance (1%–40%), and miscellaneous expenses (<20%) (Domínguez Rivera et al., 2019; Babu et al., 2022; Muthaiyan Ahalliya et al., 2023). In addition, complex downstream purification and recovery processes further elevate overall production expenses. Other challenges include the limited understanding of biosurfactant toxicity toward environmental microbial communities, their reduced effectiveness under extreme environmental conditions, the potential for microbial-induced corrosion caused by SRB, and the evolving regulatory frameworks that can delay product approvals and raise compliance costs. Addressing these technical and economic challenges will be essential for biosurfactants to become viable, widely adopted alternatives to synthetic surfactants across diverse industries (Babu et al., 2022; Muthaiyan Ahalliya et al., 2023).

4 Advancements and optimization strategies for biosurfactant production

To address these challenges and optimize the implementation of biosurfactants in the petroleum industry, several innovative approaches can be explored, as discussed in this section.

4.1 Sustainable and renewable substrates

Production of biosurfactant depends on the quality and type of raw materials or substrates that the microorganisms will utilize as carbon and nitrogen sources. Conventional substrates, such as glucose, sucrose, vegetable oil, and glycerol, often have certain disadvantages, including high costs, limited availability, and unsustainable extraction and processing approaches. The utilization of conventional substrates contributes to almost 80% of the operational costs, whereas economic viability studies have shown a <50% return on investment (Domínguez Rivera et al., 2019; Babu et al., 2022). Furthermore, production of biosurfactants using such substrates adds to the release of greenhouse gases and pollution. Therefore, renewable and low-cost substrate alternatives are increasingly being evaluated for biosurfactant production. Since microorganisms are the primary producers of biosurfactants, the selected substrates must not only meet their nutritional requirements by maintaining an optimal balance of carbohydrates and lipids but also support proper microbial metabolism to ensure high-yield, quality biosurfactant production. This is where byproducts or waste products from the agriculture and dairy industry become valuable resources (Banat et al., 2010; Vieira et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022; Shaikhah et al., 2024; Hsu et al., 2025).

Each year, approximately 1,300 million tons of agricultural waste is generated globally, contributing to approximately 3% of global greenhouse emissions, equivalent to nearly 1.2 gigatons of CO₂ annually, with this figure steadily increasing (Alan and Köker, 2023). Rather than relying on incineration or landfilling for waste disposal, which exacerbates environmental concerns, this agricultural waste presents an opportunity to be repurposed for the sustainable and inexpensive production of biosurfactants (Domínguez Rivera et al., 2019; Alan and Köker, 2023). Sugars, molasses, plant oils, starch waste, whey, rice bran, fruit, vegetable waste, plant-oil extracts, distillery waste, olive oil mill effluents, wastewater, bagasse, oilseed cakes, straw, and stalks are some of the agroindustrial waste materials that have been evaluate as potential renewable biosurfactant substrates. These agricultural wastes are not only cost-effective but also excellent sources of carbohydrates, lipids, nitrogen, magnesium, manganese, phosphorous, iron, and other minerals, which increase the production and extraction of biosurfactants (Domínguez Rivera et al., 2019; Vieira et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022; Shaikhah et al., 2024; Hsu et al., 2025). For example, molasses, a common byproduct of the sugarcane-processing industry, contains approximately 56% carbohydrates, 12% nonorganic matter, 2%–5% potassium, 3% proteins, and approximately 1% important minerals, such as calcium, magnesium and phosphorous, which makes molasses an ideal substrate for biosurfactant production (Zhang et al., 2021). Table 3 summarizes various renewable substrates used for the production of biosurfactants.

Table 3

Table 3. Renewable substrates used for biosurfactant production.

4.2 Role of fermentation in biosurfactant synthesis

An essential strategy for enhancing biosurfactant production is selecting the most effective fermentation process. Biosurfactants are typically produced using either submerged fermentation (SmF) or solid-state fermentation (SSF). Selection of fermentation type is critical for optimizing yield, as each method creates distinct conditions for microbial activity and influences key factors, such as oxygen levels, nutrient availability, and water activity (Barbosa et al., 2021; Phulpoto et al., 2023).

The SmF process involves the growth of microbes, substrate utilization, and release of the desired biomolecules within the liquid media. At an industrial scale, biosurfactant production typically uses large aeration/agitation bioreactors. The yield and productivity of biosurfactants are influenced by several factors, including pH, temperature, incubation period, dissolved oxygen concentration, nutrients, and aeration rates. There are several advantages of SmF, such as precise instrumentation control over process parameters, including pH and temperature monitoring, dissolved oxygen regulation, and agitation (Barbosa et al., 2021; Phulpoto et al., 2023). Additionally, it simplifies downstream processing, such as biomass separation and product recovery. For example, Rastogi and Kumar, (2021) used SmF to produce 2.4 g/L of rhamnolipid from Pseudomonas sp. F5. Similarly, another study demonstrated that Bacillus haynesii E1 produced 3.7 g/L of lipopeptide using this technology (Rastogi et al., 2021). However, there are some challenges associated with the use of SmF manufacturing biosurfactants, particularly the formation of excessive foam due to forced aeration and agitation. This foaming can result in significant losses of biomass, nutrients, and products, ultimately reducing the biosurfactant yield and extreme conditions rendering the entire operation unfeasible.

The SSF is an industrially attractive bioprocess that involves the growth of microbes on a solid surface that has the property of absorbing and retaining moisture without the requirement of soluble nutrients (Barbosa et al., 2021; Phulpoto et al., 2023). The low water volume in the SSF significantly influences the process economics due to streamlined downstream processing and utilization of inexpensive substrates as growth media, usually agricultural wastes. The SSF is advantageous over SmF because of its ability to overcome the foaming problem (Thomas et al., 2013; Pardhi et al., 2022; Phulpoto et al., 2023). Although requiring some optimization to overcome the challenges associated with heat and mass transmission in the reactors, SSF offers much more economical biosurfactant production. Several studies have reported a higher biosurfactant production in SSF than in SmF. For example, Sun et al., 2019 reported a four times higher iturin production in SSF than in SmF. Similarly, lipopeptide production was 3.5 times higher in SSF than SmF by strains Bacillus velezensis GA1 and Bacillus subtilis ATCC 21,332 (Valdés-Velasco et al., 2022). Therefore, the commercial applications of SSF are gaining more interest due to its low energy requirements, high output yields, and decreased risk of microbial contamination due to minimal wastewater production (Phulpoto et al., 2023; Cano y Postigo et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the fermentation processes of biosurfactants are also challenged by the generation of excessive foam due to surface activity and high agitation and aeration rates, which are usually required to effectively produce biosurfactant-producing microbes. Furthermore, high foaming can lead to product losses, reduce the productivity of the process, increase the cost of production, and reduce product quality (Gudiña and Teixeira, 2022; Leal et al., 2024). The use of physical means, such as mechanical disruptors, along with high energy consumption can also cause cell damage due to shear stress. However, chemical antifoaming agents can increase the costs of downstream processes and purification. Some chemical agents might impede the growth of microbes even at low volumes. Several other alternative techniques have been developed to avoid foaming, including exploring unconventional oxygen transfer bioreactors, such as membrane-aerated bioreactors or biofilm bioreactors. However, due to disadvantages, such as clogging of structural packing, limiting of oxygen caused by toxic product formation, complex purification and scale-up difficulty, these methods are not used widely (Gudiña and Teixeira, 2022; Leal et al., 2024; Hoffmann et al., 2021).

Another technique that has not been explored extensively is biosurfactant production under anaerobic conditions. A study showed that under oxygen-limiting conditions, cell viability and survival were improved for B. subtilis through surfactin formation (Arjes et al., 2020). However, Hoffmann et al. (2021) demonstrated that surfactin production was 20–33 times higher under aerobic rather than anaerobic conditions.

4.3 Advanced downstream processing for biosurfactant recovery and purification

A substantial portion of the production cost for biosurfactants is often attributed to downstream process unit operations, such as cell separation, biomass removal, and product recovery. The process should recover a stable, highly purified, and cost-effective product. Biosurfactant recovery and purification directly depend on the ionic charge, foaming capacity, solubility, molecular size, and if the biosurfactant is accumulated intracellularly or extracellularly (Najmi et al., 2018; Sundaram, et al., 2024). The traditional biosurfactant recovery methods, namely, non-membrane purification techniques, such as acid precipitation and solvent extraction, foam fractionation, and adsorption, face several challenges owing to the high costs of solvents, lengthy processing time, generation of large quantities of toxic waste product, and low extraction efficiency of solvents, leading to product losses and additional fees for purifying crude biosurfactants (Vicente et al., 2021; Jauregi and Kourmentza, 2019; Ambaye et al., 2021). Consequently, it is imperative to develop efficient, sustainable, and economical techniques.

Membrane-based separation techniques have shown promise for enhancing yields, improving product recycling, and reducing waste generation. Ultrafiltration, a widely used membrane-based filtration technique, has advantages over other physical separation methods by reducing shear stress, increasing purity and yield, and enabling room temperature operations-(Jauregi and Kourmentza, 2019; Vicente et al., 2021). This technique efficiently recovers, concentrates, and purifies biomolecules continuously according to their size and molecular weight.

Ultrafiltration leverages the CMC property of biosurfactants, enabling their aggregates to be retained by molecular weight cutoff (MWCO) membranes. The cutoff values are typically 3–5 times smaller than that of the target molecule and are a key parameter for efficient separation because a MWCO that is too low often results in lower recoveries. Additionally, selecting an appropriate membrane material is essential for minimizing disruption, ensuring efficient separation, reducing fouling, and maintaining process stability (Van der Bruggen, 2018; Vicente et al., 2021). Polyethersulfone (PES) membranes are particularly well-suited due to their high thermal and chemical resistance, excellent hydrolytic and mechanical stability, and low biosurfactant rejection, with their negatively charged surface further enhancing the flux (Hotza et al., 2020; Vicente et al., 2021). De Andrade et al. (2016) employed a two-step ultrafiltration process using a 100 kDa MWCO PES membrane to achieve a 68% surfactin yield.

Ceramic membranes are another promising material for ultrafiltration because of their high chemical resistance, broad pH tolerance, thorough cleanability, and extended lifespan, making them economical with minimal replacement requirements. Their application in biosurfactant purification remains largely unexplored (Lee et al., 2016; Vicente et al., 2021).

The mode of ultrafiltration operation is another important factor for optimizing purification operations. The primary modes of ultrafiltration include dead-end filtration (feed flow is perpendicular to membrane surface) and crossflow filtration (feed flow is parallel to membrane surface). Crossflow filtration is usually selected because it enables greater separation and recovery with minimal fouling (Yogarathinam et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). Rangarajan et al. (2014) used crossflow ultrafiltration for the recovery and purification of lipopeptides, specifically surfactin and iturin. Using polyethersulfone membranes with a MWCO of 50 kDa, they achieved a lipopeptide recovery rate of 90.5%.

Other factors, such as the rejection or retention rate and permeate flux, also affect the efficiency of ultrafiltration. The rejection or retention rate is the difference in the biosurfactant concentration between the retentate and permeate after ultrafiltration, whereas the permeate flux is the volume flowing through the membrane per unit of time. Furthermore, parameters, such as pH, transmembrane pressure, and the initial concentration of the solution may affect the ultrafiltration operations. Therefore, ultrafiltration is a highly efficient, sustainable, faster, and economical technique that can recover and purify ≤95% of biosurfactants (Vicente et al., 2021; Ambaye et al., 2021).

Nanofiltration is another emerging technology for biosurfactant purification, that uses membranes with pore sizes ranging from 1 to 10 nm for selective separation based on molecular weights and sizes. This technique operates at low pressure and temperature, ensuring efficient purification while preserving the biosurfactant functional properties (Vicente et al., 2021). Organic solvent nanofiltration has been successfully used to achieve 98% purity of mannosyl erythritol lipids (Nascimento et al., 2023). Although nanofiltration is cost- and energy-efficient, its industrial application is hindered by membrane fouling and high initial set-up costs.

Overall, the integration of low-cost agroindustrial waste substrates with membrane-based separation techniques is a cost-effective and scalable approach to biosurfactant production.

4.4 Genetic and metabolic engineering strategies

The synthesis of biosurfactants depends on the activity of specific enzymes and genes of microorganisms. Their production can vary according to the type of microbe and its particular genetic makeup. The adaptability of microorganisms and their ability to regulate biosurfactant production under several physicochemical conditions is due to their genetic diversity. Furthermore, the chemical nature of a biosurfactant is also affected by diverse genetic makeup of their hosts (Bazire and Dufour, 2014; Song et al., 2022; Chabhadiya et al., 2024). This relationship has led to researchers to analyze various classes of biosurfactant, and the genes associated with them for specific industrial and environmental roles. The dynamic process of biosurfactant production across different species and environments is highly influenced by environmental signals, microbial characteristics, and genetics.

To put this in perspective, the environmental cues and nutrient availability trigger the biosurfactant biosynthesis genes (Song et al., 2022; Lovaglio et al., 2023; Chabhadiya et al., 2024). Environmental changes are identified by the sensing mechanisms, which then enable the microbes to respond to various factors, such as oil or hydrophobic substrates. This in turn activates the regulatory genes that control the expression of biosynthetic genes to ensure that biosurfactant production is tailored to the environmental needs. These genes are organized within a biosurfactant operon, a cluster of genes that collectively regulate biosurfactant synthesis, secretion, and adaptation (Banat et al., 2010; Abbot et al., 2022; Chabhadiya et al., 2024). Within this operon, biosurfactant biosynthesis genes encode the enzymes and proteins necessary for the biosurfactant structure and activity. In addition, transport and secretion genes are essential for releasing biosurfactants into the environment, where they perform surface-active roles in applications, such as bioremediation and emulsification. The final step is environmental release, in which biosurfactants are discharged to reduce surface tension, form emulsions, and enhance microbial interaction with hydrophobic substrates (Danevčič et al., 2021; Song et al., 2022; Chabhadiya et al., 2024). This coordinated system ensures that microorganisms efficiently produce and utilize biosurfactants to adapt and survive under diverse environmental conditions.

Several genes have been identified across different microorganisms that have key roles in the synthesis of different classes of biosurfactants with intrinsic properties. Table 4 lists some of the common and uncommon genes related to the synthesis of different biosurfactants.

Table 4

Table 4. Ubiquitous and rare genes associated with the biosynthetic pathways of various biosurfactants.

Metabolic engineering and synthetic biology are powerful tools for modifying biosurfactant-producing genes to create tailored biosurfactants with properties specific to their application, leading to optimized operations (Danevčič et al., 2021; Lovaglio et al., 2023; Chabhadiya et al., 2024). Genetic and metabolic engineering can help overcome the challenges associated with industrial production by optimizing carbon utilization by modifying biosynthetic pathways, streamlining metabolic fluxes, minimizing byproduct formations, and decoupling biosurfactant synthesis from native cellular regulation (Toribio et al., 2010; Bahia et al., 2018; Lovaglio et al., 2023). By leveraging heterologous hosts, the limitations associated with pathogenic strains, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, can be circumvented to facilitate a safer and scalable operation. The following strategies can be applied to enhance biosurfactant yield and streamline large-scale production.

a. Regulation and Heterologous Expression of Biosurfactant Genes: The intricate regulatory network governing biosurfactant synthesis poses a significant challenge for industrial scale production. Quorum sensing is a key regulatory mechanism that tightly controls biosurfactant biosynthesis and other cellular processes, often leading to suboptimal yields under industrial conditions (Toribio et al., 2010; Lovaglio et al., 2023). Various strategies have been explored to bypass these regulatory constraints, with heterologous expression emerging as the most promising approach. This strategy involves the transfer of biosurfactant-producing genes into non-pathogenic, industrially robust hosts, such as E. coli and Pseudomonas putida, enabling safer and more efficient production (Bahia et al., 2018; Lovaglio et al., 2023). A previous study introduced the rhlAB operon, which is responsible for rhamnolipid biosynthesis, into P. aeruginosa PAO1-rhlA and Escherichia coli BL21 under the control of a T7 promoter. The engineered E. coli strain demonstrated a rhamnolipid production yield of 167.5 mg L⁻¹, highlighting the potential of heterologous systems for biosurfactant synthesis (Wang et al., 2007). Genomic integration of a glycosyltransferase gene from Pseudomonas into Bacillus subtilis enhanced glycolipid biosynthesis and hydrocarbon degradation. After 7 days, the engineered Bacillus–Pseudomonas co-culture increased crude oil degradation from 32.61% to 54.35% (individual strains) to 63.05%, demonstrating synergistic improvement in bioremediation efficiency (Wu et al., 2023). Furthermore Zhao et al. (2021), demonstrated that the overexpression of key biosynthetic genes (rmlBDAC, rhlABRI, and rhlC) in P. aeruginosa SG significantly enhanced anaerobic rhamnolipid production. The engineered strain P. aeruginosa SGhm achieved a yield of 1.34 g/L which was about 4.5-fold higher than the wild type (0.24 g/L). This was further increased to 1.54 g/L after medium optimization using response surface methodology. The strain efficiently emulsified oil under anaerobic conditions, producing 89.4% of oil droplets with diameters between 0 and 5 μm.

b. Optimizing Substrate Utilization for Cost-Effective Production: The cost of biosurfactant production is mostly influenced by substrate expenses, making the use of renewable, waste-derived feedstocks a viable and sustainable alternative to traditional carbon sources. Agro-industrial residues and dairy effluents offer promising low-cost substrates; however, their complex composition limits their direct utilization by native biosurfactant-producing microbes (Kawaguchi et al., 2016; Vu et al., 2020; Lovaglio et al., 2023). To overcome this, metabolic engineering enables the introduction of heterologous transporters and enzyme genes into host strains, expanding their substrate range. For example, Meijnen et al. (2009) enhanced P putida S12 by integrating xylA (xylose isomerase) and xylB (xylulose kinase) genes from E. coli, enabling efficient metabolism of xylose and L-arabinose as carbon sources for biosurfactant synthesis.

c. Cellular physiology optimization: Biosurfactant production can be enhanced by optimizing overall cellular physiology. Various techniques are used, such as random mutagenesis (exposure of a strain to UV or chemicals resulting in mutant strains), adaptive laboratory evolution (evolution under selective pressures), and directed genetic mutations (precise and targeted alterations in the genome to modify traits) (Dobler et al., 2016; He et al., 2017; Lovaglio et al., 2023). Overexpression of the estA gene in P. aeruginosa increases the production of rhamnolipid by approximately four times (Dobler et al., 2017).

Therefore, application of metagenomics, bioinformatics, gene editing, DNA sequencing, proteomics, and metabolomics can optimize the production and yield of biosurfactants at an industrial scale by enhancing existing strains or identifying novel biosynthetic pathways.

4.5 Nanoparticle-assisted formulations for enhanced biosurfactant applications

In recent years, nanoparticle–biosurfactant formulations have gained considerable attention over their traditional counterparts due to their superior stability, reusability, and ecofriendly profile. These hybrid formulations enhance key processes in bioremediation and EOR by improving oil dispersion, facilitating microbial degradation, and increasing hydrocarbon removal efficiency (El-Sheshtawy et al., 2017; Elumalai et al., 2024). In bioremediation, nanoparticle–biosurfactant systems demonstrate high stability and efficiency, with studies reporting ≤84% hydrocarbon removal. For example, Elumalai et al. (2024) observed that a formulation comprising a biosurfactant, a mixed microbial consortium (Bacillus subtilis R6, and P. dendritiformis S2), and iron-oxide nanoparticles achieved 99% efficiency under optimal conditions. Similarly, El-Sheshtawy et al. (2017) reported 90% biodegradation using the biosurfactant–nanoparticle consortia. Notably, these formulations can be recycled and reused, as seen in a study in which Fe–Cu nanoparticles with rhamnolipids retained 59% efficiency even after three bioremediation cycles (Vu and Mulligan, 2022). Furthermore, nanoparticles enhance heavy-metal sequestration, as biosurfactant-capped nanoparticles produce ultra-fine stable particles that effectively chelate heavy metals. This dual functionality not only improves metal uptake but also prevents nanoparticle aggregation, making them viable for wastewater treatment without secondary pollution. For example, rhamnolipid-coated iron-oxide nanoparticles efficiently absorb uranium (VI) from contaminated soil (Sharma et al., 2020).

Beyond bioremediation, nanoparticle–biosurfactant systems have revolutionized EOR by leveraging their synergistic effects in IFT reduction and rock wettability alteration. In one study, a combination of emulsan, a biosurfactant, and silica nanofluids reduced the oil–water IFT by 90%, nearly doubling the oil recovery in a glass micromodel (Amani, 2017). Similarly, Janaghi et al. (2022) demonstrated that using rhamnolipids in combination with N-graphene at the CMC resulted in 24.2% original oil in place recovery and a 90% reduction in IFT, highlighting the efficiency of nanoparticle–biosurfactant hybrids in oil displacement. However, these innovative formulations must meet stringent performance criteria, particularly stability, efficacy, and reproducibility across diverse temperatures, pH levels, and other challenging environmental conditions typically encountered in oil refinery operations (El-Sheshtawy et al., 2017; Aslam et al., 2024; Elumalai et al., 2024).

Integration of nanoparticles with biosurfactants offers a sustainable and highly efficient alternative to conventional methods in bioremediation and EOR. As research advances, optimizing these hybrid systems for cost-effectiveness and field-scale implementation will be crucial for their widespread adoption in the environmental and petroleum engineering sectors.

4.6 Integration of artificial intelligence in biosurfactant research and production

For many years, AI models have been used in the petroleum industry for various applications, such as improving operational efficiencies and utilizing resource. AI-driven models, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs), have used multidimensional data from traditional techniques and have essentially transformed them by providing predictive insights into various challenges and processes. AI is very effective in analyzing the rock properties in the reservoir, including porosity, permeability, and lithology, by integrating data from logs, seismic surveys, and laboratory experiments to develop accurate reservoir models for better yields (Mohaghegh, 2011; Feng, 2020). In EOR, AI has optimized traditional techniques, such as gas injection and water and chemical flooding techniques by predicting the interaction of the EOR agents and the reservoir fluid and rocks (Elkatatny et al., 2018; Nnadili et al., 2024). Furthermore, with the help of sensor networks and monitoring systems, it is now easy to predict, detect, and prevent early signs of corrosion, leaks, or mechanical strains, which can lead to operational anomalies. Additionally, AI plays a pivotal role in the management of wax deposition by predicting the precipitation conditions on the basis of the fluid properties, temperature, and pressure while optimizing the use of inhibitors, heating systems, or pigging schedules to mitigate disruptions. Thus, it is observed that AI is having an integral role in the petroleum industry (Alamri, 2022).

Similarly, AI is providing innovative solutions for optimizing and scaling up the production of biosurfactants. As biosurfactants are microbial-derived amphiphilic molecules, complete control is essential over all the production parameters to achieve higher yields, low production cost, and desired functional properties (Pal et al., 2009; da Silva et al., 2024). AI models facilitate these by analyzing vast datasets for different lab-scale experiments and upstream and downstream processes to provide effective predictive insights and process optimization strategies. With the help of AI, the increase in the yield of biosurfactants can be achieved through various pathways, including media optimization, strain selection, engineering, fermentation parameter optimization, substrate selection, prediction of scale-up conditions, and real-time monitoring of biosurfactant properties (Saraç et al., 2022; da Silva et al., 2024).

ANNs, a nonlinear multivariate modeling tool that mimics the data-processing mechanisms of the human brain, are gaining popularity over traditional statistical models (Ekpenyong et al., 2020). ANNs are based on interconnected layers of neurons in which an input layer receives information, a hidden layer analyzes relationships and interactions among variables, and an output layer provides predictions or suggested values. (Ekpenyong et al., 2020). For example, Sivapathasekaran et al. (2010) used ANN and genetic algorithm modeling to achieve a 70% enhancement in the biosurfactant production by Bacillus circulans MTCC 8281. Through this single-factor-at-a-time optimization strategy, the study identified the critical medium components of glucose, urea, SrCl₂, and MgSO₄. Similarly, in another study, ANN methods predicted that the maximum glycolipid concentration was achieved under optimal fermentation conditions of 32 °C, pH 7.6, 130 rpm agitation, and 66 h (Ekpenyong et al., 2020 ). ANN-GA optimization has also proven to be effective in enhancing tertiary oil recovery by ≤45% by recommending the use of a Bacillus licheniformis-produced biopolymer as a flooding agent in combination with a lipopeptide (1,000 mg/L), Ca²⁺ (80 mg/L), and a pH of 7.2 (Dhanarajan et al., 2017).

Deep learning (DL), which is a subset of artificial intelligence and an extension of artificial neural networks, employs multiple hidden layers to model complex, non-linear relationships within large datasets. Unlike conventional ANN models, DL can automatically extract high-level features from raw data, enabling improved accuracy and adaptive learning for process optimization in dynamic industrial environments (Haohao et al., 2024). The introduction of DL into oil and gas development can be advantageous, offering novel approaches to solving complex problems. For instance, during the exploration stages of petroleum, DL can assist in the in-depth analysis and interpretation of seismic data to better understand the state of underground reservoirs, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of reservoir production. Furthermore, during the production stage, deep analysis of production data combined with real-time monitoring of key process parameters can help optimize well performance (Haohao et al., 2024).

Reinforcement Learning (RL) is another advanced machine learning algorithm that learns optimal decision-making strategies through iterative interactions with its environment. The models interpret historical and real-time data to provide insights that identify optimal process parameters to increase efficiency and yield. RL offers continuous adaptability to changes in feedstock quality and environmental conditions, enabling the system to maintain optimal performance under variable operational scenarios (Butean et al., 2025).

Digital twins (DT) are virtual replicas of physical systems that integrate real-time operational data with predictive computational models. Digital twin modeling can be incorporated into all aspects of the hydrocarbon industry, beginning with site surveys and extending through exploration, evaluation, production, performance monitoring, and equipment replacement. DT can optimize exploration processes by improving productivity, reducing health, safety, and environmental (HSE) risks, and minimizing capital and operational costs, thereby increasing overall revenue. Additionally, DT can enhance digital reservoir models to simulate flow, transport, and geomechanical behavior in subsurface porous media, as well as assess groundwater contamination, thus improving process efficiency and environmental monitoring. The implementation of DT in real-time operations, such as drilling, can further enhance performance by automatically detecting operational difficulties and addressing potential hazards before their occurrence. Moreover, DT strategies improve data optimization and decision-making by integrating multi-source datasets, facilitating predictive analytics, and enabling continuous feedback loops between virtual models and physical systems (Sircar et al., 2023).

Thus, in conclusion, the integration of AI, ANN, Deep Learning (DL), Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Digital Twins in biosurfactant production helps to enhance its yield by optimizing the process parameters, leading to more efficient, less time-consuming, cost-effective, and sustainable methods for scale-up.

5 Future prospects and conclusion

Given their properties (e.g., surface tension reduction, emulsification, demulsification, stability across various temperature and pH ranges, biodegradability, and biocompatibility), biosurfactants are valuable tools in the petroleum sector (Esmaeili et al., 2021; Al-Sakkaf and Onaizi, 2023). Their potential effects are expected to grow exponentially, as indicated by the increasing number of patents on their applications to enhance operations, environmental sustainability, or production of alternate fuels for energy. The global biosurfactant market was valued at USD 4.41 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow exponentially to a staggering USD 6.71 billion by 2032 exhibiting a CAGR of 5.4% (Biosurfactants market size, share, trends, 2025). Sultana et al., 2024, reported that rhamnolipid biosurfactant produced from an oil-tolerant strain, Bacillus velezensis S2 was isolated from an oil contaminated site which led to >50% degradation of convoluted crude oil within 28 days in comparison to a control. Similarly, an field study carried out in the Yingdong Oilfield, Huatugou Oilfield and Yuejin Oilfield revealed cumulative increase of 4,573.82 m² when biosurfactant produced by Bacillus velezensis B6 was used as a oil displacement agent (Chen et al., 2025). REWOFERM® SL ONE, developed by Evonik Industries, is a novel sophorolipid-based biosurfactant produced through the fermentation of sugar beet–derived sugars and rapeseed oil using the yeast Candida bombicola. It is a fully bio-based, biodegradable surfactant that can be applied as a membrane cleaner, hard surface cleaner, and metal cleaner in various industrial formulations (Evonik).

However, there are major limitations regarding their commercialization (de Almeida et al., 2016; Nikolova and Gutierrez, 2021). These limitations include the high cost of raw materials for biosurfactant production and downstream processing, low yields, and, in some cases, extreme foaming. In addition, biosurfactant-producing microorganisms, such as P. aeruginosa, are pathogenic and can produce virulence factors. Moreover, some biosurfactants reportedly have biocidal effects on microbes essential for hydrocarbon degradation. Biosurfactants that are effective in the laboratory-scale bioremediation of petroleum contaminants are ineffective in pilot-scale oil-spill management (Uttlová et al., 2016; Dhanya, 2021).

Therefore, to achieve effective commercialization of biosurfactants, strategies must be aimed at increasing productivity and reducing production costs. Some techniques that can be incorporated include using waste as a raw material for biosurfactant production, optimizing media formulations, aeration systems, fermentation technologies, and downstream processing for increased production, as well as employing genetic engineering technologies, such as molecular cloning and CRISPR-Cas9, to develop hyper–biosurfactant-producing microbes (Wittgens et al., 2016; Nikolova and Gutierrez, 2021). Governments can further accelerate the commercialization of biosurfactants by offering financial incentives, such as research grants and subsidies, to support production scale-up and innovation. Implementing favorable tax policies or exemptions for businesses investing in the development of sustainable biosurfactant technologies can significantly improve their market competitiveness. Governments can also streamline regulatory-approval processes, establish clear public–private partnerships, and adopt biosurfactants in public procurement policies. Collectively, these measures would foster industry collaboration, drive market adoption, and stimulate broader innovation in sustainable biosurfactant applications.

In conclusion, continued research, industrial collaboration, and technological advancements will be pivotal for harnessing the full potential and subsequent commercialization of biosurfactants in the petroleum sector.

Author contributions

OA: Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft. NP: Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft. NN: Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft. SGS: Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft. ASR: Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was financially supported by a KAUST Baseline Grant BAS/1/1096-01-0 (to AS).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abbot, V., Paliwal, D., Sharma, A., and Sharma, P. (2022). A review of the physicochemical and biological applications of biosurfactants in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Heliyon 8 (8), e10149. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10149

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adolfsen, J. F., Kuik, F., Schuler, T., and Lis, E. (2022). The impact of the war in Ukraine on euro area energy markets. European Central Bank. Available online at: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2022/html/ecb.ebbox202204_01∼68ef3c3dc6.en.html (Accessed November 18, 2025).

Google Scholar

Akbari, S., Abdurahman, N. H., Yunus, R. M., Fayaz, F., and Alara, O. R. (2018). Biosurfactants—A new frontier for social and environmental safety: a mini review. Biotechnol. Res. Innovat. 2 (1), 81–90. doi:10.1016/j.biori.2018.09.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Akbari, E., Rasekh, B., Maal, K. B., Karbasiun, F., Yazdian, F., Emami-Karvani, Z., et al. (2021). A novel biosurfactant producing Kocuria rosea ABR6 as potential strain in oil sludge recovery and lubrication. Amb. Express 11 (1), 131. doi:10.1186/s13568-021-01283-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Al Madan, A., Hussein, A., and Akhtar, S. S. (2025). A review on internal corrosion of pipelines in the oil and gas industry due to hydrogen sulfide and the role of coatings as a solution. Corros. Rev. 43 (2), 189–208. doi:10.1515/corrrev-2024-0114

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Al-Sakkaf, M. K., and Onaizi, S. A. (2023). Crude oil/water nanoemulsions stabilized by rhamnolipid biosurfactant: effects of acidity/basicity and salinity on emulsion characteristics, stability, and demulsification. Fuel 344, 128052. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128052

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Al-Sulaimani, H., Al-Wahaibi, Y., Al-Bahry, S., Elshafie, A., Al-Bemani, A., Joshi, S., et al. (2010). Experimental investigation of biosurfactants produced by bacillus species and their potential for MEOR in Omani oil field. SPE EOR Conference at Oil & Gas West Asia. Muscat, Oman.

Google Scholar

Alamri, A. H. (2022). Application of machine learning to stress corrosion cracking risk assessment. Egypt. J. Petroleum 31 (4), 11–21. doi:10.1016/j.ejpe.2022.09.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alan, H., and Köker, A. R. (2023). Analyzing and mapping agricultural waste recycling research: an integrative review for conceptual framework and future directions. Resour. Policy 85, 103987. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103987

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ali Khan, A. H., Tanveer, S., Alia, S., Anees, M., Sultan, A., Iqbal, M., et al. (2017). Role of nutrients in bacterial biosurfactant production and effect of biosurfactant production on petroleum hydrocarbon biodegradation. Ecol. Eng. 104, 158–164. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.023

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amani, H. (2017). Synergistic effect of biosurfactant and nanoparticle mixture on microbial enhanced oil recovery. J. Surfactants Deterg. 20 (3), 589–597. doi:10.1007/s11743-017-1943-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amani, H., and Kariminezhad, H. (2016). Study on emulsification of crude oil in water using emulsan biosurfactant for pipeline transportation. Petroleum Sci. Technol. 34 (3), 216–222. doi:10.1080/10916466.2015.1118500

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ambaye, T. G., Vaccari, M., Prasad, S., and Rtimi, S. (2021). Preparation, characterization and application of biosurfactant in various industries: a critical review on progress, challenges and perspectives. Environ. Technol. Innovation 24, 102090. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2021.102090

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Andrade, A., Mehl, A., Mach, E., Couto, P., and Mansur, C. R. E. (2024). Application of biosurfactants in enhanced oil recovery ex-situ: a review. Braz. J. Microbiol. 55 (4), 3117–3139. doi:10.1007/s42770-024-01515-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arellano, P., Tansey, K., Balzter, H., and Boyd, D. S. (2015). Detecting the effects of hydrocarbon pollution in the Amazon forest using hyperspectral satellite images. Environ. Pollut. 205, 225–239. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.05.041

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arjes, H. A., Vo, L., Dunn, C. M., Willis, L., DeRosa, C. A., Fraser, C. L., et al. (2020). Biosurfactant-mediated membrane depolarization maintains viability during oxygen depletion in Bacillus subtilis. Curr. Biol. 30 (6), 1011–1022.e6. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2020.01.073

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aslam, R., Aslam, J., and Hussain, C. (2024). Commercialization of biosurfactants. Industrial Appl. Biosurfactants Microorg., 395–406. doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-13288-9.00013-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Babu, S., Singh Rathore, S., Singh, R., Kumar, S., Singh, V. K., Yadav, S. K., et al. (2022). Exploring agricultural waste biomass for energy, food and feed production and pollution mitigation: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 360, 127566. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127566

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bachari, Z., Isari, A. A., Mahmoudi, H., Moradi, S., and Mahvelati, E. H. (2019). Application of natural surfactants for enhanced oil recovery – critical review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 221, 012039. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/221/1/012039

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bahia, F. M., de Almeida, G. C., de Andrade, L. P., Campos, C. G., Queiroz, L. R., da Silva, R. L. V., et al. et al. (2018). Rhamnolipids production from sucrose by engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 2905. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21230-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banat, I. M., Franzetti, A., Gandolfi, I., Bestetti, G., Martinotti, M. G., Fracchia, L., et al. (2010). Microbial biosurfactants production, applications and future potential. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 87 (2), 427–444. doi:10.1007/s00253-010-2589-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barbosa, J. R., Da Silva, S. B., and De Carvalho, R. N. (2021). Biosurfactant production by solid-state fermentation, submerged fermentation, and biphasic fermentation. Green Sustain. Process Chem. Environ. Eng. Sci., 155–171. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823380-1.00003-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bazire, A., and Dufour, A. (2014). The Pseudomonas aeruginosa rhlG and rhlAB genes are inversely regulated and RhlG is not required for rhamnolipid synthesis. BMC Microbiol. 14 (1), 160. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-14-160

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beteta, A., Sorbie, K. S., Skauge, A., and Skauge, T. (2023). Immiscible viscous fingering: the effects of wettability/capillarity and scaling. Transp. Porous Media 151 (1), 85–118. doi:10.1007/s11242-023-02034-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bezza, F. A., and Chirwa, E. M. N. (2015). Production and applications of lipopeptide biosurfactant for bioremediation and oil recovery by Bacillus subtilis CN2. Biochem. Eng. J. 101, 168–178. doi:10.1016/j.bej.2015.05.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biosurfactants market size, share, trends (2025). Growth report 2032. Available online at: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/biosurfactants-market-102761 (Accessed November 18, 2025).

Google Scholar

Butean, A., Cutean, I., Barbero, R., Enriquez, J., and Matei, A. (2025). A review of artificial intelligence applications for biorefineries and bioprocessing: from data-driven processes to optimization strategies and real-time control. Processes 13 (8), 2544. doi:10.3390/pr13082544

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cai, Z., Gong, Y., Liu, W., Fu, J., O’Reilly, S. E., Hao, X., et al. (2016). A surface tension based method for measuring oil dispersant concentration in seawater. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109 (1), 49–54. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.028

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cai, Q., Zhu, Z., Chen, B., Lee, K., Nedwed, T. J., Greer, C., et al. (2021). A cross-comparison of biosurfactants as marine oil spill dispersants: governing factors, synergetic effects and fates. J. Hazard. Mater. 416, 126122. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126122

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Câmara, J. M. D. A., Sousa, M. A. S. B., Barros Neto, E. L., and Oliveira, M. C. A. (2019). Application of rhamnolipid biosurfactant produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in microbial-enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). J. Petroleum Explor. Prod. Technol. 9 (3), 2333–2341. doi:10.1007/s13202-019-0633-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cano y Postigo, L. O., Jacobo-Velázquez, D. A., Guajardo-Flores, D., Garcia Amezquita, L. E., and García-Cayuela, T. (2021). Solid-state fermentation for enhancing the nutraceutical content of agrifood by-products: recent advances and its industrial feasibility. Food Biosci. 41, 100926. doi:10.1016/j.fbio.2021.100926

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cappello, S., Genovese, M., Denaro, R., Santisi, S., Volta, A., Bonsignore, M., et al. (2014). Quick stimulation of alcanivorax sp. by bioemulsificant EPS2003 on microcosm oil spill simulation. Braz. J. Microbiol. 45 (4), 1317–1323. doi:10.1590/s1517-83822014000400023

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carolin, C. F., Kumar, P. S., and Ngueagni, P. T. (2021). A review on new aspects of lipopeptide biosurfactant: types, production, properties and its application in the bioremediation process. J. Hazard Mater 407, 124827. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124827

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chabhadiya, S., Acharya, D. K., Mangrola, A., Shah, R., and Pithawala, E. A. (2024). Unlocking the potential of biosurfactants: innovations in metabolic and genetic engineering for sustainable industrial and environmental solutions. Biotechnol. Notes 5, 111–119. doi:10.1016/j.biotno.2024.07.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chaprão, M. J., Ferreira, I. N., Correa, P. F., Rufino, R. D., Luna, J. M., Silva, E. J., et al. (2015). Application of bacterial and yeast biosurfactants for enhanced removal and biodegradation of motor oil from contaminated sand. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 18 (6), 471–479. doi:10.1016/j.ejbt.2015.09.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, X., Li, Y.-Q., Liu, Z.-Y., Trivedi, J., Gao, W.-B., and Sui, M.-Y. (2023). Experimental investigation on the enhanced oil recovery efficiency of polymeric surfactant: matching relationship with core and emulsification ability. Petroleum Sci. 20 (1), 619–635. doi:10.1016/j.petsci.2022.11.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, X., Sun, P., Li, L., Zhou, X., Han, C., Ma, S., et al. (2025). Sustainable enhancing oil recovery in different reservoirs via reservoir adaptability and multifunction of Bacillus velezensis. Fuel 388, 134488. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2025.134488

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cherrier, J., Sarkodee-Adoo, J., Guilderson, T. P., and Chanton, J. P. (2013). Fossil carbon in particulate organic matter in the Gulf of Mexico following the deepwater horizon event. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 1 (1), 108–112. doi:10.1021/ez400149c

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chooklin, C. S., Maneerat, S., and Saimmai, A. (2014). Utilization of Banana peel as a novel substrate for biosurfactant production by Halobacteriaceae archaeon AS65. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 173, 624–645. doi:10.1007/s12010-014-0870-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cubitto, M. A., Morán, A. C., Commendatore, M., Chiarello, M. N., Baldini, M. D., and Siñeriz, F. (2004). Effects of Bacillus subtilis O9 biosurfactant on the bioremediation of crude oil-polluted soils. Biodegradation 15 (5), 281–287. doi:10.1023/b:biod.0000042186.58956.8f

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

da Rocha Junior, R. B., Meira, H. M., Almeida, D. G., Rufino, R. D., Luna, J. M., Santos, V. A., et al. (2018). Application of a low-cost biosurfactant in heavy metal remediation processes. Biodegradation 30 (4), 215–233. doi:10.1007/s10532-018-9833-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

da Silva Correa, H., Blum, C. T., Galvão, F., and Maranho, L. T. (2022). Effects of oil contamination on plant growth and development: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (29), 43501–43515. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-19939-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Da Silva, P. F., Da Silva, R. R., Sarubbo, L. A., and Guerra, J. M. (2024). Production and optimization of biosurfactant properties using Candida mogii and Licuri oil (Syagrus coronata). Foods 13 (24), 4029. doi:10.3390/foods13244029

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

da Silva Faccioli, Y. E., da Silva, G. O., and Sarubbo, L. A. (2022). Application of a biosurfactant from Pseudomonas cepacia CCT 6659 in bioremediation and metallic corrosion inhibition processes. J. Biotechnol. 351, 109–121. doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2022.04.009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dagbert, C., Meylheuc, T., and Bellon-Fontaine, M.-N. (2006). Corrosion behaviour of AISI 304 stainless steel in presence of a biosurfactant produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens. Electrochimica Acta 51 (24), 5221–5227. doi:10.1016/j.electacta.2006.03.063

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Danevčič, T., Dragoš, A., Spacapan, M., Stefanic, P., Dogsa, I., and Mandic-Mulec, I. (2021). Surfactin facilitates horizontal gene transfer in Bacillus subtilis. Front. Microbiol. 12, 657407. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.657407

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

De Almeida, D. G., Soares Da Silva, R., de, C. F., Luna, J. M., Rufino, R. D., Santos, V. A., et al. (2016). Biosurfactants: promising molecules for petroleum biotechnology advances. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1718. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01718

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

de Andrade, C. J., Barros, F. F., de Andrade, L. M., Rocco, S. A., Luis Sforça, M., Pastore, G. M., et al. (2016). Ultrafiltration based purification strategies for surfactin produced by Bacillus subtilis LB5A using cassava wastewater as substrate. J. Chem. Technol. ; Biotechnol. 91 (12), 3018–3027. doi:10.1002/jctb.4928

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

de França, Í. W. L., Lima, A. P., Lemos, J. A. M., Lemos, C. G. F., Melo, V. M. M., de Sant’ana, H. B., et al. (2015). Production of a biosurfactant by Bacillus subtilis ICA56 aiming bioremediation of impacted soils. Catal. Today 255, 10–15. doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2015.01.046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Derguine-Mecheri, L., Kebbouche-Gana, S., Khemili-Talbi, S., and Djenane, D. (2018). Screening and biosurfactant/bioemulsifier production from a high-salt-tolerant halophilic Cryptococcus strain YLF isolated from crude oil. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng. 162, 712–724. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2017.10.088

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Devianto, L. A., Latunussa, C. e. L., Helmy, Q., and Kardena, E. (2020). Biosurfactants production using glucose and molasses as carbon sources by Azotobacter vinelandii and soil washing application in hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 475 (1), 012075. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/475/1/012075

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dhanarajan, G., Rangarajan, V., Bandi, C., Dixit, A., Das, S., Ale, K., et al. (2017). Biosurfactant-biopolymer driven microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) and its optimization by an ANN-GA hybrid technique. J. Biotechnol. 256, 46–56. doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2017.05.007

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dhanya, M. S. (2021). “Biosurfactant-enhanced bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons: potential issues, challenges, and future prospects,” in Bioremediation for environmental sustainability (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 215–250.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dias, M. A. M., and Nitschke, M. (2023). Bacterial-derived surfactants: an update on general aspects and forthcoming applications. Braz. J. Microbiol. 54, 103–123. doi:10.1007/s42770-023-00905-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ding, Z., Chen, W., Hou, J., Wang, Q., Liu, W., Christie, P., et al. (2022). Hydrogen peroxide combined with surfactant leaching and microbial community recovery from oil sludge. Chemosphere 286, 131750. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131750

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dobler, L., Vilela, L. F., Almeida, R. V., and Neves, B. C. (2016). Rhamnolipids in perspective: gene regulatory pathways, metabolic engineering, production and technological forecasting. New Biotechnol. 33 (1), 123–135. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2015.09.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dobler, L., de Carvalho, B. R., Alves, W. de S., Neves, B. C., Freire, D. M. G., and Almeida, R. V. (2017). Enhanced rhamnolipid production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa overexpressing estA in a simple medium. PLOS ONE 12 (8), e0183857. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183857

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Domínguez Rivera, Á., Martínez Urbina, M. Á., and López y López, V. E. (2019). Advances on research in the use of agro-industrial waste in biosurfactant production. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35 (10), 155. doi:10.1007/s11274-019-2729-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dos Santos, A. S., Pereira, Jr. N., and Freire, D. M. G. (2016). Strategies for improved rhamnolipid production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA1. PeerJ 4, e2078. doi:10.7717/peerj.2078

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Drakontis, C. E., and Amin, S. (2020). Biosurfactants: formulations, properties, and applications. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 48, 77–90. doi:10.1016/j.cocis.2020.03.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Durval, I., Rufino, R., and Sarubbo, L. (2021). Biosurfactant as an environmental remediation agent: toxicity, formulation, and application in the removal of petroderivate in sand and rock walls. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 12, 34–48. doi:10.33263/BRIAC121.034048

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ekpenyong, M., Asitok, A., Antai, S., Ekpo, B., Antigha, R., and Ogarekpe, N. (2020). Statistical and artificial neural network approaches to modeling and optimization of fermentation conditions for production of a surface/bioactive glyco-lipo-peptide. Int. J. Peptide Res. Ther. 27 (1), 475–495. doi:10.1007/s10989-020-10094-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

El Gheriany, I. A., El Saqa, F. A., Amer, A. A. E. R., and Hussein, M. (2020). Oil spill sorption capacity of raw and thermally modified orange peel waste. Alexandria Eng. J. 59 (2), 925–932. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2020.03.024

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

El-Sheshtawy, H. S., and Khidr, T. T. (2016). Some biosurfactants used as pour point depressant for waxy egyptian crude oil. Petroleum Sci. Technol. 34 (16), 1475–1482. doi:10.1080/10916466.2016.1204317

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

El-Sheshtawy, H. S., Aiad, I., Osman, M. E., Abo-Elnasr, A. A., and Kobisy, A. S. (2015). Production of biosurfactant from Bacillus licheniformis for microbial enhanced oil recovery and inhibition the growth of sulfate reducing bacteria. Egypt. J. Petroleum 24 (2), 155–162. doi:10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.05.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

El-Sheshtawy, H., Khalil, N., Ahmed, W., and Amin, N. (2017). Enhancement the bioremediation of crude oil by nanoparticle and biosurfactants. Egypt. J. Chem. 0 (0), 0. doi:10.21608/ejchem.2017.1321.1082

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Elenga-Wilson, P. S., Kayath, C. A., Mokemiabeka, N. S., Nzaou, S. A. E., Nguimbi, E., and Ahombo, G. (2021). Profiling of indigenous biosurfactant-producing bacillus isolates in the bioremediation of soil contaminated by petroleum products and olive oil. Int. J. Microbiol. 2021, 1–15. doi:10.1155/2021/9565930

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Elkatatny, S., Tariq, Z., Mahmoud, M., and Abdulraheem, A. (2018). New insights into porosity determination using artificial intelligence techniques for carbonate reservoirs. Petroleum 4 (4), 408–418. doi:10.1016/j.petlm.2018.04.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Elumalai, P., Rajamohan, R., Thashbin Vayal Purayil, A., Menon, V., Pranav Srivatsan, R., Santhosh Kumar, A., et al. (2024). Biosurfactant and iron oxide nanoparticle-assisted bioremediation of soil co-contaminated with hydrocarbons and hazardous heavy metals. Chem. Eng. J. 497, 154677. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2024.154677

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eras-Muñoz, E., Farré, A., Sánchez, A., Font, X., and Gea, T. (2022). Microbial biosurfactants: a review of recent environmental applications. Bioengineered 13 (5), 12365–12391. doi:10.1080/21655979.2022.2074621

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Esmaeili, H., Mousavi, S. M., Hashemi, S. A., Lai, C. W., Chiang, W.-H., and Bahrani, S. (2021). “Application of biosurfactants in the removal of oil from emulsion,” in Green sustainable process for chemical and environmental engineering and science (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 107–127.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Evonik (n.d.). Evonik manufactures first product from world’s first industrial-scale rhamnolipid biosurfactant plant. Available online at: https://www.evonik.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/01/evonik-manufactures-first-product-from-world-s-first-industrial-.html (Accessed November 30, 2025).

Google Scholar

Evonik (2024). Evonik manufactures first product from world’s first industrial-scale rhamnolipid biosurfactant. Evonik Industries. Available online at: https://personal-care.evonik.com/en/evonik-manufactures-first-product-from-worlds-first-industrial-scale-rhamnolipid-biosurfactant-plant-233324.html (Accessed March 16, 2025).

Google Scholar

Faccioli, Y. E. S., França, I. B., Oliveira, K. W., Roque, B. A. C., Selva Filho, A. A. P., Converti, A., et al. (2025). Microbial biosurfactant as sustainable inhibitor to mitigate biocorrosion in metallic structures used in the offshore energy sector. Coatings 15 (8), 937. doi:10.3390/coatings15080937

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fardami, A. Y., Kawo, A. H., Yahaya, S., Lawal, I., Abubakar, A. S., and Maiyadi, K. A. (2022). A review on biosurfactant properties, production and producing microorganisms. J. Biochem. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 10 (1), 5–12. doi:10.54987/jobimb.v10i1.656

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Farias, C. B. B., Almeida, F. C. G., Silva, I. A., Souza, T. C., Meira, H. M., Soares da Silva, R. d. C. F., et al. (2021). Production of green surfactants: market prospects. Electron J. Biotechnol. 51, 28–39. doi:10.1016/j.ejbt.2021.02.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Farooq, U., Szczybelski, A., Ferreira, F. C., Faria, N. T., and Netzer, R. (2024). A novel biosurfactant-based oil spill response dispersant for efficient application under temperate and arctic conditions. ACS Omega 9 (8), 9503–9515. doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c08429

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fawzy, A., Al Bahir, A., Alqarni, N., Toghan, A., Khider, M., Ibrahim, I. M., et al. (2023). Evaluation of synthesized biosurfactants as promising corrosion inhibitors and alternative antibacterial and antidermatophytes agents. Sci. Rep. 13 (1), 2585. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29715-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Feng, R. (2020). Unsupervised learning elastic rock properties from pre-stack seismic data. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng. 192, 107237. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107237

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fenibo, E. O., Ijoma, G. N., Selvarajan, R., and Chikere, C. B. (2019). Microbial surfactants: the next generation multifunctional biomolecules for applications in the petroleum industry and its associated environmental remediation. Microorganisms 7 (11), 581. doi:10.3390/microorganisms7110581

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferreira, I. N. S., Rodríguez, D. M., Campos-Takaki, G. M., and Andrade, R. F. da S. (2020). Biosurfactant and bioemulsifier as promising molecules produced by Mucor hiemalis isolated from Caatinga soil. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 47, 51–58. doi:10.1016/j.ejbt.2020.06.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gidudu, B., and Chirwa, E. M. N. (2020). Biosurfactants as demulsification enhancers in bio-electrokinetic remediation of petroleum contaminated soil. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 143, 332–339. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.05.052

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Groysman, A. (2017). Corrosion problems and solutions in oil, gas, refining and petrochemical industry. Koroze a Ochr. Mater. 61 (3), 100–117. doi:10.1515/kom-2017-0013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gudiña, E. J., and Teixeira, J. A. (2022). Bacillus licheniformis: the unexplored alternative for the anaerobic production of lipopeptide biosurfactants? Biotechnol. Adv. 60, 108013. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2022.108013

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guo, J., and Gao, Q. (2021). Enhancement of ethylbenzene removal from contaminated gas and corresponding mechanisms in biotrickling filters by a biosurfactant from piggery wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 277, 111411. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111411

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guo, H., Song, K., and Hilfer, R. (2022). A brief review of capillary number and its use in capillary desaturation curves. Transp. Porous Media 144 (1), 3–31. doi:10.1007/s11242-021-01743-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haohao, L., Xiang, Y., Lei, Z., and Shuo, Z. (2024). Applications and challenges of deep learning in oil and gas field development. Sci. Eng. doi:10.57237/j.se.2024.01.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haq, B. (2021). Green enhanced oil recovery for carbonate reservoirs. Polymers 13 (19), 3269. doi:10.3390/polym13193269

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harikrishnan, S., Sudarshan, S., Alsalhi, M. S., Parivallal, M., Devanesan, S., SenthilBalan, S., et al. (2022). Production and characterization of biosurfactant from Enterobacter cloacae SJ2 isolated from marine sponge Clathria sp. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 14, 27525–27536. doi:10.1007/s13399-022-03466-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hassan-Beck, H., Firmansyah, T., Suleiman, M. I., Matsumoto, T., AL Musharfy, M., Chaudry, A. H., et al. (2019). Failure analysis of an oil refinery sour water stripper overhead piping loop: assessment and mitigation of erosion problems. Eng. Fail. Anal. 96, 88–99. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.09.035

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, C., Dong, W., Li, J., Li, Y., Huang, C., and Ma, Y. (2017). Characterization of rhamnolipid biosurfactants produced by recombinant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain DAB with removal of crude oil. Biotechnol. Lett. 39 (9), 1381–1388. doi:10.1007/s10529-017-2370-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hentati, D., Chebbi, A., Hadrich, F., Frikha, I., Rabanal, F., Sayadi, S., et al. (2019). Production, characterization and biotechnological potential of lipopeptide biosurfactants from a novel marine Bacillus stratosphericus strain FLU5. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 167, 441–449. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.10.036

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heryani, H., and Putra, M. D. (2017). Kinetic study and modeling of biosurfactant production using bacillus sp. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 27, 49–54. doi:10.1016/j.ejbt.2017.03.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hesham, N., Ibrahim, S., Abdulla, H., and Taher, H. (2025). Biosurfactant production from actinomycetes using agro-industrial wastes and applications in heavy metal removal and precious metal recovery. Environ. Sustain. 8 (3), 499–512. doi:10.1007/s42398-025-00367-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoffmann, M., Braig, A., Fernandez Cano Luna, D. S., Rief, K., Becker, P., Treinen, C., et al. (2021). Evaluation of an oxygen-dependent self-inducible surfactin synthesis in B. subtilis by substitution of native promoter PsrfA by anaerobically active PnarG and PnasD. Amb. Express 11 (1), 57. doi:10.1186/s13568-021-01218-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hotza, D., Di Luccio, M., Wilhelm, M., Iwamoto, Y., Bernard, S., and Diniz da Costa, J. C. (2020). Silicon carbide filters and porous membranes: a review of processing, properties, performance and application. J. Membr. Sci. 610, 118193. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2020.118193

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hsu, C.-Y., Mahmoud, Z. H., Hussein, U. A.-R., Abduvalieva, D., Alsultany, F. H., and Kianfar, E. (2025). Biosurfactants: properties, applications and emerging trends. South Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 53, 21–39. doi:10.1016/j.sajce.2025.04.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hu, C., Ou, X., Zheng, X., Huang, T., Sun, Y., Feng, Y., et al. (2025). Molecular dynamics simulation and field validation of biosurfactant for low-temperature water-in-heavy oil demulsification. Fuel 402, 135986. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2025.135986

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ibrahim, A., Hawboldt, K., Bottaro, C., and Khan, F. (2018). Review and analysis of microbiologically influenced corrosion: the chemical environment in oil and gas facilities. Corr. Eng. Sci. Technol. 53 (8), 549–563. doi:10.1080/1478422x.2018.1511326

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ingsel, T., de Souza, F. M., and Gupta, R. K. (2022). “Biosurfactants for industrial applications,” in Green sustainable process for chemical and environmental engineering and science (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 467–493.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jadhav, J. V., Pratap, A. P., and Kale, S. B. (2019). Evaluation of sunflower oil refinery waste as feedstock for production of sophorolipid. Process Biochem. 78, 15–24. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2019.01.015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jahan, R., Bodratti, A. M., Tsianou, M., and Alexandridis, P. (2020). Biosurfactants, natural alternatives to synthetic surfactants: physicochemical properties and applications. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 275, 102061. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2019.102061

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Janaghi, P., Amani, H., Naseri, A., and Kariminezhad, H. (2022). Accurate prediction of enhanced oil recovery from carbonate reservoir through smart injection of nanoparticle and biosurfactant. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng. 216, 110772. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110772

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jauregi, P., and Kourmentza, K. (2019). “Membrane filtration of biosurfactants,” in Separation of functional molecules in food by membrane technology (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 79–112.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jeevanandam, J., Adetunji, C. O., Inobeme, A., Michael, O. S., Selvam, J. D., Thangadurai, D., et al. (2021). Cultivation of biosurfactants on cheap energy sources using agricultural wastes. Appl. Biosurfactant Agric., 109–126. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-822921-7.00004-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jimoh, A. A., and Lin, J. (2018). Enhancement of paenibacillus sp. D9 lipopeptide biosurfactant production through the optimization of medium composition and its application for biodegradation of hydrophobic pollutants. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 187 (3), 724–743. doi:10.1007/s12010-018-2847-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jimoh, A. A., Senbadejo, T. Y., Adeleke, R., and Lin, J. (2021). Development and genetic engineering of hyper-producing microbial strains for improved synthesis of biosurfactants. Mol. Biotechnol. 63 (4), 267–288. doi:10.1007/s12033-021-00302-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Joy, S., Rahman, P. K. S. M., Khare, S. K., and Sharma, S. (2019). Production and characterization of glycolipid biosurfactant from Achromobacter sp. (PS1) isolate using one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) approach with feasible utilization of ammonia-soaked lignocellulosic pretreated residues. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 42 (8), 1301–1315. doi:10.1007/s00449-019-02128-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Karthick, A., Roy, B., and Chattopadhyay, P. (2019). A review on the application of chemical surfactant and surfactant foam for remediation of petroleum oil contaminated soil. J. Environ. Manag. 243, 187–205. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.092

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kashif, A., Batool, A., Ahmad Khan, A., and Shahid, M. K. (2021). “The enzymatic treatment of animal wastewater and manure,” in Urban mining for waste management and resource recovery (Berlin, Germany: Research Gate), 233–241.

Google Scholar

Kashif, A., Rehman, R., Fuwad, A., Shahid, M. K., Dayarathne, H. N. P., Jamal, A., et al. (2022). Current advances in the classification, production, properties and applications of microbial biosurfactants – a critical review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 306, 102718. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2022.102718

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kawaguchi, H., Hasunuma, T., Ogino, C., and Kondo, A. (2016). Bioprocessing of bio-based chemicals produced from lignocellulosic feedstocks. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 42, 30–39. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2016.02.031

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khademolhosseini, R., Jafari, A., Mousavi, S. M., Hajfarajollah, H., Noghabi, K. A., and Manteghian, M. (2019). Physicochemical characterization and optimization of glycolipid biosurfactant production by a native strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa HAK01 and its performance evaluation for the MEOR process. RSC Adv. 9 (14), 7932–7947. doi:10.1039/c8ra10087j

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, K., Jahan, S. A., Kabir, E., and Brown, R. J. (2013). A review of airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their human health effects. Environ. Int. 60, 71–80. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2013.07.019

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kip, N., Jansen, S., Leite, M. F. A., de Hollander, M., Afanasyev, M., Kuramae, E. E., et al. (2017). Methanogens predominate in natural corrosion protective layers on metal sheet piles. Sci. Rep. 7 (1), 11899. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11244-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Korenblum, E., de Araujo, L. V., Guimarães, C. R., de Souza, L. M., Sassaki, G., Abreu, F., et al. (2012). Purification and characterization of a surfactin-like molecule produced by Bacillus sp. H₂O-1 and its antagonistic effect against sulfate reducing bacteria. BMC Microbiol. 12 (1), 252. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-12-252

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kourmentza, C., Freitas, F., Alves, V., and Reis, M. A. M. (2017). Microbial conversion of waste and surplus materials into high-value added products: the case of biosurfactants. Microb. Appl. 1, 29–77. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52666-9_2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kugaji, M., Ray, S. K., Parvatikar, P., and Raghu, A. V. (2025). Biosurfactants: a review of different strategies for economical production, their applications and recent advancements. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 337, 103389. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2024.103389

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kusuma, S. H., Meitha, K., and Suhandono, S. (2021). Characterization of Di-rhamnolipid biosurfactant in recombinant; Escherichia coli key. Eng. Mater. 874, 107–114. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.874.107

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leal, E., Teixeira, J. A., and Gudiña, E. J. (2024). Development of foam-free biosurfactant production processes using Bacillus licheniformis. Fermentation 10 (7), 340. doi:10.3390/fermentation10070340

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, A., Elam, J. W., and Darling, S. B. (2016). Membrane materials for water purification: design, development, and application. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2 (1), 17–42. doi:10.1039/c5ew00159e

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, K., Chen, W., Sarles, P., Park, Y., and Ok, Y. S. (2022). Recover energy and materials from agricultural waste via thermochemical conversion. One Earth 5 (11), 1200–1204. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2022.10.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leow, Y. S., Abdullah, N., Awang Biak, D. R., Rozita Rosli, N. S. J., and Teh, H. F. (2023). Production of biosurfactant using Bacillus subtilis natto fermentation. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 31 (2), 709–728. doi:10.47836/pjst.31.2.05

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, J., Deng, M., Wang, Y., and Chen, W. (2016). Production and characteristics of biosurfactant produced by Bacillus pseudomycoides BS6 utilizing soybean oil waste. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 112, 72–79. doi:10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.05.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, J., Sun, L., and Huo, Y.-X. (2025). High-temperature catalytic platform powered by thermophilic microorganisms and thermozymes. Synthetic Biol. Eng. 3 (1), 10001. doi:10.70322/sbe.2025.10001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lin, L., Xu, F., Ge, X., and Li, Y. (2019). “Biological treatment of organic materials for energy and nutrients production—Anaerobic digestion and composting,” in Advances in bioenergy (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 121–181.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, Z., Liang, Y., Wang, Q., Guo, Y., Gao, M., Wang, Z., et al. (2020). Status and progress of worldwide EOR field applications. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng. 193, 107449. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107449

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Loto, C. A. (2017). Microbiological corrosion: mechanism, control and impact—a review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 92 (9–12), 4241–4252. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0494-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lovaglio, R. B., da Silva, V. L., and Contiero, J. (2023). Metabolic engineering as a tool for biosurfactant production by microorganisms. Biosurfactants Sustain., 61–76. doi:10.1002/9781119854395.ch3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Luna, J. M., Rufino, R. D., Jara, A. M. A., Brasileiro, P. P., and Sarubbo, L. A. (2015). Environmental applications of the biosurfactant produced by Candida sphaerica cultivated in low-cost substrates. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 480, 413–418. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2014.12.014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahamad, S. S., Mohamed, M. S., Radzuan, M. N., Winterburn, J., and Zakaria, M. R. (2025). Optimizing rhamnolipid bio-surfactant production in a bioreactor using waste glycerol. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 48 (12), 1999–2016. doi:10.1007/s00449-025-03224-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Malkapuram, S. T., Sharma, V., Gumfekar, S. P., Sonawane, S., Sonawane, S., Boczkaj, G., et al. (2021). A review on recent advances in the application of biosurfactants in wastewater treatment. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 48, 101576. doi:10.1016/j.seta.2021.101576

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Manga, E. B., Celik, P. A., Cabuk, A., and Banat, I. M. (2021). Biosurfactants: opportunities for the development of a sustainable future. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 56, 101514. doi:10.1016/j.cocis.2021.101514

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Manjunath, G. L. (2022). “Formation damage in oil reservoirs during CO₂ injection,” in Nanotechnology for CO₂ utilization in oilfield applications (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 147–166.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Markande, A. R., Patel, D., and Varjani, S. (2021). A review on biosurfactants: properties, applications and current developments. Bioresour. Technol. 330, 124963. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124963

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Md Badrul Hisham, N. H., Ibrahim, M. F., Ramli, N., and Abd-Aziz, S. (2019). Production of biosurfactant produced from used cooking oil by bacillus sp. HIP3 for heavy metals removal. Molecules 24 (14), 2617. doi:10.3390/molecules24142617

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mehetre, G. T., Dastager, S. G., and Dharne, M. S. (2019). Biodegradation of mixed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by pure and mixed cultures of biosurfactant producing thermophilic and thermo-tolerant bacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 679, 52–60. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.376

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meijnen, J.-P., de Winde, J. H., and Ruijssenaars, H. J. (2009). Establishment of oxidative d-Xylose metabolism in Pseudomonas putida S12. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75 (9), 2784–2791. doi:10.1128/AEM.02713-08

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meneses, D. P., Gudiña, E. J., Fernandes, F., Gonçalves, L. R., Rodrigues, L. R., and Rodrigues, S. (2017). The yeast-like fungus Aureobasidium thailandense LB01 produces a new biosurfactant using olive oil mill wastewater as an inducer. Microbiol. Res. 204, 40–47. doi:10.1016/j.micres.2017.07.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohaghegh, S. D. (2011). Reservoir simulation and modeling based on artificial intelligence and data mining (AI&DM). J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 3 (6), 697–705. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2011.08.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohanty, S. S., Koul, Y., Varjani, S., Pandey, A., Ngo, H. H., Chang, J.-S., et al. (2021). A critical review on various feedstocks as sustainable substrates for biosurfactants production: a way towards cleaner production. Microb. Cell Factories 20 (1), 120. doi:10.1186/s12934-021-01613-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohsenatabar Firozjaii, A., and Saghafi, H. R. (2020). Review on chemical enhanced oil recovery using polymer flooding: fundamentals, experimental and numerical simulation. Petroleum 6 (2), 115–122. doi:10.1016/j.petlm.2019.09.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mouafo, T. H., Mbawala, A., and Ndjouenkeu, R. (2018). Effect of different carbon sources on biosurfactants’ production by three strains ofLactobacillusspp. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 1–15. doi:10.1155/2018/5034783

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mousavi, S., and Khodadoost, F. (2019). Effects of detergents on natural ecosystems and wastewater treatment processes: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (26), 26439–26448. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05802-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Muthaiyan Ahalliya, R., Daniel Raja, F. S., Rangasamy, K., Arumugam, V., Palanisamy, S., Saikia, K., et al. (2023). “Production cost of traditional surfactants and biosurfactants,” in Multifunctional microbial biosurfactants (Nature Switzerland: Springer), 495–511.

Google Scholar

Myers, D. (2020). Surfactant science and technology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Sons.

Google Scholar

Nagtode, V. S., Cardoza, C., Yasin, H. K. A., Mali, S. N., Tambe, S. M., Roy, P., et al. (2023). Green surfactants (biosurfactants): a petroleum-free substitute for sustainability─comparison, applications, market, and future prospects. ACS Omega 8 (13), 11674–11699. doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c00591

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nair, A. S., Al-Bahry, S., and Sivakumar, N. (2019). Co-production of microbial lipids and biosurfactant from waste office paper hydrolysate using a novel strain Bacillus velezensis ASN1. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 10 (2), 383–391. doi:10.1007/s13399-019-00420-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Najmi, Z., Ebrahimipour, G., Franzetti, A., and Banat, I. M. (2018). In situ downstream strategies for cost-effective bio/surfactant recovery. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 65 (4), 523–532. doi:10.1002/bab.1641

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Narukulla, R., and Sharma, T. (2024). “Emulsions for EOR,” in Advancements in chemical enhanced oil recovery (Palm Bay, FL: Apple Academic Press), 207–223.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nascimento, M. F., Keković, P., Ribeiro, I. A. C., Faria, N. T., and Ferreira, F. C. (2023). Novel organic solvent nanofiltration approaches for microbial biosurfactants downstream processing. Membranes 13 (1), 81. doi:10.3390/membranes13010081

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nasralla, R. A., and Nasr-El-Din, H. A. (2014). Double-layer expansion: is it a primary mechanism of improved oil recovery by low-salinity waterflooding? SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 17 (01), 49–59. doi:10.2118/154334-pa

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nasser, M., Sharma, M., and Kaur, G. (2024). Advances in the production of biosurfactants as green ingredients in home and personal care products. Front. Chem. 12, 1382547. doi:10.3389/fchem.2024.1382547

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nazareth, T. C., Zanutto, C. P., Tripathi, L., Juma, A., Maass, D., De Souza, A. A. U., et al. (2020). The use of low-cost brewery waste product for the production of surfactin as a natural microbial biocide. Biotechnol. Rep. 28, e00537. doi:10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00537

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nazina, T., Sokolova, D., Grouzdev, D., Semenova, E., Babich, T., Bidzhieva, S., et al. (2020). The potential application of microorganisms for sustainable petroleum recovery from heavy oil reservoirs. Sustainability 12 (1), 15. doi:10.3390/su12010015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nikolova, C., and Gutierrez, T. (2021). Biosurfactants and their applications in the oil and gas industry: current state of knowledge and future perspectives. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 9, 626639. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.626639

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nnadili, M., Okafor, A. N., Olayiwola, T., Akinpelu, D., Kumar, R., and Romagnoli, J. A. (2024). Surfactant-specific ai-driven molecular design: integrating generative models, predictive modeling, and reinforcement learning for tailored surfactant synthesis. Industrial Eng. Chem. Res. 63 (14), 6313–6324. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.4c00401

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nogueira Felix, A. K., Martins, J. J. L., Lima Almeida, J. G., Giro, M. E. A., Cavalcante, K. F., Maciel Melo, V. M., et al. (2019). Purification and characterization of a biosurfactant produced by Bacillus subtilis in cashew apple juice and its application in the remediation of oil-contaminated soil. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces 175, 256–263. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.11.062

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Othmani, A., Magdouli, S., Senthil Kumar, P., Kapoor, A., Chellam, P. V., and Gökkuş, Ö. (2022). Agricultural waste materials for adsorptive removal of phenols, chromium (VI) and cadmium (II) from wastewater: a review. Environ. Res. 204, 111916. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111916

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pal, M. K., and Lavanya, M. (2022). Corrosion of mild steel: a microbiological point of view. Can. Metall. Q. 61 (3), 292–308. doi:10.1080/00084433.2022.2046907

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pal, M. P., Vaidya, B. K., Desai, K. M., Joshi, R. M., Nene, S. N., and Kulkarni, B. D. (2009). Media optimization for biosurfactant production by Rhodococcus erythropolis MTCC 2794: artificial intelligence versus a statistical approach. J. Industrial Microbiol. Biotechnol. 36 (5), 747–756. doi:10.1007/s10295-009-0547-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Panjiar, N., Mattam, A. J., Jose, S., Gandham, S., and Velankar, H. R. (2020). Valorization of xylose-rich hydrolysate from rice straw, an agroresidue, through biosurfactant production by the soil bacterium Serratia nematodiphila. Sci. Total Environ. 729, 138933. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138933

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pardhi, D. S., Panchal, R. R., Raval, V. H., Joshi, R. G., Poczai, P., Almalki, W. H., et al. (2022). Microbial surfactants: a journey from fundamentals to recent advances. Front. Microbiol. 13, 982603. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.982603

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Parthipan, P., Elumalai, P., Narenkumar, J., Machuca, L. L., Murugan, K., Karthikeyan, O. P., et al. (2018). Allium sativum (garlic extract) as a green corrosion inhibitor with biocidal properties for the control of MIC in carbon steel and stainless steel in oilfield environments. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 132, 66–73. doi:10.1016/j.ibiod.2018.05.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Patel, J., Borgohain, S., Kumar, M., Rangarajan, V., Somasundaran, P., and Sen, R. (2015). Recent developments in microbial enhanced oil recovery. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1539–1558. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.135

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pathania, A. S., and Jana, A. K. (2020). Utilization of waste frying oil for rhamnolipid production by indigenous Pseudomonas aeruginosa: improvement through co-substrate optimization. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8 (5), 104304. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2020.104304

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Patowary, K., Patowary, R., Kalita, M. C., and Deka, S. (2017). Characterization of biosurfactant produced during degradation of hydrocarbons using crude oil as sole source of carbon. Front. Microbiol. 8, 279. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.00279

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Phetcharat, T., Dawkrajai, P., Chitov, T., Mhuantong, W., Champreda, V., and Bovonsombut, S. (2019). Biosurfactant-producing capability and prediction of functional genes potentially beneficial to microbial enhanced oil recovery in indigenous bacterial communities of an onshore oil reservoir. Curr. Microbiol. 76 (3), 382–391. doi:10.1007/s00284-019-01641-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Phulpoto, I. A., Yu, Z., Hu, B., Wang, Y., Ndayisenga, F., Li, J., et al. (2020). Production and characterization of surfactin-like biosurfactant produced by novel strain Bacillus nealsonii S2MT and it’s potential for oil contaminated soil remediation. Microb. Cell Factories 19 (1), 145. doi:10.1186/s12934-020-01402-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Phulpoto, I. A., Yu, Z., Qazi, M. A., Ndayisenga, F., and Yang, J. (2023). A comprehensive study on microbial-surfactants from bioproduction scale-up toward electrokinetics remediation of environmental pollutants: challenges and perspectives. Chemosphere 311, 136979. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136979

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Purwasena, I. A., Astuti, D. I., Ardini Fauziyyah, N., Putri, D. A. S., and Sugai, Y. (2019). Inhibition of microbial influenced corrosion on carbon steel ST37 using biosurfactant produced by bacillus sp. Mater. Res. Express 6 (11), 115405. doi:10.1088/2053-1591/ab4948

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Purwasena, I. A., Amaniyah, M., Astuti, D. I., Firmansyah, Y., and Sugai, Y. (2024). Production, characterization, and application of Pseudoxanthomonas taiwanensis biosurfactant: a green chemical for microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). Sci. Rep. 14 (1), 10270. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-61096-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raheja, Y., Sharma, P., Gaur, P., Gaur, V. K., and Srivastava, J. K. (2025). Advancing bioremediation: biosurfactants as catalysts for sustainable remediation. Biodegradation 36 (3), 33. doi:10.1007/s10532-025-10128-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rahimi, J., Mojazi Amiri, B., and Abedelmdoust, A. (2020). Effect of some detergents (anionic surfactants) on hatching percentage, larval abnormalities and embryo cortisol levels in zebrafish (Danio rerio). J. Fish. 73 (3), 407–416. doi:10.22059/jfisheries.2020.309342.1193

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ram, H., Kumar Sahu, A., Said, M. S., Banpurkar, A. G., Gajbhiye, J. M., and Dastager, S. G. (2019). A novel fatty alkene from marine bacteria: a thermo stable biosurfactant and its applications. J. Hazard. Mater. 380, 120868. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120868

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rangarajan, V., Dhanarajan, G., and Sen, R. (2014). Improved performance of cross-flow ultrafiltration for the recovery and purification of Ca2+ conditioned lipopeptides in diafiltration mode of operation. J. Membr. Sci. 454, 436–443. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2013.12.047

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rao, P., and Mulky, L. (2023). Microbially influenced corrosion and its control measures: a critical review. J. Bio- Tribo-Corrosion 9 (3), 57. doi:10.1007/s40735-023-00772-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rastogi, S., and Kumar, R. (2021). Statistical optimization of biosurfactant production using waste biomaterial and biosorption of Pb2+ under concomitant submerged fermentation. J. Environ. Manag. 295, 113158. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113158

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rastogi, S., Tiwari, S., Ratna, S., and Kumar, R. (2021). Utilization of agro-industrial waste for biosurfactant production under submerged fermentation and its synergistic application in biosorption of Pb2+. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 15, 100706. doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100706

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ray, S., Shaju, S. T., and Jangid, C. (2025). “Petroleum and oil industries,” in Green chemistry (Elsevier), 293–327.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source (2020). Independent statistics and analysis. Available online at: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896.

Google Scholar

Salam, J. A., and Das, N. (2013). Induced biosurfactant production and degradation of lindane by soil Basidiomycetes yeast, Rhodotorula sp. VITJzN03. Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 4, 664–670.

Google Scholar

Sales da Silva, I. G., Gomes de Almeida, F. C., Padilha da Rocha e Silva, N. M., Casazza, A. A., Converti, A., and Asfora Sarubbo, L. (2020). Soil bioremediation: overview of technologies and trends. Energies 13 (18), 4664. doi:10.3390/en13184664

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Samba, M., Li, Y., Abdullah Naser, M., and Elsharafi, M. O. (2021). Comparison of different gases injection techniques for better oil productivity. J. Petroleum Geotherm. Technol. 2 (1), 1. doi:10.31315/jpgt.v2i1.4009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Santos, D., Rufino, R., Luna, J., Santos, V., and Sarubbo, L. (2016). Biosurfactants: multifunctional biomolecules of the 21st century. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17 (3), 401. doi:10.3390/ijms17030401

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Saraç, T., Anagün, A. S., Özçelik, F., Çelik, P. A., Toptaş, Y., Kizilkaya, B., et al. (2022). Estimation of biosurfactant production parameters and yields without conducting additional experiments on a larger production scale. J. Microbiol. Methods 202, 106597. doi:10.1016/j.mimet.2022.106597

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarubbo, L. A., Silva, M. G. C., Durval, I. J. B., Bezerra, K. G. O., Ribeiro, B. G., Silva, I. A., et al. (2022). Biosurfactants: production, properties, applications, trends, and perspectives. Biochem. Eng. J. 181, 108377. doi:10.1016/j.bej.2022.108377

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schultz, J., and Rosado, A. S. (2019). Extreme environments: a source of biosurfactants for biotechnological applications. Extremophiles 24 (2), 189–206. doi:10.1007/s00792-019-01151-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Selva Filho, A. A. P., Converti, A., Soares da Silva, R. de C. F., and Sarubbo, L. A. (2023). Biosurfactants as multifunctional remediation agents of environmental pollutants generated by the petroleum industry. Energies 16 (3), 1209. doi:10.3390/en16031209

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Selva Filho, A. A. P., Faccioli, Y. E. S., Converti, A., Casazza, A. A., Soares da Silva, R. de C. F., and Sarubbo, L. A. (2025). The application of a new microbial biosurfactant to remove residual oil from electric power plant and to inhibit metal corrosion in a salty environment. Energies 18 (13), 3359. doi:10.3390/en18133359

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shaikhah, D., Loise, V., Angelico, R., Porto, M., Calandra, P., Abe, A. A., et al. (2024). New trends in biosurfactants: from renewable origin to green enhanced oil recovery applications. Molecules 29 (2), 301. doi:10.3390/molecules29020301

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, R., and Lamsal, B. P. (2025). Growth and rhamnolipid production performance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on crude biomass carbohydrates and bioenhancer-based growth media. Appl. Sci. 15 (5), 2531. doi:10.3390/app15052531

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, N., Ghosh, A., Fortner, J. D., and Giammar, D. E. (2020). Modeling performance of rhamnolipid-coated engineered magnetite nanoparticles for u(vi) sorption and separation. Environ. Sci. Nano 7 (7), 2010–2020. doi:10.1039/d0en00416b

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Silva, R., Almeida, D., Rufino, R., Luna, J., Santos, V., and Sarubbo, L. (2014). Applications of biosurfactants in the petroleum industry and the remediation of oil spills. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 15 (7), 12523–12542. doi:10.3390/ijms150712523

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sircar, A., Nair, A., Bist, N., and Yadav, K. (2023). Digital twin in hydrocarbon industry. Petroleum Res. 8 (2), 270–278. doi:10.1016/j.ptlrs.2022.04.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sivakumar, D., Ramasamy, R., Thiagarajan, Y. R., Thirumalairaj, B., Krishnamoorthy, U., Haque Siddiqui, M. I., et al. (2024). Biosurfactants in biocorrosion and corrosion mitigation of metals: an overview. Open Chem. 22 (1), 20240036. doi:10.1515/chem-2024-0036

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sivapathasekaran, C., Mukherjee, S., Ray, A., Gupta, A., and Sen, R. (2010). Artificial neural network modeling and genetic algorithm based medium optimization for the improved production of marine biosurfactant. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (8), 2884–2887. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.093

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Soares da Silva, R., de, C. F., Luna, J. M., Rufino, R. D., and Sarubbo, L. A. (2021). Ecotoxicity of the formulated biosurfactant from Pseudomonas cepacia CCT 6659 and application in the bioremediation of terrestrial and aquatic environments impacted by oil spills. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 154, 338–347. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2021.08.038

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Solomon, A. A., and Vishnu, D. (2025). Integrated strategies for biosurfactant production and scale-up: advances in fermentation engineering and computational modelling. Results Eng. 27, 106853. doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.106853

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Song, Y., He, S., Jopkiewicz, A., Setroikromo, R., van Merkerk, R., and Quax, W. J. (2022). Development and application of CRISPR-based genetic tools in bacillus species and bacillus phages. J. Appl. Microbiol. 133 (4), 2280–2298. doi:10.1111/jam.15704

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Speight, J. G. (2014). Oil and gas corrosion prevention: from surface facilities to refineries. Oxford, United Kingdom: Gulf Professional Publishing.

Google Scholar

Suganthi, B., and Bharathidasan, R. (2023). Comparative studies on role of synthetic and biologically derived surface-active agents on removal of oil from oil spilled soil. AGBIR 39 (3), 531–536.

Google Scholar

Sultana, S., Sultana, R., Al-Mansur, Md. A., Akbor, Md. A., Bhuiyan, N. A., Ahmed, S., et al. (2024). An industrially potent rhamnolipid-like biosurfactant produced from a novel oil-degrading bacterium, Bacillus velezensis S2. RSC Adv. 14 (34), 24516–24533. doi:10.1039/d4ra02572e

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sun, D., Liao, J., Sun, L., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Deng, Q., et al. (2019). Effect of media and fermentation conditions on surfactin and iturin homologues produced by Bacillus natto NT-6: LC–MS analysis. Amb. Express 9 (1), 120. doi:10.1186/s13568-019-0845-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sundaram, T., Govindarajan, R. K., Vinayagam, S., Krishnan, V., Nagarajan, S., Gnanasekaran, G. R., et al. (2024). Advancements in biosurfactant production using agro-industrial waste for industrial and environmental applications. Front. Microbiol. 15, 1357302. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1357302

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Syafaat, T. A., and Ismail, M. C. (2015). Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) of storage tank bottom plates. AIP Conf. Proc. 1669, 020003. doi:10.1063/1.4919141

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Teixeira Souza, K. S., Gudiña, E. J., Schwan, R. F., Rodrigues, L. R., Dias, D. R., and Teixeira, J. A. (2018). Improvement of biosurfactant production by Wickerhamomyces anomalus CCMA 0358 and its potential application in bioremediation. J. Hazard. Mater. 346, 152–158. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.12.021

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thakur, V., Baghmare, P., Verma, A., Verma, J. S., and Geed, S. R. (2024). Recent progress in microbial biosurfactants production strategies: applications, technological bottlenecks, and future outlook. Bioresour. Technol. 408, 131211. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2024.131211

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thomas, L., Larroche, C., and Pandey, A. (2013). Current developments in solid-state fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 81, 146–161. doi:10.1016/j.bej.2013.10.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Toribio, J., Escalante, A. E., and Soberón-Chávez, G. (2010). Rhamnolipids: production in bacteria other than Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 112 (10), 1082–1087. doi:10.1002/ejlt.200900256

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Town, K., Sheehy, A. J. J., and Govreau, B. R. R. (2010). MEOR success in southern Saskatchewan. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 13 (05), 773–781. doi:10.2118/124319-pa

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Uddin, N., Sarwan, J., Dhiman, S. K., Mittal, K., Sood, V., Siddique, Md. A. B., et al. (2025). A review on biosurfactants with their broad spectrum applications in various fields. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 24 (1), B4217. doi:10.46488/nept.2025.v24i01.b4217

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Udoh, T., and Vinogradov, J. (2021). Controlled salinity-biosurfactant enhanced oil recovery at ambient and reservoir temperatures—An experimental study. Energies 14 (4), 1077. doi:10.3390/en14041077

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Uning, R., Suratman, S., Latif, M., and Mustaffa, N. (2022). Assessment on the distributions and exchange of anionic surfactants in the coastal environment of Peninsular Malaysia: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (11), 15380–15390. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-18395-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Uttlová, P., Pinkas, D., Bechyňková, O., Fišer, R., Svobodová, J., and Seydlová, G. (2016). Bacillus subtilis alters the proportion of major membrane phospholipids in response to surfactin exposure. Biochimica Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembr. 1858 (12), 2965–2971. doi:10.1016/j.bbamem.2016.09.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Valdés-Velasco, L. M., Favela-Torres, E., Théatre, A., Arguelles-Arias, A., Saucedo-Castañeda, J. G., and Jacques, P. (2022). Relationship between lipopeptide biosurfactant and primary metabolite production by bacillus strains in solid-state and submerged fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 345, 126556. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126556

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van der Bruggen, B. (2018). “Microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, and forward osmosis,” in Fundamental modelling of membrane systems (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 25–70.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vicente, R., De Andrade, C. J., De Oliveira, D., and Ambrosi, A. (2021). A prospection on membrane-based strategies for downstream processing of surfactin. Chem. Eng. J. 415, 129067. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2021.129067

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vieira, I. M. M., Santos, B. L. P., Ruzene, D. S., and Silva, D. P. (2021). An overview of current research and developments in biosurfactants. J. Industrial Eng. Chem. 100, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2021.05.017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vishnyakov, V., Suleimanov, B., Salmanov, A., and Zeynalov, E. (2020). “Oil recovery stages and methods,” in Primer on enhanced oil recovery (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 53–63.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vu, K. A., and Mulligan, C. N. (2022). Remediation of oil-contaminated soil using Fe/Cu nanoparticles and biosurfactants. Environ. Technol. 44 (22), 3446–3458. doi:10.1080/09593330.2022.2061381

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vu, H. P., Nguyen, L. N., Vu, M. T., Johir, M. A. H., McLaughlan, R., and Nghiem, L. D. (2020). A comprehensive review on the framework to valorise lignocellulosic biomass as biorefinery feedstocks. Sci. Total Environ. 743, 140630. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140630

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Q., Fang, X., Bai, B., Liang, X., Shuler, P. J., Goddard, W. A., III, et al. (2007). Engineering bacteria for production of rhamnolipid as an agent for enhanced oil recovery. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 98 (4), 842–853. doi:10.1002/bit.21462

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Q., Tang, X., Liang, H., Cheng, W., Li, G., Zhang, Q., et al. (2022). Effects of filtration mode on the performance of gravity-driven membrane (GDM) filtration: cross-flow filtration and dead-end filtration. Water 14 (2), 190. doi:10.3390/w14020190

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wisjnuprapto, N. A., Helmy, Q., Kardena, E., and Funamizu, N. (2011). Strategies toward commercial scale of biosurfactant production as potential substitute for it’s chemically counterparts. Int. J. Biotechnol. 12 (1/2), 66. doi:10.1504/ijbt.2011.042682

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wittgens, A., Kovacic, F., Müller, M. M., Gerlitzki, M., Santiago-Schübel, B., Hofmann, D., et al. (2016). Novel insights into biosynthesis and uptake of rhamnolipids and their precursors. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 101 (7), 2865–2878. doi:10.1007/s00253-016-8041-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, T., Jiang, J., He, N., Jin, M., Ma, K., and Long, X. (2019). High-performance production of biosurfactant rhamnolipid with nitrogen feeding. J. Surfactants Deterg. 22 (2), 395–402. doi:10.1002/jsde.12256

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, B., Xiu, J., Yu, L., Huang, L., Yi, L., and Ma, Y. (2023). Degradation of crude oil in a co-culture system of Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front. Microbiol. 14, 1132831. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.1132831

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xin, Q., Chen, Y., Chen, Q., Wang, B., and Pan, L. (2022). Development and application of a fast and efficient CRISPR-based genetic toolkit in Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LB1ba02. Microb. Cell Factories 21 (1), 99. doi:10.1186/s12934-022-01832-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yogarathinam, L. T., Velswamy, K., Gangasalam, A., Ismail, A. F., Goh, P. S., Narayanan, A., et al. (2022). Performance evaluation of whey flux in dead-end and cross-flow modes via convolutional neural networks. J. Environ. Manag. 301, 113872. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113872

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zain Md, W. S., Hairul Salleh, N. I., and Abdullah, A. (2018). Natural biocides for mitigation of sulphate reducing bacteria. Int. J. Corros. 2018, 1–7. doi:10.1155/2018/3567569

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Lai, H., Gao, H., Hu, S., and Xue, Q. (2018). Prevention and mitigation of paraffin deposition by biosurfactant-producing and paraffin-degrading Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain 6-2c. Chem. Eng. J. 335, 510–519. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, S., Wang, J., and Jiang, H. (2021). Microbial production of value-added bioproducts and enzymes from molasses, a by-product of sugar industry. Food Chem. 346, 128860. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128860

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhao, F., Yuan, M., Lei, L., Li, C., and Xu, X. (2021). Enhanced production of mono-rhamnolipid in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and application potential in agriculture and petroleum industry. Bioresour. Technol. 323, 124605. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124605

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zuo, R., and Wood, T. K. (2004). Inhibiting mild steel corrosion from sulfate-reducing and iron-oxidizing bacteria using gramicidin-S-producing biofilms. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 65 (6), 747–747. doi:10.1007/s00253-004-1651-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar