GREENODIN and AVELIFE as a system of sequential restoration of contaminated soil and water
From "cleaning" to ecosystem restoration
Timur LEVDA
When we talk about contaminated soil or water, the very word “cleanup” often narrows the task. Reducing the concentration of the pollutant is important, but it is not enough if, after the intervention, the soil remains biologically suppressed, the water is unstable, and the vegetation is unable to form a complete ecosystem.
Therefore, in the development of GREENODIN and AVELIFE, we offer a different logic: not one drug against one pollutant, but consistent management of the environment.
For soil, the basic cycle can be represented as follows:
immobilization → bioavailability control → microbial destruction or transformation → rhizosphere recovery → plant → laboratory control → technology correction.
For a reservoir, the logic is similar, but instead of the classic rhizosphere of a field culture, biofilms, the coastal zone, macrophytes, bottom substrate, filtration or sorption barriers are used:
localization/sorption → dissolved phase control → biological transformation → biofilter/coastal rhizosphere → aquatic plants → water and bottom sediment control.
It is the connection “water – soil – mineral – microorganisms – plant” that the AVELIFE Institute considers as one system of territory restoration, and not as several independent ecological problems. (Avelife)
But for different pollutants, this cycle works fundamentally differently. It is especially important to separate pesticides, oil products and heavy metals.
1. Why GREENODIN and AVELIFE have different functions
In the proposed system, we see two complementary levels.
GREENODIN is primarily an organo-mineral level: glauconite and other mineral components, an organic matrix, and in separate compositions – biochar and other functional materials. Its potential role in remediation consists in working with the physico-chemical environment: sorption, ion exchange, buffering, structure, moisture and creation of mineral-organic surfaces.
AVELIFE is a biological level. Here the task is already different: support of functional microbiota, transformation of available organic substances, restoration of biogeochemical cycles and formation of an environment suitable for the further development of plants.
This is fundamentally different from trying to “mix sorbent and bacteria and wait for purification”.
The sorbent can sometimes bind the organic pollutant so strongly that its availability to microorganisms will decrease. Conversely, an excessive increase in bioavailability can increase the migration of the toxicant to groundwater.
Therefore, the main concept of our scheme is controlled bioavailability.
2. The first stage is immobilization
Immobilization is needed primarily to stop the spread of contamination.
Rice. 1. Maximum sorption of pesticides in experiments with glauconite rock
Pesticide
Maximum recorded absorption, %
Source: experimental data by Yu.B. Kozub and Yu.I. Fedoryshyn; the values are presented for specific experimental model conditions.
For heavy metals, the sorption potential of natural glauconite is also well known. In Water Research, the dependence of sorption on pH, concentration, and ionic strength was shown for Cd(II), Pb(II), and Zn(II); the relative affinity was Pb > Cd > Zn. (ScienceDirect)
Therefore, the glauconite matrix can be considered as one of the tools of the first stage — reducing the pollutant’s mobility.
However, after immobilization, the work is just beginning.
3. The second stage is control of bioavailability
Bioavailability is not the same as total concentration.
Soil may contain a significant amount of matter, but only a portion of it is in a form available to a plant, microorganism, or migrating with soil water.
For heavy metals, modern assessment systems are increasingly moving to a risk-based approach that takes into account mobility and bioavailable fraction. For Cd, Ni and Zn, for example, extractions with neutral salts can be used, while for more strongly bound Cu, Cr or Pb, other extraction systems are used; direct methods of pore water analysis also make it possible to approach the assessment of real bioavailability. (PubMed)
For organic pollutants, the situation is even more complicated.
For example, biochar is able to reduce the leaching of pesticides, but at the same time change their availability for microorganisms and the rate of further decomposition. Therefore, the effect depends on the type of pesticide, the properties of the biochar, the soil, the pyrolysis temperature and the aging of the material. (Springer Nature Link)
Hence the important principle of GREENODIN/AVELIFE:
we should not strive for maximum sorption at any cost. We need an optimal balance between preventing migration and preserving the possibility of further biological transformation of the organic pollutant.
4. The third stage is microbial destruction or transformation
A fundamental boundary must be drawn here.
Pesticides and petroleum products can biodegrade.
Heavy metals – no.
Metal cannot be “eaten by bacteria” and turned into CO₂ and water.
Microorganisms can change the degree of metal oxidation, bind it to the cell surface, accumulate it, precipitate it in the form of a less soluble compound, or change its mobility.
Therefore, the correct term for metals is microbial transformation, biosorption or bioimmobilization, but not destruction. Reviews in the Journal of Hazardous Materials and Chemosphere clearly emphasize that metals and metalloids are not biodegradable and require either immobilization or actual removal from the system. (ScienceDirect)
This distinction defines three different technological routes.
5. Route No. 1 — pesticides
Stage A. Immobilization
At the first stage, it is necessary to reduce pollutant leaching.
The mineral phase of GREENODIN, primarily glauconite, can potentially function as a primary sorption barrier.
For some pesticides, the sorption capacity of glauconite rock has already been shown in our own model experiments.
If necessary, this function can be reinforced with a carbon phase. International reviews show that biochar is able to bind a wide range of organic pollutants in soil and water due to pores, hydrophobic surfaces and functional groups. (ScienceDirect)
Stage B. Control of bioavailability
After reducing the acute risk, it is necessary to determine not only the total pesticide residue, but:
- concentration in pore water;
- desorbed fraction;
- leaching potential;
- accessibility for microorganisms;
- availability for plants.
And it is here that the dosage of the sorption matrix must be adjusted.
Stage B. Microbial destruction
Various bacteria and fungi are able to carry out hydrolysis, oxidation, reduction, dealkylation and other stages of pesticide conversion.
A 2024 review in Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering describes the role of microbial enzymes in pesticide degradation: initial redox and hydrolytic reactions can increase the reactivity of the molecule, followed by subsequent conversion steps to less toxic products. (Springer Nature Link)
For the AVELIFE system, this means that the microbial module should be selected not simply as “beneficial microflora”, but for a specific contaminant.
Agronomic bacteria can help restore soil functions, but degradation of a particular herbicide, insecticide or fungicide requires the proven metabolic capacity of the respective consortium.
Stage G. Rhizosphere
The plant radically changes the biology of the soil around the root.
Root exudates provide readily available carbon to microorganisms, and microbial density and metabolic activity in the rhizosphere can be significantly different than in soil without plants.
That is why modern science considers rhizoremediation as a separate tool for pesticide-contaminated soils. Plants and their microbiota can jointly contribute to the transformation of organic pollutants. (MDPI)
Stage D. Plant
I would not use food culture in the early stages of remediation.
First, covering, technical or specially selected phytoremediation plants are needed, capable of:
- tolerate residual toxicity;
- to form a significant root mass;
- support the rhizosphere biota;
- limit erosion and leaching;
- if necessary, absorb part of the substances.
Transition to food use is possible only after laboratory confirmation of safety.
Stage E. Laboratory control
For pesticides, it is necessary to control not only the initial substance, but also the products of its transformation.
Depending on the compound, GC-MS/MS or LC-MS/MS are used.
The endpoint of remediation is not simply “the concentration has become lower”.
It is necessary to confirm:
total residue + mobile fraction + metabolites + phytotoxicity + absence of unacceptable migration.
6. How this system is transferred to water when contaminated with pesticides
For water, the approach can be even more technologically driven:
sorption barrier → bioreactor/biofilm → plant block → cleaner water.
Modern reviews of constructed wetlands systems show that pesticides in water can be removed simultaneously due to substrate sorption, microbial degradation, photolysis, hydrolysis, and plant uptake. In field wetland systems, efficiency significantly depends on hydraulic retention time, temperature, vegetation and substrate composition. (Nature)
It is here that the use of glauconite is promising not only as an introduced material, but as part of a reactive filter or bottom mineral matrix.
7. Route No. 2 — petroleum products
Petroleum products require a different strategy because they are a complex mixture of alkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, tars and other components.
The main task here is not simply binding oil, but gradually converting it into a form accessible to destructors, without uncontrolled spread.
A systematic review in Chemosphere identifies microbial bioremediation as one of the key areas for dealing with oil spills. (ScienceDirect)
Stage A. Localization and immobilization
In case of emergency pollution, it is first necessary to stop the horizontal and vertical spread.
In the soil, these can be sorption materials and structural recultivants.
In water, there are sorption barriers, separation of the free oil phase and prevention of its further spread.
GREENODIN in this model should not be considered as a means of emergency collection of free oil, but as a possible component of the next stage of restoration of the soil matrix after localization of the main contamination.
Stage B. Controlled increase in bioavailability
Oil is hydrophobic.
It is difficult for microorganisms to work with large hydrophobic aggregates. This is where biosurfactants become important.
They are able to emulsify or solubilize hydrocarbons and increase the contact area between the bacterial cell and the substrate. For aquatic systems, current research also considers biosurfactants as one way to increase the availability of hydrocarbons to decomposers. (ScienceDirect)
But here again a balance is needed.
Excessive oil desorption can increase the mobility of contamination. Therefore, first it is localized, and only then the bioavailability is purposefully increased in the zone of biological processing.
Stage B. Microbial destruction
For hydrocarbons, there is already a well-studied set of microorganisms, including representatives of Rhodococcus, Gordonia, Pseudomonas and other genera.
The Ukrainian experiment of Banya, Karpenko, Pokynbroda, Karpenko and Lubenets, published in BioTechnologia in 2025, is particularly interesting for our direction.
Oil-contaminated clay soil with an initial oil content of 9.5% was treated with a consortium of Rhodococcus sp. + Gordonia sp., rhamnolipid biocomplex, and in some variants CaO₂ and plants.
In 1.5 years, residual contamination was reduced to approximately 1.3–1.6% in the most effective variants, soil dehydrogenase activity in some variants increased by 2.2–2.7 times, and phytotoxicity significantly decreased. (PubMed Central (PMC))
Rice. 2. An example of the result of complex bioremediation of oil pollution
Reduction of oil pollution of the soil
Initial level and lowest reported residual level after comprehensive bioremediation
Banya et al., BioTechnologia, 2025. Data refer to a specific 1.5-year experiment
This result illustrates very well the main idea: not a single bacterium can be more effective, but a step-by-step system of “destructors + bioavailability control + oxygen regime + plants”.
Stage G. Restoration of the rhizosphere
After a significant reduction in hydrocarbon content, the territory is not necessarily ready for normal use.
It is necessary to restore microbial activity, aggregate structure, porosity and root environment.
It is at this stage that GREENODIN can get another function: not to “destroy the oil”, but to restore the physico-chemical conditions in which the biota and the plant can function again.
Stage D. Plant
In the mentioned experiment, field peas and sorghum-Sudanese hybrid were used, and the combination of plants and destructive microorganisms gave a positive result. (Biotechnology)
At this stage, the plant already performs several functions: it supports the rhizosphere, structures the soil, provides the microbiota with root exudates and gradually returns the system to a biological state.
Stage E. Laboratory
For petroleum products, one “TPH” indicator is not enough.
It is advisable to control:
- total content of petroleum hydrocarbons;
- separate factions;
- BTEX;
- PAHs;
- mobile fractions in water;
- phytotoxicity;
- dehydrogenase/respiratory activity;
- microbiota changes.
Only when the chemical reduction of pollution is accompanied by the restoration of biological parameters, we can talk about real remediation, and not just the reduction of one laboratory number.
8. Petroleum products in water
Mechanical separation of the free oil phase is always the first task for a reservoir.
A biological system should not replace emergency oil collection.
And after removing the main mass, it is possible:
sorption aftertreatment → biosurfactants → biofilm/microbial consortium → aeration → coastal bioremediation.
Current literature shows the promising use of biosurfactants in hydrocarbon-contaminated groundwater, but at the same time emphasizes that chemical surfactants can increase toxicity or turbidity, so biological systems require optimization of the surfactant/oil ratio and application regime. (ScienceDirect)
9. Route No. 3 — heavy metals
This is where most errors occur in popular descriptions of bioremediation.
Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Cr, Ni, Hg and other metals cannot be biologically decomposed into harmless molecules.
They are chemical elements.
Therefore, the final task can be only one of three:
immobilize → remove → change chemical form to less mobile/toxic.
Stage A. Immobilization
Glauconite has a particularly strong scientific rationale here.
Natural glauconites were studied for Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu and other ions. Sorption is determined by pH, ionic strength, concentration and the nature of the mineral itself. (ScienceDirect)
In this case, GREENODIN can be considered as a potential mineral-organic stabilizer, but it is for remedial use that separate tests of a specific formulation are required.
Stage B. Control of bioavailability
For metals, this is perhaps even more important than the total content.
If total Pb remains the same, but its soluble and plant-available fraction is radically reduced, the ecological risk may also decrease.
That is why modern science distinguishes between total metal and phytoavailable/bioavailable metal. (PubMed)
Stage B. Not destruction, but biotransformation
Bacteria, fungi and algae can:
- bind ions on the cell surface;
- accumulate them;
- change the degree of oxidation;
- stimulate sedimentation;
- form less soluble compounds.
Modern reviews of biological treatment of metal-contaminated waters separately highlight biosorption, bioaccumulation and biofiltration as promising mechanisms. (ScienceDirect)
Stage G. Rhizosphere
Here, the task of microorganisms can be of two types.
For phytoextraction, they can contribute to the availability of the metal to the plant.
For phytostabilization, on the contrary, help retain the metal in the root zone and limit its transition to above-ground biomass.
These two tasks cannot be mixed.
A review in the Journal of Hazardous Materials puts it bluntly: mobilizing additives can enhance metal recovery, but at the same time pose a risk of leaching; immobilizing materials reduce this risk but require long-term stability control. (ScienceDirect)
Stage D. Plant
Two different strategies are possible.
Phytostabilization – the plant stabilizes the surface, the root system limits erosion, and the metal remains mainly in the soil in a less mobile form.
Phytoextraction — the metal passes into plant biomass, which must be collected and properly disposed of or processed.
In the latter case, the plant becomes no longer a “harvest”, but a carrier of the removed pollutant. Reviews of phytoremediation emphasize that the subsequent handling of contaminated biomass is a mandatory part of the technology. (ScienceDirect)
Stage E. Laboratory control
For metals, it is necessary to control:
total → soluble/leachable → exchangeable → phytoavailable → plant tissue → groundwater.
Long-term control is especially important.
A metal immobilized today should not become mobile again five years after a change in pH, redox potential, or organic matter.
10. Heavy metals in water
For water, I see a sequential filtration-biological approach as particularly promising:
glauconite/mineral sorbent → biosorption layer → plants/constructed wetland → bottom sediment control.
Natural glauconite has long been studied in batch and column systems for the extraction of Pb, Zn, Cd and ammonium. (ScienceDirect)
Modern constructed wetlands can combine substrate, microorganisms and aquatic macrophytes. Reviews show that important processes for metals are substrate sorption, deposition, microbial transformations, and accumulation in plants; however, recent studies emphasize that immobilization in the substrate and bottom sediments is often more important than plant uptake itself. (ScienceDirect)
This is very close to the model that should be developed in AVELIFE:
mineral substrate + biology + plant, not one “magical” agent.
11. Three pollutants — three different logics
| Stage | Pesticides | Petroleum products | Heavy metals |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Immobilization | Glauconite, biochar, mineral matrix | Sorbents used after free oil removal | Glauconite, biochar, mineral stabilizers |
| 2. Bioavailability | Controlled desorption for degraders | Biosurfactants enhance bioavailability | Primarily reduction of bioavailability or controlled mobilization |
| 3. Microbial process | Biodegradation | Biodegradation into simpler compounds | Non-degradative processes: biosorption, redox transformation, precipitation |
| 4. Rhizosphere | Rhizodegradation | Rhizoremediation | Phytostabilization or phytoextraction |
| 5. Plant | Microbiota support, partial transformation | Support for degradation and structure | Accumulation or stabilization |
| 6. Final control | Parent compound + metabolites | TPH + PAH/BTEX + toxicity | Total + bioavailable + plant + water |
| What needs to disappear? | Organic molecule | Hydrocarbons | The metal does not disappear—it must be bound or removed |
It is this table, in my opinion, that should become the fundamental principle of the future AVELIFE remediation line.
12. GREENODIN and AVELIFE in the water-soil cycle
Traditionally, soil and water bodies are considered separately.
But the polluter does not know such a limit.
Precipitation washes the substance out of the soil. Groundwater carries it to the reservoir. Bottom sediments can accumulate pollution, and when conditions change, they can become its secondary source.
Therefore, in my opinion, the future technological cycle should look like this:
SOURCE OF POLLUTION
LOCALIZATION
GREENODIN / MINERAL-ORGANIC BARRIER
MOBILE FRACTION CONTROL
AVELIFE / SPECIALIZED MICROBIOTA
RHIZOSPHERE OR BIOFILM
PLANT BLOCK
SOIL + WATER + BOTTOM DEPOSITS
LABORATORY CONTROL
CORRECTION AND REPEAT CYCLE AS NEEDED
That is why it is logical to integrate the cleaning of reservoirs, coastal zones and adjacent lands into single projects. Modern constructed wetlands already demonstrate the effectiveness of such a combination of physical, geochemical, microbiological and plant processes. According to a global analysis of 335 field systems of hybrid constructed wetlands, the median extraction values were 76% of organic matter, 63% of nitrogen and 72% of phosphorus; efficiency was determined by design, temperature, hydraulic mode and load. (Nature)
These are not direct numbers for GREENODIN or AVELIFE — but they are a strong international validation of the system principle itself.
13. What a real GREENODIN + AVELIFE pilot should be like
At the next stage, I propose to abandon a simple experiment:
“we processed it – we looked at how much was left.”
A control system is needed.
| Version | What is applied | What we demonstrate |
|---|---|---|
| К0 | Nothing | Natural self-purification |
| К1 | GREENODIN / mineral matrix | Immobilization |
| К2 | AVELIFE / microbial module | Biological transformation |
| К3 | GREENODIN + AVELIFE | Synergy |
| К4 | GREENODIN + AVELIFE + plant | Complete rhizosphere cycle |
| К5 | Specialized technology for the specific contaminant | Optimized system |
Measurements should be made at least at the following points:
0 → 7 → 30 → 90 → 180 → 365 days, and for long-term immobilization of metals — even later.
For reservoirs, it is necessary to additionally take samples:
water → suspended matter → bottom sediments → plants.
Then we will be able to see not only the decrease in concentration, but the route of the pollutant through the system.
14. The criterion of success is not "zero", but the recovered function
I think it is important to change one more approach.
In a natural system, it is not always realistic or necessary to obtain an absolute chemical zero.
For a pesticide, the goal may be to break down the parent substance and dangerous metabolites to a safe level.
For petroleum products, reaching the regulatory concentration simultaneously with the disappearance of phytotoxicity.
For metal — reduction of the mobile and bioavailable fraction or its physical removal from the system.
And after that should return:
microbial activity → vegetation → root system → structure → water regime → biogeochemical cycles.
Only then can the site be considered not just cultivated, but restored.
Conclusion.
GREENODIN and AVELIFE should be developed not as two separate products, but as two functional levels of a single technology.
GREENODIN can form a controlled mineral-organic matrix, work with sorption, structure and mobility of substances.
AVELIFE includes a biological stage, but with a destructor or transformation module specially selected for the pollutant.
After that, the rhizosphere and the plant complete the biological restoration of the system.
And the laboratory controls not the marketing claim about “cleansing”, but the real change:
concentration → mobility → bioavailability → toxicity → biological function.
For pesticides, the ultimate goal is controlled sorption and biodegradation.
For petroleum products — localization, increased availability for destructors, biodegradation and restoration of the rhizosphere.
For heavy metals, immobilization or extraction, since it is impossible to microbially “destroy” a chemical element.
For water, the same processes can be organized in space as a sorption substrate → biofilm → macrophytes → bottom sediments → laboratory control.
Therefore, I see the perspective of GREENODIN and AVELIFE more widely than fertilizers or a separate biological preparation:
it is a potential platform for the sequential regeneration of the “soil-water-microbiota-plant” system, in which technology does not replace nature, but helps restore its own functioning mechanisms.
It is this hypothesis that must now be proven by a series of well-planned laboratory, column, vegetation and field experiments.