Advertisement

International Microbiology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 41–48 | Cite as

Implication of highly metal-resistant microalgal-bacterial co-cultures for the treatment of simulated metal-loaded wastewaters

  • Saima Batool
  • Ali HussainEmail author
  • Muhammad Anwar Iqbal
  • Arshad Javid
  • Waqas Ali
  • Syed Mohsin Bukhari
  • Muhammad Akmal
  • Javed Iqbal Qazi
Original Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Microalgal-bacterial co-cultures were employed for the treatment of artificially prepared metal-rich wastewaters in this study. For the purpose, highly metal-resistant microalgal and bacterial species were isolated from a leading wastewater channel flowing through Lahore, Pakistan, and characterized at the molecular level. The microbial identities were proved after BLAST analysis. The microalgal (Chlorella vulgaris-BH1) and bacterial (Exiguobacterium profundum-BH2) species were then co-cultured in five different proportions. Five different proportions of potentially mutualistic microbial co-cultures (comprising of microalgal to bacterial cells in ratios of 1:3, 2:3, 3:3, 3:1, and 3:2) prepared thus were employed to remediate artificially prepared metal-loaded wastewaters. Three randomly selected toxic metals (Cu, Cr, and Ni) were used in this study to prepare metal-rich wastewaters. The microalgal-bacterial co-cultures were then exposed independently to the wastewaters containing 100 ppm of each of the above mentioned metals. The inoculated wastewaters were incubated maximally for a period of 15 days. The metal uptake was noted periodically after every 5 days. The results of the present study depicted that maximally about 78.7, 56.4, and 80% of Cu, Cr, and Ni were removed, respectively after an incubation period of 15 days. The microbial co-culture consisting of microalgal to bacterial cells in a ratio of 3:1 showed the highest remedial potential. The findings of the present study will be helpful in developing effective microalgal-bacterial consortia for economical, efficient, and environment-friendly rehabilitation of the polluted sites.

Keywords

Biosorption Green remediation Metallic pollutants Microalgal-bacterial consortium Microbial co-culturing Wastewater treatment 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Adams GO, Tawari-Fufeyin P, Igelenyah E, Odukoya E (2014) Assessment of heavy metals bioremediation potential of microbial consortia from poultry litter and spent oil contaminated site. Int J Environ Bioremed Biodegrad 2:84–92Google Scholar
  2. Aguado J, Arsuaga JM, Arencibia A, Lindo M, Gascon V (2009) Aqueous heavy metals removal by adsorption on amine-functionalized mesoporous silica. J Hazard Mater 163:213–221Google Scholar
  3. Akpor OB, Muchie M (2010) Remediation of heavy metals in drinking water and wastewater treatment systems: processes and applications. Int J Phys Sci 5:1807–1817Google Scholar
  4. Aslam S, Hussain A, Qazi JI (2016) Dual action of chromiumreducing and nitrogen-fixing Bacillus megaterium-ASNF3 for improved agro-rehabilitation of chromium-stressed soils. 3 Biotech 6(2):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0443-5 Google Scholar
  5. Aslam S, Hussain A, Qazi JI (2017) Production of cellulase by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens-ASK11 under high chromium stress. Waste Biomass Valor:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0046-3
  6. Aslam S, Qazi JI, Hussain A, Ali S (2014) Vertical zonation and seed germination indices of chromium resistant cellulolytic and nitrogen fixing bacteria from a chronically metal exposed land area. Pak J Bot 46:2257–2268Google Scholar
  7. Becker M, Edwards S, Massey RI (2010) Toxic chemicals in toys and children’s products: limitations of current responses and recommendations for government and industry. Environ Sci Technol 44(21):7986–7991Google Scholar
  8. Bhatti MT, Latif M (2011) Assessment of water quality of a river using an indexing approach during the low flow season. Irrig Drain 60:103–114Google Scholar
  9. Bordel S, Guieysse B, Munoz R (2009) A mechanistic model for the reclamation of industrial wastewaters using algal bacterial photobioreactors. Environ Sci Technol 43:3200–3207Google Scholar
  10. Campbell PGC (2006) Cadmium-a priority pollutant. Environ Chem 3:387–388Google Scholar
  11. Cydzik-Kwiatkowska A, Zielińska M (2016) Bacterial communities in full-scale wastewater treatment systems. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 32:1–8Google Scholar
  12. Dvorak DH, Hedin RS, Edenborn HM, Mclntire PE (1992) Treatment of metal-contaminated water using bacterial sulfate reduction: results from pilot-scale reactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 40:609–616Google Scholar
  13. El-Samrani AG, Lartiges BS, Villiéras F (2008) Chemical coagulation of combined sewer overflow: heavy metal removal and treatment optimization. Water Res 42:951–960Google Scholar
  14. Gana JM, Ordóñez R, Zampini C, Hidalgo M, Meoni S, Isla MI (2008) Industrial effluents and surface waters genotoxicity and mutagenicity evaluation of a river of Tucuman, Argentina. J Hazard Mater 155:403–406Google Scholar
  15. Garg SK, Bhatnagar A, Kalla A, Johal MS (2000) Experimental ichthyology. CBS, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillespie IMM, Philp JC (2013) Bioremediation, an environmental remediation technology for the bioeconomy. Trends Biotechnol 31:329–332Google Scholar
  17. Goyer RA, Clarkson TW (2001) Toxic effects of metals. In: Klaassen CD (ed) Casarett and Doull’s toxicology: the basic science of poisons. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 811–867Google Scholar
  18. Hussain A, Hasan A, Javid A, Qazi JI (2016) Exploited application of sulfate-reducing bacteria for concomitant treatment of metallic and non-metallic wastes: a mini review. 3 Biotech 6(2):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0437-3 Google Scholar
  19. Hussain A, Iqbal MA, Javid A, Razaq A, Aslam S, Hasan A, Akmal M, Qazi JI (2017) Application of fruit wastes as cost-effective carbon sources for biological sulphate reduction. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Sci:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-017-0436-1
  20. Hussain A, Qazi JI (2012) Biological sulphate reduction using watermelon rind as a carbon source. Biologia (Pakistan) 58:85–92Google Scholar
  21. Hussain A, Qazi JI (2016a) Application of sugarcane bagasse for passive anaerobic biotreatment of sulphate rich wastewaters. Appl Water Sci 6:205–211Google Scholar
  22. Hussain A, Qazi JI (2016b) Metals-induced functional stress in sulphate-reducing thermophiles. 3 Biotech 6:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-015-0342-1 Google Scholar
  23. Hussain A, Qazi JI, Shakir HA (2014a) Implication of molasses as electron donor for biological sulphate reduction. Am J Environ Eng 4:7–10Google Scholar
  24. Hussain A, Shakir HA, Qazi JI (2014b) Anaerobic biodegradation of sulphate employing animal manure as a cost effective growth substrate. J Anim Plant Sci 24:913–918Google Scholar
  25. Idris AB, Eltayeb MAH, Potgieter-Vermaak SS, Grieken RV, Potgieter JH (2007) Assessment of heavy metals pollution in Sudanese harbors along the Red Sea Coast. Microchem J 87:104–112Google Scholar
  26. Krienitz L, Ustinova I, Friedl T, Huss VAR (2001) Traditional generic concepts versus 18S rRNA gene phylogeny in the green algal family Selenastraceae (Chlorophyceae, Chlorophyta). J Phycol 37:852–865Google Scholar
  27. Landis WG, Yu M-H (2004) Introduction to environmental toxicology. Lewis, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Manzoor M, Ma R, Shakir HA, Tabssum F, Qazi JI (2016) Microalgal-bacterial consortium: a cost effective approach of wastewater treatment in Pakistan. Punjab Univ J Zool 31(2):307–320Google Scholar
  29. Medina M, Neis U (2007) Symbiotic algal bacterial wastewater treatment: effect of food to microorganism ratio and hydraulic retention time on the process performance. Water Sci Technol 55(11):165–171Google Scholar
  30. Mulk S, Azizullah A, Korai AL, Khattak MNK (2015) Impact of marble industry effluents on water and sediment quality of Barandu River in Buner District, Pakistan. Environ Monit Assess 187:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-4221-8 Google Scholar
  31. Muñoz R, Guieysse B (2006) Algal–bacterial processes for the treatment of hazardous contaminants: a review. Water Res 40:2799–2815Google Scholar
  32. Mustapha MU, Halimoon N (2015) Microorganisms and biosorption of heavy metals in the environment: a review paper. J Microbiol Biochem Technol 7:253–256Google Scholar
  33. Oswald WJ (2003) My sixty years in applied algology. J Appl Phycol 15:99–106Google Scholar
  34. Pandian K, Thatheyus AJ, Ramya D (2014) Bioremoval of chromium, nickel and zinc in electroplating effluent by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Water Pollut Treat 1(2):75–80Google Scholar
  35. Peña-Salamanca EJ, Rengifo-Gallego AL, Benitez-Campo N (2011) Detoxification mechanisms of heavy metals by algal-bacteria consortia. In: Se-Kwon Kim (ed), Handbook of marine macroalgae: biotechnology and applied phycology. Wiley-Blackwell, pp 441–452Google Scholar
  36. Qazi JI, Niaz S, Hussain A (2010) Biological chromium reduction at low pH: a preliminary study. Punjab Univ J Zool 25(1–2):49–57Google Scholar
  37. Rocha CG, Zaia DAM, da Silva Alfaya RV, da Silva Alfaya AA (2009) Use of rice straw as biosorbent for removal of Cu(II), Zn(II), Cd(II) and Hg(II) ions in industrial effluents. J Hazard Mater 166:383–388Google Scholar
  38. Saeed A, Iqbal M (2003) Bioremoval of cadmium from aqueous solution by black gram husk (Cicer arientinum). Water Res 37:3472–3480Google Scholar
  39. Scragg A (2006) Environmental biotechnology. Oxford University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. Simon N, Campbell L, Ornolfsdottir E, Groben R, Guillou L, Lange M, Medlin LK (2000) Oligonucleotide probes for the identification of three algal groups by dot blot and fluorescent whole-cell hybridization. J Eukaryot Microbiol 47:76–84Google Scholar
  41. Singh R, Kumar A, Kirrolia A, Kumar R, Yadav N, Bishnoi NR, Lohchab RK (2011) Removal of sulphate, COD and Cr(vi) in simulated and real wastewater by sulphate reducing bacteria enrichment in small bioreactor and FTIR study. Bioresour Technol 102:677–682Google Scholar
  42. Singh V, Chandel CPS (2006) Analytical study of heavy metals of industrial effluents at Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. J Environ Sci Eng Technol 48:103–108Google Scholar
  43. Subashchandrabose SR, Ramakrishnan B, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Naidu R (2013) Mixotrophic cyanobacteria and microalgae as distinctive biological agents for organic pollutant degradation. Environ Int 5:59–72Google Scholar
  44. WHO: World Health Organization (1984) Guidelines for drinking water quality. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  45. Yilmaz EI (2003) Metal tolerance and biosorption capacity of Bacillus circulans strain EB1. Res Microbiol 154(6):409–415Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saima Batool
    • 1
  • Ali Hussain
    • 1
    Email author
  • Muhammad Anwar Iqbal
    • 2
  • Arshad Javid
    • 1
  • Waqas Ali
    • 1
  • Syed Mohsin Bukhari
    • 1
  • Muhammad Akmal
    • 3
  • Javed Iqbal Qazi
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife and EcologyUniversity of Veterinary and Animal SciencesLahorePakistan
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyWomen University of Azad Jammu and KashmirBaghPakistan
  3. 3.Department of Fisheries and AquacultureUniversity of Veterinary and Animal SciencesLahorePakistan
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyUniversity of the PunjabLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations