CR(VI) phytoremediation by hairy roots of Brassica napus: assessing efficiency, mechanisms involved, and post-removal toxicity
Industrial activities such as leather tanning involve the use of highly toxic inorganic pollutants, like Chromium (Cr). This work evaluated Cr(VI) remediation by hairy roots (HR) of Brassica napus, paying close attention to the mechanisms involved and the toxicity of post-removal solutions. Results showed that these roots were capable of tolerating concentrations of up to 10 mg L−1 Cr(VI), while higher concentrations were toxic for HR development. Removal efficiency was assessed through the use of synthetic solutions containing different initial Cr(VI) concentrations (2, 5, or 10 mg L−1). Regardless of these initial concentrations, the highest removal efficiency values were between 80 and 90% after 24 and 48 h of treatment, using a 2.0 g inoculum. The mechanisms involved were Cr accumulation (60%) and to a lesser extent, adsorption to the root biomass (30%). A fraction of Cr(VI) was intracellularly reduced to Cr(III), which suggests reductases may have played a role. Additionally, post-removal toxicity was evaluated through two bioassays (Lactuca sativa L. and AMPHITOX test) after the removal of 10 mg L−1 Cr(VI). The treated solutions showed moderate phytotoxicity for L. sativa L. and no toxicity for R arenarum. The ability of HR to remove 10 mg L−1 Cr(VI) from real tannery effluents collected from a regional industry (Córdoba province, Argentina) was also determined. The high removal efficiency observed (98%) demonstrates this system can be successful in treating complex wastewaters.
KeywordsBrassica napus Hairy roots Chromium Phytoremediation Tannery effluent Argentina
C.E.P, E.A, and P.S.G are members of the research career from Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) (Argentina). R.P has a fellowship from FONCyT.
We wish to thank PPI (SECyT- UNRC), CONICET, and PICT (FONCyT) for financial support.
- APHA/AWWA/WEF (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Stand Methods 541. doi: ISBN 9780875532356Google Scholar
- Eggs N, Salvarezza S, Azario R, et al (2012) Adsorption of hexavalent chromium in the chemically modified rice hask. Av en Ciencias e Ing 3(3):141–151. ISSN: Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=3236/323627687014
- El Azhari A, Rhoujjati A, El Hachimi ML, Ambrosi J (2017) Pollution and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in the soil-plant system and the sediment-water column around a former Pb/Zn-mining area in NE Morocco. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 144:464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.06.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gill RA, Zhang N, Ali B, Farooq MA, Xu J, Gill MB, Mao B, Zhou W (2016) Role of exogenous salicylic acid in regulating physio-morphic and molecular changes under chromium toxicity in black- and yellow- seeded Brassica napus L. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:20483–20496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7167-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Herkovits J, Pérez-Coll CS (1999) Bioensayos para test de toxicidad con embriones de anfibios (“ANFITOX”). Ingeniería Sanitaria y Ambiental 42:24–30Google Scholar
- Islam B, Musa A, Ibrahim E et al (2014) Evaluation and characterization of tannery wastewater. J For Prod Ind 3:141–150 ISSN:2325–4513(PRINT) ISSN 2325 - 453X (ONLINE)Google Scholar
- Matteoda E, Blarasin M, Damilano G, Cabrera A, Albo J (2009) Cromo en aguas subterráneas y superficiales en el entorno de una curtiembre, relación con valores de fondo natural. Elena (Córdoba). Argentina Boletín Geológico y Minero 120(4):617–630Google Scholar
- Módenes AN, de Oliveira AP, Espinoza-Quiñones FR, Trigueros DEG, Kroumov AD, Bergamasco R (2017) Study of the involved sorption mechanisms of Cr(VI) and Cr(III) species onto dried Salvinia auriculata biomass. Chemosphere 172:373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.01.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Monisha S, Sathesh Kumar A, Sinha P, Arunachalam KD (2018) Brassica juncea (Indian mustard plant) as a phytoremediator for chromium. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res 49(1):71–76 ISSN 0976 – 044XGoogle Scholar
- Ojeda Suárez J.T. (2004) Manual de análisis de aguas residuales.https//buenastareas.com/ensayos/Manual-De-Analisis-De-Aguas-Residuales/1217680.html
- Pentreath V, González E, Barquín M et al (2015) Bioensayo de toxicidad aguda con plantas nativas para evaluar un derrame de petróleo. Rev salud Ambient 15:13–20Google Scholar
- Revathi K, Ansar Ali P, Sudha P (2017) Phytoremediation efficiency of Brassica juncea plant from heavy metals Cr , Cu , Cd and Pb spiked Soil. Int J Nov Trends Pharm Sci 7:178–185 ISSN: 2277–2782Google Scholar
- Sobrero MC, Ronco A (2004) Toxicity assay with lettuce seeds. Toxicol. Assays water Qual. Evaluat. Methods 71–79 MéxicoGoogle Scholar
- Vijayaraghavan K, Balasubramanian R (2015) Is biosorption suitable for decontamination of metal-bearing wastewaters? A critical review on the state-of-the-art of biosorption processes and future directions. J Environ Manag 160:283–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wagner M, Nicell JA (2002) Detoxification of phenolic solutions with horseradish peroxidase and hydrogen peroxide. Water Res 36:4041–4052. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00133-1www.cba.gov.ar/wp-content/4p96humuzp/2014/07/Vertido-de-Efluentes-Decreto-847.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yadav A, Raj A, Purchase D, Ferreira LFR, Saratale GD, Bharagava RN (2019) Phytotoxicity , cytotoxicity and genotoxicity evaluation of organic and inorganic pollutants rich tannery wastewater from a common effluent treatment plant (CETP) in Unnao district , India using Vigna radiata and Allium cepa. Chemosphere 224:324–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.124 Phytotoxicity, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity evaluation of organic and inorganic pollutants rich tannery wastewater from a common effluent treatment plant (CETP) in Unnao district, India using Vigna radiata and Allium cepaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zucconi F, Pera A, Forte M, De Bertoldi M (1981) Evaluating toxicity of immature compost. Biocycle 22:54–57 Doi: 18.104.22.168Google Scholar