Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 66–80 | Cite as

Effective bioremediation of heavy metal–contaminated landfill soil through bioaugmentation using consortia of fungi

  • Auwalu HassanEmail author
  • Agamuthu Periathamby
  • Aziz Ahmed
  • Ossai Innocent
  • Fauziah Shahul HamidEmail author
Soils, Sec 1 • Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and Nutrient Cycling • Research Article
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Heavy metals’ contamination of soil is a serious concern as far as public health and environmental protection are concerned. As a result of their persistent and toxic properties, heavy metals need to be removed from contaminated environments using an efficient technology. This study is aimed to determine the heavy metals’ (Ni, Pb, and Zn) bioremoval capacity of consortia of filamentous fungi from landfill leachate-contaminated soil.

Materials and methods

Three different groups of consortia of fungi, namely all isolated fungi, Ascomycota, and Basidiomycota, were employed for the bioremediation of the contaminated soil. A total of thirteen fungal species were used to make up the three consortia. The setup was kept for 100 days during which regular watering was carried out. Soil subsamples were collected at day 20, day 60, and 100 for monitoring of heavy metal concentration, fungal growth, and other physicochemical parameters.

Results and discussion

Highest tolerance index of 1.0 was recorded towards Ni and Zn concentrations. The maximum metal bioremoval efficiency was observed for soil bioaugmented with the all isolated fungi for Ni and Pb with the removal efficiencies as 52% and 44% respectively. However, 36% was realized as the maximum removal for Zn, and was for Ascomycota consortium-treated soil. The order for the heavy metal removal for Ni and Pb is all isolated fungi > Basidiomycota > Ascomycota, while for Zn is Basidiomycota > all isolated fungi > Ascomycota. Spectra analysis revealed the presence of peaks (1485–1445 cm−1) only in the consortia-treated soil which corresponded to the bending of the C–H bond which signifies the presence of methylene group.

Conclusions

Soil treated using bioaugmentation had the best heavy metal removal as compared to that of the control. This suggests the contribution of fungal bioaugmentation in the decontamination of heavy metal–contaminated soil.

Keywords

Bioaugmentation Consortia Contamination Fungi Heavy metals Soil 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We equally acknowledged the provision of facility by the Center for Research in Waste Management, University of Malaya.

Funding information

This study received sponsorship from the University of Malaya Research Grant (RP011A-14SUS) and Centre of Research Grant Management (PG070-2014B).

Supplementary material

11368_2019_2394_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (32 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 32 kb)
11368_2019_2394_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (33 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 32 kb)

References

  1. Abu GO, Atu ND (2008) An investigation of oxygen limitation in microcosm models in the bioremediation of a typical Niger Delta soil ecosystem impacted with crude oil. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 12:13–22Google Scholar
  2. Adams G, 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
  3. Adesodun J, Mbagwu J (2008) Biodegradation of waste-lubricating petroleum oil in a tropical alfisol as mediated by animal droppings. Bioresour Technol 99:5659–5665Google Scholar
  4. Agamuthu P, Masaru T (2014) Municipal solid waste management in Asia and the Pacific Islands: challenges and strategic solutions. Springer, Singapore, pp 355–377Google Scholar
  5. Akhtar S, Mahmood-ul-Hassan M, Ahmad R, Suthor V, Yasin M (2013) Metal tolerance potential of filamentous fungi isolated from soils irrigated with untreated municipal effluent. Soil Environ 32:55–62Google Scholar
  6. Alam A, Tabinda AB, Qadir A, Butt TE, Siddique S, Mahmood A (2017) Ecological risk assessment of an open dumping site at Mehmood Booti Lahore, Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:17889–17899Google Scholar
  7. Alisi C, Musella R, Tasso F, Ubaldi C, Manzo S, Cremisini C, Sprocati AR (2009) Bioremediation of diesel oil in a co-contaminated soil by bioaugmentation with a microbial formula tailored with native strains selected for heavy metals resistance. Sci Total Environ 407:3024–3032Google Scholar
  8. Auta HS, Emenike CU, Jayanthi B, Fauziah SH (2018) Growth kinetics and biodeterioration of polypropylene microplastics by Bacillus sp. and Rhodococcus sp. isolated from mangrove sediment. Mar Pollut Bull 127:15–21Google Scholar
  9. Babu AG, Kim JD, Oh BT (2013) Enhancement of heavy metal phytoremediation by Alnus firma with endophytic Bacillus thuringiensis GDB-1. J Hazard Mater 250:477–483Google Scholar
  10. Bai Z, Harvey LM, McNeil B (2003) Oxidative stress in submerged cultures of fungi. Crit Rev Biotechnol 23:267–302Google Scholar
  11. Barathi S, Vasudevan N (2003) Bioremediation of crude oil contaminated soil by bioaugmentation of Pseudomonas fluorescens NS1. J Environ Sci Health Part A 38:1857–1866Google Scholar
  12. Barkay T, Wagner-Döbler I (2005) Microbial transformations of mercury: potentials, challenges, and achievements in controlling mercury toxicity in the environment. Adv Appl Microbiol 57:1–52Google Scholar
  13. Bento FM, Camargo FADO, Okeke B, Frankenberger-Júnior WT (2003) Bioremediation of soil contaminated by diesel oil. Braz J Microbiol 34:65–68Google Scholar
  14. Bhat MM, Shankar S, Shikha YM, Shukla R (2011) Remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soil through microbial degradation-FTIR based prediction. Adv Appl Sci Res 2:321–326Google Scholar
  15. Boonchan S, Margaret LB, Grant AS (2000) Degradation and mineralization of high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by defined fungal-bacterial cocultures. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:1007–1019Google Scholar
  16. Bouchez M, Blanchet D, Bardin V, Haeseler F, Vandecasteele JP (1999) Efficiency of defined strains and of soil consortia in the biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures. Biodegrad 10:429–435Google Scholar
  17. Butler JL, Williams MA, Bottomley PJ, Myrold DD (2003) Microbial community dynamics associated with rhizosphere carbon flow. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:6793–6800Google Scholar
  18. Cao Y, Yang B, Song Z, Wang H, He F, Han X (2016) Wheat straw biochar amendments on the removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 130:248–255Google Scholar
  19. Chakraborty S, Mukherjee A, Das TK (2013) Biochemical characterization of a lead-tolerant strain of Aspergillus foetidus: an implication of bioremediation of lead from liquid media. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 84:134–142Google Scholar
  20. Chan WK, Wildeboer D, Garelick H, Purchase D (2016) Mycoremediation of heavy metal/metalloid-contaminated soil: current understanding and future prospects. In: Purchase D (ed) Fungal Applications in Sustainable Environmental Biotechnology. Fungal Biology. Springer, Cham, pp 249-272Google Scholar
  21. Chojnacka K (2010) Biosorption and bioaccumulation—the prospects for practical applications. Environ Int 36:299–307Google Scholar
  22. Choudhury R, Srivastava S (2001) Zinc resistance mechanisms in bacteria. Curr Sci 81:768–775Google Scholar
  23. Chuan M, Shu G, Liu J (1996) Solubility of heavy metals in a contaminated soil: effects of redox potential and pH. Water Air Soil Pollut 90:543–556Google Scholar
  24. Coates J (2000) Interpretation of infrared spectra, a practical approach. Encyclo Analy Chem 12:10815–10837Google Scholar
  25. Cobbett C, Goldsbrough P (2002) Phytochelatins and metallothioneins: roles in heavy metal detoxification and homeostasis. Ann Rev Plant Biol 53:159–182Google Scholar
  26. Dadrasnia A, Ismail SB (2015) Bio-enrichment of waste crude oil polluted soil: amended with Bacillus 139SI and organic waste. Int J Environ Sci Dev 6:241–245Google Scholar
  27. Da Silva ML, Alvarez PJ (2004) Enhanced anaerobic biodegradation of benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylene-ethanol mixtures in bioaugmented aquifer columns. Appl Environ 70:4720–4726Google Scholar
  28. Dashtban M, Schraft H, Syed TA, Qin W (2010) Fungal biodegradation and enzymatic modification of lignin. Int J Biochem Mol Biol 1:36–50Google Scholar
  29. De Oliveira VH, Tibbett M (2018) Cd and Zn interactions and toxicity in ectomycorrhizal basidiomycetes in axenic culture. PeerJ 6:1–17Google Scholar
  30. Dejonghe W, Boon N, Seghers D, Top EM, Verstraete W (2001) Bioaugmentation of soils by increasing microbial richness: missing links. Environ Microbiol 3:649–657Google Scholar
  31. Deshmukh R, Khardenavis AA, Purohit HJ (2016) Diverse metabolic capacities of fungi for bioremediation. Indian J Microbiol 56:247–264Google Scholar
  32. Dhankhar R, Hooda A (2011) Fungal biosorption–an alternative to meet the challenges of heavy metal pollution in aqueous solutions. Environ Technol 32:467–491Google Scholar
  33. Eman K, Esmaeil S, Nagalakshmi H, Mark AO, Andrew SB (2019) Effect of biostimulation on the distribution and composition of the microbial community of a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated landfill soil during bioremediation. Geoderma 338:216–225Google Scholar
  34. Emenike CU, Agamuthu P, Fauziah SH (2016) Blending Bacillus sp., Lysinibacillus sp. and Rhodococcus sp. for optimal reduction of heavy metals in leachate contaminated soil. Environ Earth Sci 75:1–8Google Scholar
  35. Emenike CU, Agamuthu P, Fauziah SH (2017) Sustainable remediation of heavy metal polluted soil: a biotechnical interaction with selected bacteria species. J Geochem Explor 182:275–278Google Scholar
  36. Emenike CU, Fauziah SH, Agamuthu P (2012) Characterization and toxicological evaluation of leachate from closed sanitary landfill. Waste Manag Res 30:888–897Google Scholar
  37. EPA (2000) A guide to the sampling and analysis of waters, wastewaters, soils and wastes. 7 ed. EPA, Melbourne, pp 1–54Google Scholar
  38. Ezzouhri L, Castro E, Moya M, Espinola F, Lairini K (2009) Heavy metal tolerance of filamentous fungi isolated from polluted sites in Tangier, Morocco. Afr J Microbiol Res 3:35–48Google Scholar
  39. Fauziah SH, Izzati MN, Agamuthu P (2013) Toxicity on Anabas Testudineus: a case study of sanitary landfill leachate. Procedia Environ Sci 18:14–19Google Scholar
  40. Fazli MM, Soleimani N, Mehrasbi M, Darabian S, Mohammadi J, Ramazani A (2015) Highly cadmium tolerant fungi: their tolerance and removal potential. J Environ Health Sci Eng 13:1–9Google Scholar
  41. Fujs Š, Gazdag Z, Poljšak B, Stibilj V, Milačič R, Pesti M, Raspor P, Batič M (2005) The oxidative stress response of the yeast Candida intermedia to copper, zinc, and selenium exposure. J Basic Microbiol 45:125–135Google Scholar
  42. Gardes M, Bruns TD (1993) ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes-application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol Ecol 2:13–118Google Scholar
  43. Ghazali FM, Rahman RNZA, Salleh AB, Basri M (2004) Biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil by microbial consortium. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 54:61–67Google Scholar
  44. González-Chávez MDCA, del Pilar O-LM, Carrillo-González R, Lopez-Meyer M, Xoconostle-Cázares B, Gomez SK, Harrison MJ, Figueroa-López AM, Maldonado-Mendoza IE (2011) Arsenate induces the expression of fungal genes involved in As transport in arbuscular mycorrhiza. Fungal Biol 115:1197–1209Google Scholar
  45. Goswami U, Sarma H (2008) Study of the impact of municipal solid waste dumping on soil quality in Guwahati city. Pollut Res 27:327–330Google Scholar
  46. Guibal E, Roulph C, Le Cloirec P (1995) Infrared spectroscopic study of uranyl biosorption by fungal biomass and materials of biological origin. Environ Sci Technol 29:2496–2503Google Scholar
  47. Hanif MA, Nadeem R, Rashid U, Zafar MN (2005) Assessing pollution levels in effluents of industries in city zone of Faisalabad, Pakistan. J Appl Sci 5:1713–1717Google Scholar
  48. Hansda A, Kumar V (2016) A comparative review towards potential of microbial cells for heavy metal removal with emphasis on biosorption and bioaccumulation. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 32:1–14Google Scholar
  49. Hseu ZY, Chen ZS, Tsai CC, Tsui CC, Cheng SF, Liu CL, Lin HT (2002) Digestion methods for total heavy metals in sediments and soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 141:189–205Google Scholar
  50. Iram S, Ahmad I, Javed B, Yaqoob S, Akhtar K, Kazmi M, Rand Zaman B (2009) Fungal tolerance to heavy metals. Pak J Bot 41:2583–2594Google Scholar
  51. Jackson P, Robinson K, Puxty G, Attalla M (2009) In situ Fourier transform-infrared (FT-IR) analysis of carbon dioxide absorption and desorption in amine solutions. Energy Procedia 1:985–994Google Scholar
  52. Jayanthi B, Emenike CU, Agamuthu P, Simarani K, Mohamad S, Fauziah SH (2016) Selected microbial diversity of contaminated landfill soil of Peninsular Malaysia and the behavior towards heavy metal exposure. Catena 147:25–31Google Scholar
  53. Jiang J, Qin C, Shu X, Chen R, Song H, Li Q, Xu H (2015) Effects of copper on induction of thiol-compounds and antioxidant enzymes by the fruiting body of Oudemansiella radicata. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 111:60–65Google Scholar
  54. Jin C, Nan Z, Wang H, Jin P (2017) Plant growth and heavy metal bioavailability changes in a loess subsoil amended with municipal sludge compost. J Soils Sediments 17:2797–2809Google Scholar
  55. Klaunig JE, Xu Y, Isenberg JS, Bachowski S, Kolaja KL, Jiang J, Stevenson DE, Walborg EF Jr (1998) The role of oxidative stress in chemical carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect 106:289–295Google Scholar
  56. Kuiper I, Lagendijk EL, Bloemberg GV, Lugtenberg BJ (2004) Rhizoremediation: a beneficial plant-microbe interaction. Molec Plant-Microbe Interac 17:6–15Google Scholar
  57. Lazarova N, Krumova E, Stefanova T, Georgieva N, Angelova M (2014) The oxidative stress response of the filamentous yeast Trichosporon cutaneum R57 to copper, cadmium and chromium exposure. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 28:855–862Google Scholar
  58. Lebeau T (2011) Bioaugmentation for in situ soil remediation: how to ensure the success of such a process. In: Singh A, Parmar N, Kuhad R (eds) Bioaugmentation, biostimulation and biocontrol, vol 108. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–186Google Scholar
  59. Lladó S, Gràcia E, Solanas A, Viñas M (2013) Fungal and bacterial microbial community assessment during bioremediation assays in an aged creosote-polluted soil. Soil Biol Biochem 67:114–123Google Scholar
  60. Llado S, Solanas AM, de Lapuente J, Borras M, Vinas M (2012) A diversified approach to evaluate biostimulation and bioaugmentation strategies for heavy-oil-contaminated soil. Sci Total Environ 435:262–269Google Scholar
  61. Long X, Huang Y, Chi H, Li Y, Ahmad N, Yao H (2018) Nitrous oxide flux, ammonia oxidizer and denitrifier abundance and activity across three different landfill cover soils in Ningbo, China. J Clean Prod 170:288–297Google Scholar
  62. Ma X, Zheng C, Li W, Ai S, Zhang Z, Zhou X, Pang C, Chen H, Zhou K, Tang M (2017) Potential use of cotton for remediating heavy metal-polluted soils in southern China. J Soils Sediments 17:2866–2872Google Scholar
  63. Mahmoud ME (2015) Water treatment of hexavalent chromium by gelatin-impregnated-yeast (Gel–Yst) biosorbent. J Environ Manag 147:264–270Google Scholar
  64. Mandal SK, Das N (2018) Phyto-mycoremediation of benzo a pyrene in soil by combining the role of yeast consortium and sunflower plant. J Environ Biol 39:261–268Google Scholar
  65. Nagajyoti P, Lee K, Sreekanth T (2010) Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: a review. Environ Chem Lett 8:199–216Google Scholar
  66. Oladipo OG, Auiotoye OO, Olayinka A, Bezuidenhout CC, Maboeta MS (2018) Heavy metal tolerance traits of filamentous fungi isolated from gold and gemstone mining sites. Braz J Microbiol 49:29–37Google Scholar
  67. Perchet G, Sangely M, Goñi M, Merlina G, Revel JC, Pinelli E (2008) Microbial population changes during bioremediation of nitroaromatic-and nitramine-contaminated lagoon. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 61:304–312Google Scholar
  68. Péter S, Adrienn T, Viktória KK, Réka B, Ivett K, Németh T (2019) Partition of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn among mineral particles during their sorption in soils. J Soils Sediments 19:1775–1787Google Scholar
  69. Popenda A (2014) Effect of redox potential on heavy metals and As behavior in dredged sediments. Desalin Water Treat 52:3918–3927Google Scholar
  70. Pritchard P, Bourquin A (1984) The use of microcosms for evaluation of interactions between pollutants and microorganisms. In: Marshall KC (ed) Advances in microbial ecology, vol 7. Springer, Boston, pp 133–215Google Scholar
  71. Rocco C, Agrelli D, Coppola I, Gonzalez I, Adamo P (2018) Native plant colonization of brownfield soil and sludges: effects on substrate properties and pollutant mobility. J Soils Sediments 18:2282–2291Google Scholar
  72. Romero-Isart N, Vašák M (2002) Advances in the structure and chemistry of metallothioneins. J Inorg Biochem 88:388–396Google Scholar
  73. Romero-Baena AJ, González I, Galán E (2018) Soil pollution by mining activities in Andalusia (South Spain)—the role of mineralogy and geochemistry in three case studies. J Soils Sediments 18:2231–2247Google Scholar
  74. Sharma MR, Raju N (2013) Correlation of heavy metal contamination with soil properties of industrial areas of Mysore, Karnataka, India by cluster analysis. Int Res J Environ Sci 2:22–27Google Scholar
  75. Sharples JM, Meharg AA, Chambers SM, Cairney JW (2000) Mechanism of arsenate resistance in the ericoid mycorrhizal fungus Hymenoscyphus ericae. Plant Physiol 124:1327–1334Google Scholar
  76. Shen M, Zhao DK, Qiao Q, Liu L, Wang JL, Cao GH, Li T, Zhao ZW (2015) Identification of glutathione S-transferase (GST) genes from a dark septate endophytic fungus (Exophiala pisciphila) and their expression patterns under varied metals stress. PLoS One 10:e0123418Google Scholar
  77. Sprocati AR, Alisi C, Segre L, Tasso F, Galletti M, Cremisini C (2006) Investigating heavy metal resistance, bioaccumulation and metabolic profile of a metallophile microbial consortium native to an abandoned mine. Sci Total Environ 366:649–658Google Scholar
  78. Sprocati AR, Alisi C, Tasso F, Marconi P, Sciullo A, Pinto V, Chiavarini S, Ubaldi C, Cremisini C (2012) Effectiveness of a microbial formula, as a bioaugmentation agent, tailored for bioremediation of diesel oil and heavy metal co-contaminated soil. Process Biochem 47:1649–1655Google Scholar
  79. Sun F, Shao Z (2007) Biosorption and bioaccumulation of lead by Penicillium sp. Psf-2 isolated from the deep sea sediment of the Pacific Ocean. Extremophiles 11:853–858Google Scholar
  80. Tereshina V, Feofilova E, Mar'in A, Kosyakov V, Kozlov V (1999) Different metal sorption capacities of cell wall polysaccharides of Aspergillus niger. Appl Biochem Microbiol 35:389–392Google Scholar
  81. Thippeswamy B, Shivakumar C, Krishnappa M (2012) Bioaccumulation potential of Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus for removal of heavy metals from paper mill effluent. J Environ Biol 33:1063Google Scholar
  82. Toal M, Yeomans C, Killham K, Meharg A (2000) A review of rhizosphere carbon flow modelling. Plant Soil 222:263–281Google Scholar
  83. USEPA (1996) Method 3050B. Acid digestion of sediments, sludges, and soils. US-EPA, Washington, DC, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  84. Van Der Gast CJ, Whiteley AS, Thompson IP (2004) Temporal dynamics and degradation activity of an bacterial inoculum for treating waste metal-working fluid. Environ Microbiol 6:254–263Google Scholar
  85. Verstraete W, Wittebolle L, Heylen K, Vanparys B, De Vos P, Van de Wiele T, Boon N (2007) Microbial resource management: the road to go for environmental biotechnology. Eng Life Sci 7:117–126Google Scholar
  86. Vogel TM (1996) Bioaugmentation as a soil bioremediation approach. Curr Opin Biotechnol 7:311–316Google Scholar
  87. Wang J, Chen C (2014) Chitosan-based biosorbents: modification and application for biosorption of heavy metals and radionuclides. Bioresour Technol 160:129–141Google Scholar
  88. Watanabe K, Teramoto M, Harayama S (2002) Stable augmentation of activated sludge with foreign catabolic genes harboured by an indigenous dominant bacterium. Environ Microbiol 4:577–583Google Scholar
  89. Wuertz S, Okabe S, Hausner M (2004) Microbial communities and their interactions in biofilm systems: an overview. Water Sci Technol 49:327–336Google Scholar
  90. Yaling W, Shuxian L, Yang H (2019) In situ stabilization of some mercury-containing soils using organically modified montmorillonite loading by thiol-based material. J Soils Sediments 19:1767–1774Google Scholar
  91. Yin G, Zhang Y, Pennerman K, Wu G, Hua S, Yu J, Jurick W, Guo A, Bennett J (2017) Characterization of blue Mold Penicillium species isolated from stored fruits using multiple highly conserved loci. J Fungi 3:1–10Google Scholar
  92. Yu S, Bai X, Liang J, Wei Y, Huang S, Li Y, Dong L, Liu X, Qu J, Yan L (2019) Inoculation of Pseudomonas sp. GHD-4 and mushroom residue carrier increased the soil enzyme activities and microbial community diversity in Pb-contaminated soils. J Soils Sediments 19:1064–1076Google Scholar
  93. Zawierucha I, Malina G (2011) Effects of oxygen supply on the biodegradation rate in oil hydrocarbons contaminated soil. Paper presented at the journal of physics: conference seriesGoogle Scholar
  94. Zucconi L, Ripa C, Alianiello F, Benedetti A, Onofri S (2003) Lead resistance, sorption and accumulation in a Paecilomyces lilacinus strain. Biol Fertil Soils 37:17–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Center for Research in Waste Management, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of ScienceFederal University, KashereGombeNigeria
  4. 4.Faculty of Marine SciencesLasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine SciencesUthalPakistan

Personalised recommendations