, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1073–1085 | Cite as

Application of isolated bacterial consortium in UMBR for detoxification of textile effluent: comparative analysis of resultant oxidative stress and genotoxicity in catfish (Heteropneustes fossilis) exposed to raw and treated effluents

  • Priya Banerjee
  • Sandeep Sarkar
  • Tanmoy Kumar Dey
  • Madhurima Bakshi
  • Snehasikta Swarnakar
  • Aniruddha Mukhopadhayay
  • Sourja Ghosh


A bacterial consortium isolated from activated sludge was identified to be Bacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Shigella sp. and E. coli. and was found capable of 98.62 % decolourization of highly toxic textile effluent, when applied in an ultrafiltration (UF) membrane bioreactor (UMBR). Ceramic capillary UF membranes prepared over low cost support proved to be highly efficient in adverse experimental conditions. The UMBR permeate and untreated textile effluent (40 % (v/v)) was then used to treat Heteropneustes fossilis for a comparative assessment of their toxicity. Micronucleus count in peripheral blood erythrocytes and comet assay carried out in liver and gill cells showed significantly lower nuclear and tissue specific DNA damage respectively in organisms exposed to membrane permeate and was further supported by considerably lower oxidative stress response enzyme activities in comparison to raw effluent treated individuals. The results indicate efficient detoxification of textile effluent by the UMBR treatment using the isolated bacterial consortium.


Textile effluent membrane bioreactor Genotoxicity Oxidative stress Heteropneustesfossilis 



The study was funded by CSIR-Supra Institutional project [Grant Number 41/3/E&YP/SIP0023/2008-RDPD dt. 31.7.2007], CSIR, Govt. of India. Authors acknowledge all members of Ceramic Membrane Division, CSIR – CGCRI, Kolkata; Department of Physiology, DDDB division, CSIR – IICB, Kolkata; Laboratory of Food Science and Technology, Food and Nutrition Division, University of Calcutta, Kolkata and Department of Environmental Science, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, for their constant support during the work.

Conflict of interest

The authors hereby declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Al-Sabti K (2000) Chlorotriazine reactive azo red 120 textile dye induces micronuclei in fish. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 47:149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Sabti K, Metcalfe CD (1995) Fish micronuclei for assessing genotoxicity in water. Mutat Res 343:121–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA/AWWA/AWEF (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st ed, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayylon F, Garcia-Vazquez E (2000) Induction of micronuclei and other nuclear abnormalities in European minow Phoxinus phoxinus and mollie Poecilia latipinna: an assessment of the fish micronucleus test. Mutat Res 467:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azqueta A, Shaposhnikov S, Collins A (2009) DNA oxidation: investigating its key role in environmental mutagenesis with the comet assay. Mutat Res 674:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bainy ACD, Saito E, Carvalho PSM, Jungueria VBC (1996) Oxidative stress in gill, eryhrocytes, liver and kidney of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) from polluted site. Aquat Toxicol 34:151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beauchamp C, Fridovich I (1971) Superoxide dismutase: improved assays and an assay applicable to acrylamide gels. Anal Biochem 44:276–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bombail V, Gordon D, Aw E, Batty J (2001) Application of the comet and micronucleus assays to butterfish (Pholis gunnelus) erythrocytes from the Firth of Forth, Scotland. Chemosphere 44:283–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bongers V, Snow GB, Braakhuis BJM (1995) The role of glutathione transferases in head and neck squamous cell carcinogenesis. Oral Oncol Eur J Cancer 31B(6):54–349Google Scholar
  10. Bradford MM (1976) Rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brindle K, Stephenson T (1996) The application of membrane bioreactors for the treatment of wastewaters. Biotechnol Bioeng 49:601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlberg I, Mannervik B (1985) Glutathione reductase. In: Meister A (ed) Methods in enzymology, vol 113. Academic Press, New York, pp 484–490Google Scholar
  13. Çavas T, Ergene-Gözükara S (2003) Micronuclei, nuclear lesions and interphase silver-stained nucleolar organizer regions (AgNORs) as cyto-genotoxicity indicators in Oreochromis niloticus exposed to textile mill effluent. Muta Res 538:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavas T, Könen S (2007) Detection of cytogenetic and DNA damage in peripheral erythrocytes of goldfish (Carassius auratus) exposed to a glyphosate formulation using the micronucleus test and the comet assay. Mutagenesis 22:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chandra P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR (2004) Genotoxic effects of cadmium chloride and azadirachtin treated singly and in combination in fish. Ecotox Environ Safe 58:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen KC, Wu JY, Liou DJ, Hwang SCJ (2003) Decolorization of the textile azo dyes by newly isolated bacterial strains. J Biotechnol 101:57–68Google Scholar
  17. Collins A (2004) The comet assay for DNA damage and repair. Mol Biotechnol 26:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delmas BMC, Penchant E, Couchowron A, Constans J, Sergent C, Simonoff M, Pellagirin JL, Leng B, Concric Dere M (1996) Enzymatic antioxidative system in blood and ash status in HIV infected patients: effects of supplementation with selenium or beta carotene. Am J Clin Nutr 64:101–107Google Scholar
  19. Dimitrova MST, Tsinova V, Velcheva V (1994) Combined effect of zinc and lead on the hepatic superoxide dismutase-catalase system in carp (Cyprinus carpio). Comp Biochem Physiol Part C 108:43–46Google Scholar
  20. Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Rice EW, Greenberg AE (2005) Standard methods for the estimation of water and wastewater. APHA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Froese R, Pauly D (eds) (2000) FishBase 2000: concepts, design and data sources. ICLARM, Los Baños, Laguna, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  22. Giri U, Iqbal M, Athar M (1996) Porphyrin-mediated photosensitization has a weak tumor promoting e ect in mouse skin: possible role of in situ generated reactive oxygen species. Carcinogenesis 17:2023–2028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gopal A, Shah NP, Roginski H (1996) Bile tolerance, taurocholate and cholesterol removal by Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium spp. Milchwissenschaft 51(11):619–622Google Scholar
  24. Habig W, Pabst M, Jokoby W (1974) Glutathione-S-transferase. The first enzymatic step in mercapturic acid formation. J Biol Chem 249:7130–7139Google Scholar
  25. Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab S, Burlinson B, Clay P, Collins A, Smith A, Speit G, Thybaud V, Tice RR (2003) Recommendations for conducting the in vivo alkaline Comet assay. Mutagenesis 18:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karapinar KI, Karagi F, Mcmullan G, Marchan R (2000) Decolorization of textile dyestuffs by a mixed bacterial consortium. Biotechnol Lett 22:1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malik CP, Singh MB (1980) Plant enzymology and histoenzymology. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi p 53Google Scholar
  28. Mark WI, Russel S (1991) What cardiologist known about diabetes. Lancet 350:23–28Google Scholar
  29. McMullan G, Meehan C, Conneely A, Kirby N, Robinson T, Nigam P, Banat IM, Marchant RW, Smyth F (2001) Microbial decolourisation and degradation of textile dyes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 56:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mohandas J, Marshall J, Duggin G, Horvath J, Tiller D (1984) Differential distribution of glutathione and glutathione-related enzymes in rabbit kidney. Possible implications in analgesic nephropathy. Biochem Pharmacol 33:1801–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moreno I, Pichardo S, Gómez-Amores L, Mate A, Vazquez CM, Cameán AM (2005) Antioxidant enzyme activity and lipid peroxidation in liver and kidney of rats exposed to microcystin-LR administered intraperitoneally. Toxicon 45:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pitarque M, Creus A, Marcos R, Hughes JA, Anderson D (1999) Examination of various biomarkers measuring genotoxic endpoints from Barcelona airport personnel. Mutat Res 440:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pourbabaee AA, Malekzadeh F, Sarbolouki MN, Najafi F (2006) Aerobic decolorization and detoxification of a disperse dye in textile effluent by a new isolate of Bacillus sp. Biotechnol Bioeng 93(4):631–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson T, McMullan G, Marchant R, Nigam P (2001) Remediation of dyes in textile effluent: a critical review on current treatment technologies with a proposed alternative. Bioresour Technol 77:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sanchez-Galan S, Linde AR, Ayllon F, Garcia-Vazquez E (2001) Induction of micronuclei in eel (Anguilla anguilla L.) by heavy metals. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 49:139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarkar S, Bandyopadhyay S, Larbot A, Cerneaux S (2012) New clay–alumina porous capillary supports for filtration application. J Mem Sci 392–393:130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sen S, Demirer GN (2003) Anaerobic treatment of real textile wastewater with a fluidized bed reactor. Water Res 37:1868–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharma KP, Sharma S, Sharma S, Singh PK, Kumar S, Grover R, Sharma PK (2007) Comparative study on characterization of textile wastewaters (untreated and treated) toxicity by chemical and biological tests. Chemosphere 69:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sreejai R, Jaya DS (2010) Studies on the changes in lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in fishes exposed to hydrogen sulfide. Toxicol Int 17(2):71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stolz A (2001) Basic and applied aspects in the microbial degradation of azo dyes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 56:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. USEPA (2002) Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms, 5th ed., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4303T), Washington, DC, pp. 20460. [EPA-821-R-02-012]Google Scholar
  42. White DA, Asaadi M (1989) Fouling behavior in inorganic tubular membranes. In: Proceedings of the International Technical Conference on Membrane Separation Process, Brighton, UK, 24th–26th May, p 143Google Scholar
  43. Xing CH, Tardieu E, Qian Y, Wen XH (2000) Ultrafiltration membrane bioreactor for urban wastewater reclamation. J Mem Sci 177:73–82Google Scholar
  44. Xing CH, Qian Y, Wen XH, Meng YB (1998) Performance of microfiltration membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater reclamation. In: Proceedings of WEFTEC Asia’98, Singapore, vol 1, p 119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priya Banerjee
    • 1
  • Sandeep Sarkar
    • 1
  • Tanmoy Kumar Dey
    • 2
  • Madhurima Bakshi
    • 3
  • Snehasikta Swarnakar
    • 4
  • Aniruddha Mukhopadhayay
    • 3
  • Sourja Ghosh
    • 1
  1. 1.Ceramic Membrane DivisionCSIR – Central Glass and Ceramic Research InstituteKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Food and Nutrition Division, Laboratory of Food Science and TechnologyUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia
  3. 3.Department of Environmental ScienceUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia
  4. 4.DDDB Division, Department of PhysiologyCSIR – Indian Institute of Chemical BiologyKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations