Nanobiotechnology Approach for the Remediation of Environmental Hazards Generated from Industrial Waste

  • Mounika Gudeppu
  • Krishnapriya Madhu Varier
  • Arulvasu Chinnasamy
  • Sumathi Thangarajan
  • Jesudas Balasubramanian
  • Yanmei Li
  • Babu GajendranEmail author
Part of the Environmental Chemistry for a Sustainable World book series (ECSW, volume 23)


Various environmental hazards occurring in present days are the results of population explosion, industrial pollution, unsafe agricultural practices, and several miscellaneous reasons. Hence, remediation process becomes very crucial in limiting the pollution. The process of treatment of contaminated environmental media, i.e., soil and water, in order to remove the toxicants present in it is called as “remediation/environmental remediation.” “Bioremediation” is a process of swabbing contaminated media with biological agents/microbes or naturally extracted chemicals. Bioremediation depending on site of application is further categorized into ex situ bioremediation, in situ bioremediation, phytoremediation, and permeable reactive barrier (PRB). However, if the percentage of contaminant is higher in the media, microbes used for bioremediation will get digested by toxicants/contaminants resulting in the ineffectiveness to remove the bacteria. While the usage of nanoparticles in bioremediation process is one of the key factors for reducing the limitations of this technique, the combination/addition of nanoparticles along with biological agents and applying on the contaminated media can give better results than individual bioremediation techniques. Nanoparticles due to their specific physical and chemical properties possess high reactivity with contaminated area. Nanomaterials are used in different forms in bioremediation process like nanoiron, nanofibers, nanorods, nanotubes, nanoribbons, nanocomposites, nanoporous materials, nanofoam, and nanocrystalline materials. Due to the powerful potential executed by the combination of nanoparticles and biological agents in bioremediation, their usage in future gets widened.


Nanoparticles Industrial waste effluents Ex situ and in situ bioremediation Environmental hazards Permeable reactive barrier 


  1. Abrams HK (2001) A short history of occupational health. J Publ Health Pol 22(1):34–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aislabie J, Saul DJ, Foght JM (2006) Bioremediation of hydrocarbon contaminated polar soils. Extremophiles 10:171–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akbari A, Ghoshal S (2014) Pilot-scale bioremediation of a petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated clayey soil from a sub-Arctic site. J Hazard Mater 280:595–602. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alqadami AA, Naushad M, ALOthman ZA, Ghfar AA (2017) Novel metal–organic framework (MOF) based composite material for the sequestration of U (VI) and Th (IV) metal ions from aqueous environment. ACS Appl Mat Interfaces 9:36026–36037. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Awual MR, Hasan MM, Eldesoky GE, Khaleque MA, Rahman MM, Naushad M (2016) Facile mercury detection and removal from aqueous media involving ligand impregnated conjugate nanomaterials. Chem Eng J 290:243–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker RS, Moore AT (2000) Optimizing the effectiveness of in situ bioventing: at sites suited to its use, bioventing often is a quick, cost-effective soil remediation method. Pollut Eng 32(7):44–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bargar JR, Bernier-Latmani R, Giammar DE, Tebo BM (2008) Biogenic uraninite nanoparticles and their importance for uranium remediation. Elements 4(6):407–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barr D (2002) Biological methods for assessment and remediation of contaminated land: case studies. Constr Ind Res Info Assoc, London Google Scholar
  9. Besaltatpour A, Hajabbasi M, Khoshgoftarmanesh A, Dorostkar V (2011) Land farming process effects on biochemical properties of petroleum-contaminated soils. Soil Sediment Contam Int J 20:234–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bina B, Pourzamani H, Rashidi A, Amin MM (2012) Ethylbenzene removal by carbon nanotubes from aqueous solution. J Publ Health Pol 1–8.
  11. Cerqueira VS, Peralba MR, Camargo FAO, Bento FM (2014) Comparison of bioremediation strategies for soil impacted with petrochemical oily sludge. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 95:338–345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chemlal R, Abdi N, Lounici H, Drouiche N, Pauss A, Mameri N (2013) Modeling and qualitative study of diesel biodegradation using biopile process in sandy soil. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 78:43–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chikere CB, Chikere BO, Okpokwasili GC (2012) Bioreactor-based bioremediation of hydrocarbon-polluted Niger Delta marine sediment, Nigeria. 3 Biotech 2:53–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coulon F, Al Awadi M, Cowie W, Mardlin D, Pollard S, Cunningham C, Risdon G, Arthur P, Semple KT, Paton GI (2010) When is a soil remediated? Comparison of biopiled and windrowed soils contaminated with bunker-fuel in a full-scale trial. Environ Pollut 158:3032–3040. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delillea D, Duvala D, Pelletier E (2008) Highly efficient pilot biopiles for on-site fertilization treatment of diesel oil contaminated sub-Antarctic soil. Cold Reg Sci Technol 54(1):7–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. da Silva LJ, Flávia Chaves Alves FC, de França FP (2012) A review of the technological solutions for the treatment of oily sludges from petroleum refineries. Waste Manag Res 30(10):1016–1030. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Pourcq K, Ayora C, García-Gutiérrez M, Missana T, Carrera J (2015) A clay permeable reactive barrier to remove Cs-137 from groundwater: column experiments. J Environ Radioact 149:36–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Windt W, Aelterman P, Verstraete W (2005) Bioreductive deposition of palladium (0) nanoparticles on Shewanella oneidensis with catalytic activity towards reductive dechlorination of polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ Microbiol 7(3):314–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de-Bashan LE, Hernandez J-P, Bashan Y (2012) The potential contribution of plant growth-promoting bacteria to reduce environmental degradation-a comprehensive evaluation. Appl Soil Ecol 61:171–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dias RL, Ruberto L, Calabró A, Balbo AL, Del Panno MT, Mac Cormack WP (2015) Hydrocarbon removal and bacterial community structure in on-site biostimulated biopile systems designed for bioremediation of diesel-contaminated Antarctic soil. Polar Biol 38:677–687. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diele F, Notarnicola F, Sgura I (2002) Uniform air velocity field for a bioventing system design: some numerical results. Int J Eng Sci 40:1199–1210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Folch A, Vilaplana M, Amado L, Vicent R, Caminal G (2013) Fungal permeable reactive barrier to remediate groundwater in an artificial aquifer. J Hazard Mater 262:554–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frascari D, Zanaroli G, Danko AS (2015) In situ aerobic co-metabolism of chlorinated solvents: a review. J Hazard Mater 283:382–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frutos FJG, Escolano O, García S, Mar Babín M, Fernández MD (2010) Bioventing remediation and ecotoxicity evaluation of phenanthrene-contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 183:806–813. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. García Y, Ruiz C, Mena E, Villaseñor J, Cañizares P, Rodrigo MA (2014) Removal of nitrates from spiked clay soils by coupling electrokinetic and permeable reactive barrier technologies. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 90:1719–1726. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gelati TR, Bonow CA, do Couto AM, de Almeida MCV, Roloff DIT, Cezar-Vaz MR (2017) Physical, chemical and biological hazards to port workers and their potential to cause respiratory disorders. Cogitare Enferm 22(2):e49371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gidarakos E, Aivalioti M (2007) Large scale and long term application of bioslurping: the case of a Greek petroleum refinery site. J Hazard Mater 149:574–581. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gomez F, Sartaj M (2014) Optimization of field scale biopiles for bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil at low temperature conditions by response surface methodology (RSM). Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 89:103–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gong JL, Wang B, Zeng GM (2009) Removal of cationicdyes from aqueous solution using magnetic multi-wall carbon nanotube nanocomposite as adsorbent. J Hazard Mater 164(2–3):1517–1522. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grobelak A, Napora A, Kacprzak M (2015) Using plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) to improve plant growth. Ecol Eng 84:22–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guo R, Guo X, Yu D, Hu J (2012) Application research in water treatment of PAMAM dendrimer. Chem Ind Eng Prog 31:671–675 Google Scholar
  32. Harris JR, Current RS (2012) Machine safety: new & updated consensus standards. Prof Saf 57(5):50–57 Google Scholar
  33. Helena IG, Celiadias-Ferreira, Alexandra BR (2013) Overview of in situ and ex situ remediation technologies for PCB-contaminated soils and sediments and obstacles for full-scale application. Sci Total Environ 445–446:237–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hobson AM, Frederickson J, Dise NB (2005) CH4 and N2O from mechanically turned windrow and vermin composting systems following in-vessel pre-treatment. Waste Manag 25:345–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Höhener P, Ponsin V (2014) In situ vadose zone bioremediation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 27:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kandah MI, Meunier JL (2007) Removal of nickel ions from water by multi-walled carbon nanotubes. J Hazard Mater 146(1–2):283–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanel SR, Manning B, Charlet L, Choi H (2005) Removal of arsenic (III) from groundwater by nanoscale zero-valent iron. Environ Sci Technol 39(5):1291–1298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kanel SR, Greneche JM, Choi H (2006) Arsenic (V) removal from groundwater using nano scale zero-valent iron as a colloidal reactive barrier material. Environ Sci Technol 40(6):2045–2050. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Khan FI, Husain T, Hejazi R (2004) An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J Environ Manag 71:95–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim S, Krajmalnik-Brown R, Kim JO, Chung J (2014) Remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated sites by DNA diagnosis-based bioslurping technology. Sci Total Environ 497:250–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuiper I, Lagendijk EL, Bloemberg GV, Lugtenberg BJJ (2004) Rhizoremediation: a beneficial plant-microbe interaction. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 7:6–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee JH (2013) An overview of phytoremediation as a potentially promising technology for environmental pollution control. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 18:431–439. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li Y, Liu F, Xia B (2010) Removal of copper from aqueous solution by carbon nanotube/calcium alginate composites. J Hazard Mater 177(1–3):876–880. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu Y, Mou H, Chen L, Mirza ZA, Liu L (2015) Cr(VI)-contaminated groundwater remediation with simulated permeable reactive barrier (PRB) filled with natural pyrite as reactive material: environmental factors and effectiveness. J Hazards Mater 298:83–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Magalhães SMC, Jorge RMF, Castro PML (2009) Investigations into the application of a combination of bioventing and biotrickling filter technologies for soil decontamination processes—a transition regime between bioventing and soil vapour extraction. J Hazard Mater 170:711–715. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maila MP, Colete TE (2004) Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons through land farming: are simplicity and cost-effectiveness the only advantages? Rev Environ Sci Bio Technol 3:349–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mauter MS, Elimelech M (2008) Environmental applications of carbon-based nanomaterials. Environ Sci Tech 42(16):5843–5859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meagher RB (2000) Phytoremediation of toxic elemental organic pollutants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3:153–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mesa J, Rodríguez-Llorente JD, Pajuelo E, Piedras JMB, Caviedes MA, Redondo-Gómez S, Mateos-Naranjo E (2015) Moving closer towards restoration of contaminated estuaries: bioaugmentation with autochthonous rhizobacteria improves metal rhizoaccumulation in native Spartina maritima. J Hazard Mater 300:263–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mihopoulos PG, Suidan MT, Sayles GD (2000) Vapor phase treatment of PCE by lab-scale anaerobic bioventing. Water Res 34:3231–3237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mihopoulos PG, Suidan MT, Sayles GD, Kaskassian S (2002) Numerical modeling of oxygen exclusion experiments of anaerobic bioventing. J Contam Hydrol 58:209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mohan SV, Sirisha K, Rao NC, Sarma PN, Reddy SJ (2004) Degradation of chlorpyrifos contaminated soil by bioslurry reactor operated in sequencing batch mode: bioprocess monitoring. J Hazard Mater 116:39–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mohan SV, Sirisha K, Rao RS, Sarma PN (2007) Bioslurry phase remediation of chlorpyrifos contaminated soil: process evaluation and optimization by Taguchi design of experimental (DOE) methodology. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 68:252–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mohsenzadeh F, Chehregani RA (2012) Bioremediation of heavy metal pollution by nano-particles of Noaea Mucronata. Int J Biosci Biochem Bioinforma 2:85–89 Google Scholar
  55. Mustafa YA, Abdul-Hameed HM, Razak ZA (2015) Biodegradation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid contaminated soil in a roller slurry bioreactor. Clean-Soil Air Water 43:1115–1266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Naushad M, Ahamad T, Sharma G, Alam MM, ALOthman ZA, Alshehri SM, Ghfar AA (2016) Synthesis and characterization of a new starch/SnO2 nanocomposite for efficient adsorption of toxic Hg2+ metal ion. Chem Eng J 300:306–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ng DM, Jeffery RW (2003) Relationships between perceived stress and health behaviors in a sample of working adults. Health Psychol 22(6):638–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nikolopoulou M, Pasadakis N, Norf H, Kalogerakis N (2013) Enhanced ex situ bioremediation of crude oil contaminated beach sand by supplementation with nutrients and rhamnolipids. Mar Pollut Bull 77:37–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nurmi JT, Tratnyek PG, Sarathy V (2005) Characterization and properties of metallic iron nanoparticles: spectroscopy, electrochemistry, and kinetics. Environ Sci Techn 39(5):1221–1230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Obiri-Nyarko F, Grajales-Mesa SJ, Malina G (2014) An overview of permeable reactive barriers for in situ sustainable groundwater remediation. Chemosphere of polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ Microbiol 7(3):314–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paudyn K, Rutter A, Rowe RK, Poland JS (2008) Remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils in the Canadian Arctic by land farming. Cold Reg Sci Technol 53:102–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Philp JC, Atlas RM (2005) Bioremediation of contaminated soils and aquifers. In: Atlas RM, Philp JC (eds) Bioremediation: applied microbial solutions for real-world environmental cleanup. American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Press, Washington, DC, pp 139–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Piskonen R, Nyyssönen M, Rajamäki T, Itävaara M (2005) Monitoring of accelerated naphthalene-biodegradation in a bioaugmented soil slurry. Biodegradation 16:127–134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prokop G, Schamann M, Edelgaard I (2000) Management of contaminated sites in western Europe. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen Google Scholar
  65. Qiang Y, Sharma A, Paszczynski A, Meyer D (2007) Conjugates of magnetic nanoparticle-enzyme for bioremediation, vol 4. Proceedings of the 2007 NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show. pp 656–659Google Scholar
  66. Quan X, Yang S, Ruan X, Zhao H (2005) Preparation of titania nanotubes and their environmental applications as electrode. Environ Sci Technol 39(10):3770–3775. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rayner JL, Snape I, Walworth JL, Harvey PM, Ferguson SH (2007) Petroleum–hydrocarbon contamination and remediation by microbioventing at sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island. Cold Reg Sci Technol 48:139–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roco MC (2005) The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nanoscale. J Nanopart Res 7(2–3):129–143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rodríguez-Rodríguez CE, Marco-Urrea E, Caminal G (2010) Degradation of naproxen and carbamazepine in spiked sludge by slurry and solid-phase Trametes versicolor systems. Bioresour Technol 101:2259–2266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roy M, Giri AK, Dutta S, Mukherjee P (2015) Integrated phytobial remediation for sustainable management of arsenic in soil and water. Environ Int 75:180–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sanscartier D, Zeeb B, Koch I, Reimer K (2009) Bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil by heated and humidified biopile system in cold climates. Cold Reg Sci Technol 55:167–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shah JK, Sayles GD, Suidan MT, Mihopoulos PG, Kaskassian SR (2001) Anaerobic bioventing of unsaturated zone contaminated with DDT and DNT. Water Sci Technol 43:35–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shan G, Xing J, Zhang H, Liu H (2005) Biodesulfurization of dibenzothiophene by microbial cells coated with magnetite nanoparticles. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(8):4497–4502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shankar S, Shankar U, Shikha (2005) Arsenic contamination of groundwater: a review of sources, prevalence, health risks, and strategies for mitigation. Sci World J 1–18.
  75. Silva-Castro GA, Uad I, Gónzalez-López J, Fandiño CG, Toledo FL, Calvo C (2012) Application of selected microbial consortia combined with inorganic and oleophilic fertilizers to recuperate oil-polluted soil using land farming technology. Clean Techn Environ Policy 14:719–726. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Silva-Castro GA, Uad I, Rodríguez-Calvo A, González-López J, Calvo C (2015) Response of autochthonous microbiota of diesel polluted soils to land- farming treatments. Environ Res 137:49–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sui H, Li X (2011) Modeling for volatilization and bioremediation of toluene-contaminated soil by bioventing. Chin J Chem Eng 19:340–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thiruvenkatachari R, Vigneswaran S, Naidu R (2008) Permeable reactive barrier for groundwater remediation. J Ind Eng Chem 14:145–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thomé A, Reginatto C, Cecchin I, Colla LM (2014) Bioventing in a residual clayey soil contaminated with a blend of biodiesel and diesel oil. J Environ Eng 140:1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tungittiplakorn W, Lion LW, Cohen LW, Kim JY (2004) Engineered polymeric nanoparticles for soil remediation. Environ Sci Technol 38(5):1605–1610. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tungittiplakorn W, Cohen C, Lion LW (2005) Engineered polymeric nanoparticles for bioremediation of hydrophobic contaminants. Environ Sci Technol 39(5):1354–1358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Verma JP, Jaiswal DK (2016) Book review: advances in biodegradation and bioremediation of industrial waste. Front Microbiol 6:1–2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vidali M (2001) Bioremediation an overview. Pure Appl Chem 73(7):1163–1172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Volpe A, D’Arpa S, Del Moro G, Rossetti S, Tandoi V, Uricchio VF (2012) Fingerprinting hydrocarbons in a contaminated soil from an Italian natural reserve and assessment of the performance of a low-impact bioremediation approach. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:1773–1782. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Whelan MJ, Coulon F, Hince G, Rayner J, McWatters R, Spedding T, Snape I (2015) Fate and transport of petroleum hydrocarbons in engineered biopiles in polar regions. Chemosphere 131:232–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yancheshmeh JB, Khavazi K, Pazira E, Solhi M (2011) Evaluation of inoculation of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on cadmium uptake by canola and barley. Afr J Microbiol Res 5:1747–1754. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zangi-Kotler M, Ben-Dov E, Tiehm A, Kushmaro A (2015) Microbial community structure and dynamics in a membrane bioreactor supplemented with the flame retardant dibromoneopentyl glycol. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:17615–17624. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhou D, Li Y, Zhang Y, Zhang C, Li X, Chen Z, Huang J, Li X, Flores G, Kamon M (2014) Column test-based optimization of the permeable reactive barrier (PRB) technique for remediating groundwater contaminated by landfill leachates. J Contam Hydrol 168:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mounika Gudeppu
    • 1
  • Krishnapriya Madhu Varier
    • 2
    • 3
  • Arulvasu Chinnasamy
    • 3
  • Sumathi Thangarajan
    • 2
  • Jesudas Balasubramanian
    • 1
  • Yanmei Li
    • 4
    • 5
  • Babu Gajendran
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and Environmental ToxicologyDr. ALM PGIBMS, University of MadrasChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Medical BiochemistryDr. ALM PGIBMS, University of MadrasChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MadrasChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Department of Biology and ChemistryThe Key Laboratory of Chemistry for Natural Products of Guizhou Province and Chinese Academy of SciencesGuiyangChina
  5. 5.State Key Laboratory of Functions and Applications of Medicinal PlantsGuizhou Medical UniversityGuiyangChina

Personalised recommendations