Metalotolerance Capacity of Autochthonous Bacteria Isolated From Industrial Waste Effluent

Open access


Microbes play significant roles in remediation of heavy metal polluted industrial effluent using the mechanisms of biosorption and bioaccumulation. In the present study, six heavy metal resistant autochthonous bacteria species namely Bacillus cereus, B. megaterium, B. subtilis, Flavobacterium aquatile, Pseudomonas flourescens and Pseudomonas putida were isolated from effluent samples collected from Paper-mill industry (PMI), Paints and Chemicals Industry (PCI), and Steel-rolling Industry (SRI). The isolates were studied for their heavy metal tolerant capacities at different aqueous salt concentrations. Elemental analysis of the industrial effluent samples collected indicated the presence of heavy metals such as Copper (Cu2+), Manganese (Mn2+), Iron (Fe2+) and Lead (Pb2+) at varying concentrations in μg/ml. Generally, there were variations in the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of the heavy metal salt to each of the bacteria understudy. The MIC value of each of the bacterial isolates to aqueous solution of Cu2SO4 showed that B. megaterium, B. subtilis, Pseudomonas flourescens and Pseudomonas putida had the same MIC value of 20 ± 1.5 μg/mL while Bacillus cereus and Flavobacterium aquatile had MIC values of 13 ± 1.3 μg/mL and 25 ± 2.1 μg/mL respectively. This variation was also noticeable in aqueous salts of Mn2SO4, Fe2SO4 and Pb2SO4.The bacteria isolates showed sensitivity to heavy metals with increasing zone of inhibition as concentration increased with each isolate showing varying degree of metalotolerance. The effectiveness of the autochthonous bacteria as a means to bio-augment the remediation of heavy metal polluted industrial effluent was further proven and recommended.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alloway B.J. 1995 Heavy metal in soils Second edition. Chapman and Hall London.

  • Ansari T.M. Marr I.L and Tariq N. 2004 Heavy metals in marine pollution perspective-a mini review. J. Applied Sci. 4: 1-20.

  • APHA AWWA WEF 1998 Standard methods for the examination ofwater and waste water. 20th American Public Health Association American Water Works Association WaterEnvironment Federation.

  • Benson N.U. 2000 Lead Nickel Vanadium Cobalt and Manganese distributions in intensely cultivated flood plain of Cross River Nigeria. Int. J. Soil Sci. 1: 140-145

  • Cohen D. (2005). Lead Poisoning in the environment and our children URL; http.//

  • Crawford R.L and Crawford D.L. 1995 Bioremediation: Principles and Applications. UK.Cambridge University Press.

  • Duxbury T. 1994 Toxicity of heavy metals to soil bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Letters; 11:2-3.

  • Gulay B. B. Sema A and Yakup M. 2003 Biosorption of heavy metal ions on immobilized whiterotfungus Trametes versicolor. Journal of Hazardous Materials 101 (3): 285-300.

  • Hanif M.A. Nadeem R. Rashid U. Zafar M.N. 2005 Assessing pollution levels in effluent of industries in city zone of Faisalabad Pakistan J. Applied Sci. 5: 1713-1717.

  • Hassen A. Saidi N. Cherif M. Boudabous M. 1998 Resistance of environmental bacteria to heavy metal Bioresources Technology; 64:7-15

  • Kadirvelu K. Thamaraiselvi K. Namasivayam C. 2001b Removal of heavy metals fromindstrial wastewaters by adsorption on to activated carbon prepared from an agricultural solid waste Bioresource Technology 76: 63–65.

  • Kao W.C Huang C.C. Chang J.S. 2008 Bioabsorption of nickel chromium and zinc by MerP-expressing recombinant Escherichia coli. Journal of Hazardous Materials 58 (1):100-106.

  • Lazarova V H. Bouwer. Bahri A. 2005 Water quality consideration In: V. Lazarova and A. Bahri (eds) Water Reuse for Irrigation: Agriculture Landscapes and Turf Grasses CRC Press Boca Raton FL

  • Lin C.C. Lin H.L. 2005 Remediation of soil contaminated with the heavy metal(Cd2+).Journal of Hazardous Materials 122 (1 - 2): 7-15.

  • Munoz R. Alvarez M.T. Munoz A. Terrazas E. Guieysse B. Mattiasson B. 2006 Sequential removal of heavy metals ions and organic pollutants using an algal-bacterial consortium.Chemosphere 63: 903-911.

  • Nriagu J.O. Pacyna J.M. 1988 Quantitative assessment of worldwide contamination of air water and soils by trace metals. Nature 333: 134-139.

  • Nriagu J.O. 1988 A silent epidemic of environmental metal poisoning Environmental Pollution 50: 139-161

  • Pardo R Herguedas M Barrado E. Vega M. 2003 Bio-sorption of cadmium copper lead and zinc by inactive biomass of Pseudomonas putida Analytical and Bio-analytical Chemistry 376: 26-32.

  • Peakall D. 1992 Animal Biomarkers as Pollution Indicators Chapmall and Hall London

  • Pandi M. Shashirekha V. Swami M. 2009 Bioabsorption of chromium from retan chrome liquor by Cyanobacteria. Microbiological Research 164 (4): 420-428.

  • Panikar K.M. Pethkal A.V and Puranik P.R. 2003 Bioremediation of metalliferous wastes and products using inactivated microbial biomass Indian Journal of Biotechnology 2: 426-443

  • Rani A. Goel. 2009 Microbial strategies for crop improvement Springer Berlin; 105–132.

  • Salehizadeh H. Shojaosadati S.A. 2003 Removal of metal ions from aqueous solution bypolysaccharide produced from Bacillus firmus. Water Research 37 (17): 4231-4235.

  • Saxena. M.M. 1998 Environmental Analysis: Water Soil and Air. AgroBotanical Publishers India.

  • Selvaraj K. Manonmani. S. Pattabi S. 2003 Removal of hexavalent chromium using distillerysludge. Bioresource Technology 89 (3): 207-211.

  • Shukla O.P. Rai U.N. Singh N.K. Dubey S. and Baghel V.S. 2007 Isolation andcharacterization of chromate resistant bacteria from tannery effluent. Journal ofEnvironmental Biology 28 (2): 399-403.

  • Umrania V.V. 2006 Bioremediation of toxic heavy metals using acid othermophilic autotrophes.Bioresource Technology 97: 1237-1242.

  • Vullo D.L. Ceretti H.M. Hughes E.A. Ramırez S. Zalts A. 2005 Indigenous heavy metalmultiresistant microbiota of Las Catonas stream. Environmental Monitoring andAssessment 105 (1-3): 81-97.

  • Wang J.L. Chen C. 2006 Biosorption of heavy metals by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a review. Biotechnology Advances 24 (5): 427-51.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 222 98 5
PDF Downloads 101 60 4