title: Assessing the resistance and bioremediation ability of selected bacterial and protozoan species to heavy metals in metal-rich industrial wastewater.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Heavy-metals exert considerable stress on the environment worldwide. This study assessed the resistance to and bioremediation of heavy-metals by selected protozoan and bacterial species in highly polluted industrial-wastewater. Specific variables (i.e. chemical oxygen demand, pH, dissolved oxygen) and the growth/die-off-rates of test organisms were measured using standard methods. Heavy-metal removals were determined in biomass and supernatant by the Inductively Couple Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer. A parallel experiment was performed with dead microbial cells to assess the biosorption ability of test isolates.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The results revealed that the industrial-wastewater samples were highly polluted with heavy-metal concentrations exceeding by far the maximum limits (in mg/l) of 0.05-Co, 0.2-Ni, 0.1-Mn, 0.1-V, 0.01-Pb, 0.01-Cu, 0.1-Zn and 0.005-Cd, prescribed by the UN-FAO. Industrial-wastewater had no major effects on Pseudomonas putida, Bacillus licheniformis and Peranema sp. (growth rates up to 1.81, 1.45 and 1.43 d-1, respectively) compared to other test isolates. This was also revealed with significant COD increases (p < 0.05) in culture media inoculated with living bacterial isolates (over 100%) compared to protozoan isolates (up to 24% increase). Living Pseudomonas putida demonstrated the highest removal rates of heavy metals (Co-71%, Ni-51%, Mn-45%, V-83%, Pb-96%, Ti-100% and Cu-49%) followed by Bacillus licheniformis (Al-23% and Zn-53%) and Peranema sp. (Cd-42%). None of the dead cells were able to remove more than 25% of the heavy metals. Bacterial isolates contained the genes copC, chrB, cnrA3 and nccA encoding the resistance to Cu, Cr, Co-Ni and Cd-Ni-Co, respectively. Protozoan isolates contained only the genes encoding Cu and Cr resistance (copC and chrB genes). Peranema sp. was the only protozoan isolate which had an additional resistant gene cnrA3 encoding Co-Ni resistance.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Significant differences (p < 0.05) observed between dead and living microbial cells for metal-removal and the presence of certain metal-resistant genes indicated that the selected microbial isolates used both passive (biosorptive) and active (bioaccumulation) mechanisms to remove heavy metals from industrial wastewater. This study advocates the use of Peranema sp. as a potential candidate for the bioremediation of heavy-metals in wastewater treatment, in addition to Pseudomonas putida and Bacillus licheniformis.
authors: Department of Environmental, Water and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Arcadia Campus, Private Bag X680, Pretoria 0001, South Africa.
authors: Ilunga
authors: I
authors: Kamika
authors: Maggy N B
authors: MN
authors: Momba
mesh_terms: D001407:Bacillus / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000502:physiology; D001673:Biodegradation, Environmental; D018533:Biomass; D002470:Cell Survival / Q000187:drug effects; D004351:Drug Resistance; D032491:Dryopteridaceae / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000502:physiology; D007220:Industrial Waste; D019216:Metals, Heavy / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000633:toxicity; D050296:Microbial Viability / Q000187:drug effects; D016958:Pseudomonas putida / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000502:physiology; D062065:Wastewater / Q000382:microbiology*
chemical_list: D007220:Industrial Waste; D019216:Metals, Heavy; D062065:Wastewater
references: Water Res. 2006 Jul;40(13):2561-71
references: 16814360
references: Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2005 Aug;75(2):290-6
references: 16222500
references: Mol Ecol. 2006 Jun;15(7):1713-31
references: 16689892
references: Res Microbiol. 2006 Mar;157(2):108-18
references: 16129584
references: Biochem Pharmacol. 2009 Jan 1;77(1):21-9
references: 18840409
references: Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2004 May;72(5):1046-51
references: 15266704
references: Toxicol Lett. 2007 Jan 30;168(2):176-85
references: 17197136
references: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2003 Jun;27(2-3):313-39
references: 12829273
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Dec;74(23):7101-7
references: 18849452
references: Sci Total Environ. 2011 Dec 1;410-411:172-81
references: 22014510
references: J Bacteriol. 2008 Apr;190(8):2680-9
references: 18065533
references: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Aug;74(15):4867-76
references: 18552188
references: Environ Sci Technol. 2007 Apr 1;41(7):2178-83
references: 17438760
references: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2007 Feb;267(1):17-22
references: 17166231
references: Environ Microbiol. 2003 Dec;5(12):1242-56
references: 14641571
references: Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2005 Mar;69(3):499-506
references: 15784977
references: Bioessays. 2009 Jul;31(7):805-16
references: 19492353
references: Sci Total Environ. 2011 Sep 1;409(19):3555-63
references: 20435343
references: Environ Microbiol Rep. 2011 Jun;3(3):329-39
references: 23761279
references: Environ Int. 2006 Aug;32(6):711-7
references: 16650895
references: J Hazard Mater. 2008 Nov 30;159(2-3):187-203
references: 18394791
references: Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005 Feb;19(2):357-65
references: 21783496
references: Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 1998 Mar;39(3):172-8
references: 9570907
references: J Hazard Mater. 2006 Jul 31;135(1-3):40-6
references: 16386832