Post on 08-Apr-2018
transcript
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
1/28
ROLE OF BACTERIAL STRAINS IN THE PHYTOEXTRACTION OF
CHROMIUM BYPISTIA STRATIOTESANDEICHHORNIA CRASSIPES
Saadia Ijaz; Asma Sadiq; Muhammad Faisal
Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of the Punjab, Quaid-e-Azam
Campus, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Chromium is considered to be one of the most toxic heavy metals despite the fact that it is an
essential micronutrient. The present study includes phytoextraction and microbial reduction of Cr
(VI) to Cr (III). For phytoextraction two hydrophytes Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia crassipes
were selected. Four chromium-resistant bacterial strains: CrS2, CrS3, CrS4 and CrS6 were isolated
from highly polluted industrial sites. Majority of these strains were aerobic, motile, capsule
producing. Two of them were Gram-positive cocci (CrS3) which is also spore former, and
coccobacilli (CrS6). Other two strains were Gram-negative rods (CrS4) and coccobacilli (CrS2).
All the strains were catalase and oxidase positive and two of them have the ability to hydrolyze
starch (CrS3 and CrS6). All the strains supported diverse ranges of pH (5, 7 and 9) and
temperatures (280C, 370C and 450C) and showed multiple resistances to heavy metals (ZnSO4,
CoCl2, CuSO4, MnSO4 and NaSe).The highest resistance shown towards Mn and Se at 2000g ml-1
concentration. Majority of the strains (CrS2, CrS4 and CrS6) were resistant to antibiotics:
Carbencillin, 100g ml-1, Erythromycin 15g ml-1, Ampicillin 25g ml-1, Chloramphenicol 30g
ml-1, Penicillin 10g ml-1 and Novobiocin 5g ml-1, while none of them was able to resist Oxy-
Tetracyclin 30g ml-1. All the strains reduced chromium efficiently within 24 hours under strict
aerobic conditions. Reduction of Cr (VI) increased in the presence of low concentration (50g ml -1)
of different heavy metals. The reduction was also checked with varied concentration of Cr (VI) at
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
2/28
different pHs (5, 7 and 9) and temperatures (280C, 370C and 450C). The optimal pH and
temperature for reduction was 9 and 45oC respectively. More than one high molecular weight
plasmids were detected in two strains. Increased phytoextraction was done by Pistia stratiotes as
compared with Eichhornia crassipes. When chromium resistant bacteria were used with
hydrophytes, percentage reduction increased.
Keywords: Phytoextraction; Chromium-resistant bacteria; Heavy metal resistance; Hydrophytes;
Pistia stratiotes;Eichhornia crassipes.
Introduction
Wastewaters produced by various industries may contain undesirable amounts of hexavalent
chromium Cr (VI), as chromate and dichromate, a hazardous metal affecting flora and animals of
aquatic ecosystems as well as human health. One removal strategy comprises the microbial
reduction of Cr (VI) to Cr (III), a less soluble chemical species that is less toxic than Cr (VI)
(Caravelli et al; 2008). Water used in industries creates wastewater that has a potential hazard for
our environment (Mahvi et al; 2005). One of the most common polluting heavy metals is chromium
arising from discharged effluents from tanning leather, electroplating, alloy preparation (Ozdemir
et al; 2005).
Naturally occurring Cr is almost exclusively in the trivalent state, as the energy required for its
oxidation is high (Horton et al, 2006). Apart from its toxicity, Cr (VI) is also highly soluble and
thus mobile and biologically available in the ecosystems (Cheung and Gu, 2006). Environmental
problems associated with heavy metals are very difficult to solve in contrast to organic matters
because incineration and biodegradation can transform the latter (Chaalal et al; 2005). Heavy
metals are the natural elements of the earths crust and for that matter they cannot be degraded or
destroyed. Heavy metal is a chemical element that has a specific gravity at least five times that of
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
3/28
water (Thivierge, 2005). Problems arise when cells are confronted with an excess of vital ions of
heavy metals or with non-nutritional ions that lead to cellular damage (Polle and Schutzenduel,
2003). Natural resources, including plants and microorganisms, have been extensively explored for
their use in metal ion removal from polluted environments (Abou-Shanb et al; 2005; So et al; 2003;
Click, 2003). In bacteria resistance to chromate can be chromosomal borne (Juhnke et al; 2002) or
plasmid mediated (Vitti et al; 2003) or both (Juhnke et al; 2002). The application of
microorganisms to detoxifying metals has been tested in a number of systems, but the viability and
metabolic activity of cells are still the major limiting factors affecting the detoxification efficiency
of the cellular biomass and enzymes involved (Cheung and Gu, 2006).
There are reports on wetland plants like Typha phragmites, Scirpes leersia, Juncus and Spartina in
reducing the levels of heavy metals in polluted water (Deng et al; 2004; Weis and Weis, 2004;
Shankers et al; 2005; Zhang et al; 2007). Until now such emergent hydrophytes have been used in
phytoremediation of effluents in constructing wetland systems but have never been used to reduce
heavy metal pollution in sludge.
For most trace elements, the technique of phytoextraction needs significant improvements to
become practically feasible (Nevel et al; 2007). Phytoremediation offers a cost-effective, non-
intrusive, and safe alternative to conventional cleanup techniques (Zhang, 2007). Phytoremediation
of heavy metals may take one of the several forms: phytoextraction, rhizofiltration,
phytostabilization, and phytovolatilization. Phytoextraction refers to processes in which plants are
used to concentrate metals from the soils into the roots and shoots of the plant.
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
4/28
Material and Methods
Collection of Hydrophytes
Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia crassipes plants were selected in sterilized polythene bags from a
freshwater pond of the University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. The collected plants were
washed with tap water, blot dried and weights of roots and shoots were recorded after that. Plants
were maintained in a growth chamber and were supplied with nutrient solution (Hewitt, 1963) at a
temperature of 2520C with 12 hours photoperiod (10Klux).
Isolation and Characterization Bacterial Strains
Water and soil samples from different polluted industrial sites were collected in sterilized bottles
and polythene bags. Different dilutions of effluents and soil suspensions were made and plated on
nutrient agar (Gerhardt et al; 1994) supplemented with 1000g ml-1 of K2CrO4. The plates were
incubated at 370C for 24 hours and pH 7. Colonies obtained were picked and purified. Isolated
strains were further characterized morphologically (Cheesbrough, 1998), biochemically,
physiologically and genetically.
Physiological characterization
This was done in two ways. Firstly, heavy metal resistance against ZnSO4, CoCl2, CuSO4, MnSO4
and NaSe. For this 5% stock solutions were prepared by dissolving 0.5g of each salt in 10ml
autoclaved distilled water separately and stored at 40C. Isolates were streaked on nutrient agar
supplemented with different concentrations (10g ml-1, 20g ml-1, 50g ml-1, 250g ml-1 and 500g
ml-1
). MnSO4 and NaSe were also checked at a concentration of 1000g ml-1
and 2000g ml-1
. The
plates were incubated at 370C and results were recorded after 24 hours. Secondly, antibiotic
susceptibility against Carbencillin 100g ml-1, Oxy-Tetracyclin 30g ml-1, Erythromycin 15g ml-1,
Ampicillin 25g ml-1, Chloramphenicol 30g ml-1, Penicillin 10g ml-1, Novobiocin 5g ml-1.
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
5/28
Genetic characterization
This was done by plasmid profiling and agarose gel electrophoresis. Alkaline lysis method is used
for isolating circular plasmid DNA, or even RNA, from bacterial cells (Sambrook and Russell,
2001).
Chromate Reduction Experiments
In this experiment three K2CrO4 initial concentrations (100, 500 and 1000g/ml) were used. For
reduction experiments, DeLeo and Ehrlich (1994) medium was used. Cultures were kept in an
incubating shaker with 150 rpm at three temperatures which were 280C, 370C and 450C. The
reduction was also checked at three different pHs which were 5, 7 and 9. After 24 hours of
incubation, samples were taken aseptically and were analyzed for Cr (VI) reduction. Reduction of
Cr (VI) by bacterial strains was monitored by using the classical spectrophotometric method in the
supernatant of cultures by reacting with Diphenyl Carbazide in solution of phosphoric acid. The
absorption was measured at 540nm.
Effects of Heavy Metal on Cr (VI) Reduction
For this purpose cultures were also separately amended with salts of ZnSO4 50g ml-1, CoCl2 50g
ml-1, CuSO4 50g ml-1, MnSO4 50g ml
-1 and NaSe 50g ml-1 at three different initial
concentrations of Cr (VI) which were: 100, 500 and 1000g ml -1 respectively. The incubation was
given at 450C with pH 7. After 24 hours, cultures were harvested and were processed as mentioned
above to check the amount of Cr (VI) reduced into Cr (III).
Reduction of Cr (VI) to Cr (III) by Pistia stratiotes andEichhornia crassipes in Conjunction
with Bacterial strains
PLANT MATERIAL
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
6/28
To evaluate the effects of bacterial strains in conjunction with Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia
crassipes three different pHs were selected (5, 7 and 9) for the removal of chromium at initial
concentration of 300g ml-1 from aqueous solutions with no nutritional ingredients added to the
test. Four sets were prepared for each strain which were control, bacterial test, plant test and
plant/bacterial test. Bacterial inoculum of 100g ml-1 was added in the solution. The incubation was
done at room temperature for 48 hours.
BACTERIAL STRAINS
Four chromium-resistant bacterial strains, CrS2, CrS3, CrS4 and CrS6 isolated from chromium
contaminated water and soil, were used in this study. The bacterial strains were maintained on
nutrient agar medium supplemented with 1000g ml-1 of K2CrO4.
CHROMIUM REDUCTION ASSAY
After 48 hours of exposure to Cr (VI), plants were harvested and washed with autoclaved distilled
water twice to remove the loosely bound or attached chromium to the roots and aerial parts.
Harvested plants were oven dried at 800C for 24 hours. The amount Cr (VI) left in the solution was
then determined by using the classical spectrophotometric method.
Results
Water samples (A, B, C) from the effluents of Itehad Chemicals, East Pak tannery and chromatic
disposal of Pak-Arab Fertilizer were collected. The strain isolated was: CrS3. Soil samples (D, E, F,
G, and H) from various chromium polluted areas including East Pak tannery, Itehad Chemical
Industry and Pak-Arab Fertilizer Plant were collected. The strains isolated from polluted soil were:
CrS2, CrS4 and CrS6.
Colony morphology. Majority of the strains (CrS2, CrS4 and CrS6) showed off-white color,
whereas strain CrS3 showed orange/brown pigment. All strains had circular colonies except CrS4
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
7/28
which had eye-shaped colonies. Convex elevation was seen in all strains except CrS3 which had
raised elevation. The size of the colonies ranges from less than 1mm to 4mm. Strain CrS3 showed
butyrus consistency. Strain CrS6 showed viscid consistency while CrS2 showed viscid/moist
consistency (Table 1).
Cell morphology. Some of the strains were gram-negative: CrS2 (coccobacilli), CrS4 (bacilli).
While some strains were gram-positive: CrS3 cocci, CrS6 coccobacilli. Spore-staining under heavy
metal stress showed that strain CrS3 formed spores due to heavy metal stress of 2000g/ml
concentration. Whereas strains CrS2, CrS4 and CrS6 did not make any spores. Almost all the
strains CrS2, CrS4 and CrS6 had capsules around their cells except CrS3. All strains were found
out to be motile except CrS6 (Table 2).
Biochemical characterization. Every strain gave positive results for catalase and cytochrome
oxidase. All the strains were strict aerobes while strain CrS2 was facultative anaerobe. Only two
strains CrS3 and CrS6 were starch hydrolyzing. All the strains showed growth on MacConkeys
agar (Table 3).
Heavy metal resistance. To check the heavy metal resistance profile of chromium-resistant
bacteria, five heavy metals were used. All the strains managed to resist NaSe and MnSO4 to a
higher level. Strain CrS3 could not resist MnSO4 at a concentration of 2000g ml-1. None of the
strains could resist ZnSO4, CoCl2 and CuSO4 at a concentration of 500g ml-1. Only two strains
CrS2 and CrS4 resisted ZnSO4 up to 250g ml-1 concentrations. Only two strains CrS2 and CrS6
resisted CoCl2 up to 250g ml-1 concentrations. All the strains resisted CuSO4 up to 250g ml
-1
concentrations except strains CrS3 (Table 4).
Antibiotic sensitivity. Strains CrS2, CrS4 and CrS6 were resistant to Carbencillin, whereas strain
CrS3 was sensitive to it. All the strains were found out to be highly sensitive to Oxy-Tetracyclin.
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
8/28
Strains CrS2 and CrS6 were resistant to Erythromycin, whereas strains CrS3 and CrS4 were
sensitive to this drug. Strains CrS2, CrS4 and CrS6 were resistant to Ampicillin whereas strain
CrS3 was sensitive to it. Strains CrS4 and CrS6 showed resistance toward Chloramphenicol. Strain
CrS3 was sensitive to it, whereas strain CrS2 was intermediate. All the strains were found out to be
resistant to Penicillin except strain CrS3. All the strains were found out to be resistant to
Novobiocin except strains CrS3 (Table 5).
Plasmid profile. By observing the gel under UV radiation lamp, bands of plasmid DNA were seen
in all the strains. There were multiple plasmids in the strains CrS2 and CrS6. A known size of
ladder 10kb was also run along with the unknown plasmids. The plasmids of strains CrS2, CrS3,
CrS4 and CrS6 were either of 10kb or larger, labeling them as mega-plasmids (Table 6).
Chromium reduction. The reduction potential of isolated strains was checked at three different
initial hexavalent chromium concentrations which were 100, 500 and 1000g ml-1. Soluble Cr (VI)
was reduced at all the treatments with all bacterial strains, however, reduction ability varied with
the strains. The maximum reduction was done by strain CrS6 at 100g ml-1. In general the
reduction of Cr (VI) to Cr (III) was lower at initial concentration (100g ml -1) but at higher initial
concentrations (500 and 1000 g ml-1) overall more chromium was reduced but percentage
reduction was less as compared with the lower concentration (Figure 1).
Effect of pH and temperature. Almost all the strains reduced more Cr (VI) at pH 9 at Cr (VI)
concentration of 100 and 500g ml-1. At Cr (VI) concentration of 1000 g ml-1, increased reduction
was again observed at pH 9 except the strain CrS2 (Figure 2). All the strains followed a wide range
of temperature for Cr (VI) reduction but the strains CrS4 and crS6 preferred high temperature of
450C (Figure 3).
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
9/28
Effect of different heavy metals. All the strains show more reduction with NaSe at initial
concentration of 500g ml-1 of chromium. The highest Cr (VI) reduction recorded with NaSe was
67.95% by strain CrS6 at 500g ml-1. All the strains showed increased reduction with CoCl2 at
100g ml-1. Strain CrS6 showed more Cr (VI) reduction with MnSO4 at initial concentration of
100g ml-1 except strains CrS2, CrS3 and CrS4 which showed increased reduction at initial
concentration of 500g ml-1. With ZnSO4 highest Cr (VI) reduction was recorded at initial
concentration of 100g ml-1 (Figure 4-6).
Removal of chromium-Pistia stratiotes + bacteria. When bacteria and plants were used together
it was observed that reduction increased with their association. Most of the strains reduced
chromium efficiently at pH 5 and 9. At neutral pH chromium reduction was comparatively less
efficient.
Eichhornia crassipes + bacteria. After 48 hours, it was observed that plant removed less
chromium (2.8%). All the isolates reduced more chromium as compared with plant.
Discussion
Resistance against toxic Cr is more prominent among prokaryotes than the eukaryotes. Some gram-
positive bacteria have been reported to be able to detoxify Cr (VI) by reducing it to Cr (III) (Fuji et
al. 1990; Basu et al.1997). Industrial wastewater is often polluted by Cr (VI) compounds,
presenting a serious environmental problem (Vatsouria et al; 2005). Chromiums interaction with
biological systems is very different and complex (Vankar and Bajpai, 2007).
The treatment of heavy metal wastewater by using microorganism is one of the most active
research fields in recent years (Leusch et al., 1995; Kaewsarn, 2002; Wu et al., 1996). It is a well
known fact that aquatic plants accumulate metals that they take from the environment and
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
10/28
concentrate on the trophic chains with accumulative effect (Outridge and Noller, 1991; Tremp and
Kohler, 1995).
The use of dead, dried aquatic plants, for water removal of metals derived from industrial activities
as a simple biosorbent material has been increasing in the last years. The mechanism of
simultaneous metal removal (Cd, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cr and Pb) by 3 macrophytes biomass (Spirodela
intermedia, Lemna minorand Pistia stratiotes) was investigated (Miretzky et al.2006).
The present study deals with the reduction of Cr (VI) by chromium-resistant bacterial strains in
conjunction with phytoextraction of Cr (VI) by hydrophytes. For this reason four chromium-
resistant bacterial strains and two Cr (VI) accumulating hydrophytes were isolated and selected. All
the strains showed resistance to chromium at initial concentration of 1000g ml -1 (Horton et al.
2006). In a study conducted by Amoozegaret al. (2007), the strains could tolerate up to 600mM of
chromate and completely reduced 0.2mM highly toxic and soluble Cr (VI) into almost non-toxic
and insoluble Cr (III) under aerobic condition. On the basis of morphological characterization
(table 1) it was found out that, strain CrS3 was affiliated with family Micrococcaceae. Similarly
Srinath et al. (2001) also isolated gram-positive chromium-resistant cocci demonstrating
physiological characteristics primarily indicative of genera Micrococcus. CrS6 was gram-positive
coccobacilli, CrS2 was gram-negative coccobacilli, and CrS4 was gram-negative rod and was
affiliated with family Pseudomonadaceae. According to Vitti and Giovannetti (2000), gram-
positive bacteria are more metal tolerant than gram-negative bacteria.
The isolated bacterial strains were able to resist chromium but each strain showed multiple
resistances towards various heavy metals which included ZnSO4, CoCl2, CuSO4, MnSO4 and NaSe
(Table 4). In a study Thacker et al. (2006), a gram-negative chromate reducing bacteria also
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
11/28
exhibited multiple heavy metals (Ni, Zn, Hg, Pb, Co) tolerance. Abou-Shanab et al. (2007) showed
that chromium-resistant bacteria can also resist Mn.
Majority of the strains were resistant to Ampicillin, Chloramphenicol, Penicillin, Erythromycin,
Carbencillin and Novobiocin. The bacterial strains isolated by Faisal and Hasnain (2000) were also
resistant to Ampicillin and Chloramphenicol.
Gel electrophoresis revealed that all the strains contained plasmids (Table 6). All the strains
contained mega plasmids. Vitti et al. (2002) also isolated chromium-resistant bacteria that harbored
one and two plasmids of high molecular mass.
Although the strains can reduce Cr (VI) at wide range of pH (pH 5-pH 9) efficiently, its optimum
pH was recorded at pH 9 (Figure 2). Similarly, (Camargo et al. 2002), showed that maximum Cr
(VI) reduction was observed at the optimum pH (7-9). All the strains done reduction efficiently at a
wide range of temperature (280C-450C), the optimum was recorded to be 450C (Figure 3). In
another study, Wang et al. (1989) showed that chromate reduction was observed at a temperature
range of 10-400C.
All the strains showed increased reduction in the presence of heavy metals at all of the three initial
chromium concentrations better than when strains were growing only in chromium supplemented
medium (Figures 4-6). In one study, by Van Berkum et al. (2007), six strains were found out to be
resistant to Mn, Zn and Pb and displayed different degrees of chromate reduction (42-95%) under
aerobic conditions.
The overall removal of Cr by both the action of plant along with bacterial strains was more as
compared to the non-inoculated control. The effect of pH on the uptake of Cr (VI) by roots of
Pistia stratiotes showed that maximum uptake (20.54%) of chromium was done at pH 5 within 48
hours. Miretzky et al. (2004) showed that Pistiastratiotes remove more than 85% of chromium
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
12/28
within 24 hours. Eichhornia crassipes did less reduction (2.8%) solitarily. Singhal and Rai (2003)
reported that Eichhornia crassipes could easily grow in the industrial effluents and can take up
metal and toxic materials for its metabolic use. Phytoextraction of chromium by Pistia stratiotes
from wastewaters in conjunction with chromium-resistant bacterial isolates proves to be very
promising technology which is cheap, effective and safe and can be installed on an industrial scale
without fear of environmental hazard.
Conclusion
By analyzing the results it can be concluded that isolates in the present study are very efficient in
reducing chromium. All the four strains can be considered as good candidates for application on an
industrial scale for removing toxic Cr (VI) because in polluted environment a lot of other metals
and antibiotics might also be present with the target metal and these bacterial strains showed
multiple resistances towards different heavy metals and antibiotics. Pistiastratiotes plants were
much more efficient in the removal of chromium from wastewater as compared with Eichhornia
crassipes. Phytoextraction of chromium by Pistiastratiotes from wastewaters in conjunction with
chromium-resistant bacterial isolates proves to be very promising technology which is cheap,
effective and safe and can be installed on an industrial scale without fear of environmental hazard.
References
Abou-Shanab, R.A., Ghozlan, H., Ghanem, K. and Moawad, H., 2007. Behavior of bacterial
populations isolated from rhizosphere ofDiplahne fusca dominant in industrial sites.
Amoozegar, M.A., Ghasemi, A., Razavi, M.R. and Naddaf, S., 2007. Evaluation of hexavalent
chromium reduction by chromate-resistant moderately halophile, Nesterenkonia sp. Strain
MF2.
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
13/28
Basu, M., Bhattacharya, S., Paul, Ak., 1997. Isolation and characterization of chromium-resistant
bacteria from tannery effluents.
Caravelli, AH., Giannuzzi, L., Zaritzky, NE., Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2008 Elsevier.
Chaalal, O., Adulrazag, Y., Zekri and Islam, R., 2005. Uptake of heavy metals by microorganisms:
An Experimental Approach to Energy Source, 27: 87-100.
Cheung, K.H. and Gu, J.D., 2006. Mechanism of hexavalent chromium detoxification by
microorganisms and bioremediation application potential.
Click, R.B., 2003. Phytoremediation: Synergistic use of plants and bacteria to clean up the
environment.
Faisal, M. and S. Hasnain., 2005. Beneficial role of hydrophytes in removing Cr (VI) from
wastewater in association with chromate-reducing bacterial strains Ochrobactrum
intermedium and Brevibacterium. International Journal of Phytoremediation 7(4): 271-
277.
Fuji, E., Toda, K., Ohtake, H., 1990. Bacterial reduction of toxic hexavalent chromium using a fed-
batch culture.
Hewitt, E.J., 1963. Minerals nutrition of plants in culture media. In Plant Physiology (ed., F.C.
steward), pp. 99-137. Academic Press, New York.
Horton, R.N., Apel, W.A., Thompson, V.S. and Sheridan P.P., 2006. Low temperature reduction of
hexavalent chromium by a microbial.
Juhnke, S., Peitzsch, N., Hubener, N., Grosse, C. and Nies, D.H., 2002. new genes involved in
chromate resistance in Ralstonia metallidurans strain CH34.
Leusch, A., Holan, Z.R. and Volesky, B., 1995. Biosorption of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and
Zn) by chemically-reinforced biomass of marine algae.
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
14/28
Mahvi, A.H., Naghipour, D., Vaezi, F. Nazmara, S., 2005. Teawaste as an adsorbent for heavy
metal removal form industrial wastewaters.
Miretzky, P., Saralegui, A., Cirelli, A.F., 2006. Chemosphere, Volume 62, Issue 2, Pages 247-254.
Nevel, L. V., Mertens, J., Oorts, K., Verheyen, K., 2007. Environmental pollution, volume 150,
Issue 1, pages 34-40.
Outridge, P., Noller, B., 1991. Accumulation of toxic trace elements by freshwater vascular plants.
Ozdemir, C., Karatas, M., Dursun, S., Argun, M.E. and Dogan, S., 2005. Effect of MnSO 4 on the
chromium removal from the leather industry wastewater.
Polle, A. and Schutzenduel, A., 2003. Heavy metal signaling in plants: linking cellular and
organismic responses. In:Plant Responses to Abiotic Stress (eds., H. Hirt, K. Shinozaki),
pp. 187-215, vol 4. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Sambrook and Russell., 2001. Molecular Cloning A Laboratory Manual. Vol 1, 3rd edition.
Shanker, A. K., Cervantes, C., Loza-Tavera, H. and Avudainayagam, S., 2005. Chromium toxicity
in plants.
Singhal, V. and Rai, J.P.N. 2003. Biogas production from water hyacinth and channel grass used
for phytoremediation of industrial effluents.
Thacker,U., Parikh, R., Shouche, Y. and Madamwar, D., 2006. Hexavalent chromium reduction by
Providencia sp.
Thivierge, B., 2005. Heavy metal poisoning. Medical Network Inc., New Jersey.
Tremp, H. and Kohler, A., 1995. The usefulness of macrophyte-monitoring systems, exemplified
on eutrophication and acidification on running waters.
Valdman, E., Erijman, L., Pessoa, F.L.P. and Leite, S.G.F., 2001. Continuous biosorption of Cu and
Zn by immobilized waste biomass Sargassum sp.
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
15/28
Van Berkum, P.B., Abou-Shanab, R. I. and Angle, J.S., 2007. Chromate-tolerant bacteria for
enhanced metal uptake byEichhornia crassipes.
Vankar, P.S. and Bajpai, D., 2007. Phytoremediation of chrome-VI of tannery effluent by
Trichoderma sp. J. Desal., 201(30): 14-22.
Vatsouria, A., Vainshtein, M., Wiessner, A., Kosolapov, D.K. and Kaestner, M., 2005. Anaerobic
reduction of chromate and nitrate by bacterial cultures of Staphylococcus epidermidis L-
02.
Vitti, C., Pace, A. and Giovannetti, L., 2003. Characterization of Cr (VI) resistant bacteria isolated
from chromium-contaminated soil by tannery activity.
Wang, P., Mori, T., Komori, K., Sasatsu, M., Toda, K. and Ohtake, H., 1989. Isolation and
characterization of an Enterobacter cloacae strain that reduces hexavalent chromium
under anaerobic conditions.
Wu, Q.J., Song, Y.L. and Li, F.D., 1996. Studies of microbial treatment process for wastewater
with high concentration of Cr (VI).
Zhang, X., Liu, P., Yang, Y. and Chen, W., 2007. Linkinghub.elsevier.com.
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
16/28
Table-1 Morphological Characteristics of Chromium-Resistant
Colony Morphology CrS2 CrS3 CrS4 CrS6
Size Punctiform Moderate Large Punctiform
Measurements Less than 1mm 2 mm 4 mm Less than 1 mm
Consistency Viscid/moist Butyrus Mucoid Viscid
Elevation Convex Raised Convex Convex
Pigmentation Off-white
Brown/orang
e Off-white Off-white
Form Circular Circular Eye-Shaped Circular
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
17/28
Table-2 Cell Morphology of Chromium-Resistant Bacterial Strains
Strains
Morphological characteristics
Gram-staining Cell shape Spore-
formation
Capsule-
formation
Motility
CrS2 Gram-negative Coccobacilli - + +
CrS3 Gram-positive Cocci + - +
CrS4 Gram-negative Bacilli - + +
CrS6 Gram-positive Coccobacilli - + -
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
18/28
Table-3 Biochemical Characteristics of Chromium-Resistant Bacteria
Characteristics CrS2 CrS3 CrS4 CrS6
Catalase + + + +
Cytochrome oxidase + + + +
Oxidation/Fermentation F.A A A AStarch hydrolysis - + - +
MacConkeys agar + NLF + NLF + NLF + NLF
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
19/28
Table-4 Heavy Metal Resistance Profile of Chromium-Resistant Bacteria
Strains
Heavy Metals (g ml-1)
g ml-1 ZnSO4 NaSe MnSO4 CoCl2 CuSO4
CrS2
250 - + + + +500 - + + - -
2000 + +
CrS3
250 - + + - -
500 - + + - -
2000 + -
CrS4
250 + + + + +
500 - + + - +
2000 + +
CrS6
250 - + + - -
500 - + + - -2000 + -
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
20/28
Table-5 Antibiotic Sensitivity Profile of Chromium-Resistant Bacteria
Antibiotics in
g/ml
Strains
CrS2 CrS3 CrS4 CrS6
Zone
diameter
S,R,I Zone
diameter
S,R,I Zone
diameter
S,R,I Zone
diameter
S,R,I
Carbencillin
CAR-100
0 mm R 37 mm S 0 mm R 0 mm R
Oxy-Tetracyclin
OT-30
32 mm S 23 mm S 30 mm S 35 mm S
Erythromycin
E-15
12 mm R 24 mm S 25 mm S 10 mm R
Ampicillin
Amp-25
0 mm R 25 mm S 0 mm R 0 mm R
Chloramphenicol
C-30
15 mm I 25 mm S 12 mm R 9 mm R
Penicillin
P-10
0 mm R 33 mm S 0 mm R 0 mm R
Novobiocin
NV-5
14 mm R 23 mm S 9 mm R 13 mm R
S= sensitive
R= resistant
I= intermediate
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
21/28
Table-6 Plasmid Profile of Chromium-Resistant Bacteria
Strains
Plasmid Profile
Plasmids Presence No. of Plasmids Plasmid Size
CrS2 + 02
01 Larger than 10 kb
02 Larger than 10 kb
CrS3 + 01 10 kb
CrS4 + 01 10 kb
CrS6 + 02
01 Larger than 10 kb
02 Larger than 10 kb
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
22/28
Legends of the figures
Figures Description
Fig 1 Chromium Reduction at Different Initial Cr (VI) Concentration
Fig 2 Effect of pH 9 at Different Initial Concentrations of Cr (VI)
Fig 3 Chromium Reduction at 450C at an Initial Cr (VI) concentration of 100g/ml,
500g/ml, 1000g/ml
Fig 4 Chromium Reduction by Bacterial Strains in the Presence of Different Heavy Metals
at Initial Cr (VI) Concentration of 100g/ml
Fig 5 Chromium Reduction by Bacterial Strains in the Presence of Different Heavy Metals
at Initial Cr (VI) Concentration of 500g/ml
Fig 6 Chromium Reduction by Bacterial Strains in the Presence of Different Heavy Metals
at Initial Cr (VI) Concentration of 1000g/ml
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
23/28
Chromium R educt ion at D i
Initial Cr (VI) Concentra
0
10
20
3040
50
CrS2 CrS3 CrS4 CrS6
Bacter ia l S tra
PercentageCr
(VI)Reduction 1 0 0 g / m
5 0 0 g / m
1000g/
Figure 1. Chromium Reduction at Different Initial Cr (VI) Concentration
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
24/28
Effect of pH 9 at Different Initial
Concentrations of Cr (VI)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Cr S2 Cr S3 CrS 4 CrS 6
Bacterial Strains
PercentageCr(VI)
Reduction
pH 9 100g/ml
pH 9 500g/ml
pH 9 1000g/ml
Figure 2. Effect of pH 9 at Different Initial Concentrations of Cr (VI)
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
25/28
Chromium Reduction at 450C at a n Initi
Cr (VI) concentration of 100 g/m
500g/ml and 1000g /ml
0
10
20
30
40
50
CrS2 CrS3 CrS4 CrS6
Bacterial Strai
Percentag
eCr(VI)
Redduction 100g/ml
500g/ml
1000g/
Figure 3. Chromium Reduction at 450C at an Initial Cr (VI) concentration of 100g/ml,
500g/ml and1000g/ml
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
26/28
Chromium Re duction by Ba cterial S
the Pres ence of D ifferent He avy M
Initial Cr (VI) Co ncentration o f 100
0
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
10 0
C rS2 C rS3 C rS4 C rS6
Bacterial s trai
PercentageC
r(VI)
Reductio
n
NaSe
Co Cl2M nSO
Zn SO4
Cu SO4
Figure 4. Chromium Reduction by Bacterial Strains in the Presence of Different Heavy
Metals at Initial Cr (VI) Concentration of 100g/ml
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
27/28
Chromium Reduction by Bacterial S
the Prese nce of Dif ferent Hea vy M
Initial Cr (VI) Conce ntration of 50 0
0
20
4060
80
10 0
C rS 2 C rS 3 C rS 4 C rS 6
Bacterial Stra
PercentageC
r(VI)
Reduction
NaSe
CoCl2
M nSO
Z n S O 4
C u S O 4
Figure 5. Chromium Reduction by Bacterial Strains in the Presence of Different Heavy
Metals at Initial Cr (VI) Concentration of 500g/ml
8/6/2019 Paper Writing Skills
28/28
Chromium Reduction by Bacterial Stra
the Prese nce of Different Heavy M eta
Initial Cr (VI) Concentration of 1000
0
10
20
30
40
CrS2 CrS3 CrS4 CrS6
Bacterial Strai
PercentageCr(VI)
Reducti
on
NaSe
CoCl2
MnSO4
ZnSO4
CuSO4
Figure 6. Chromium Reduction by Bacterial Strains in the Presence of Different Heavy
Metals at Initial Cr (VI) Concentration of 1000g/ml