Separation of Mercury Resistant Bacteria from Wastewater of Milk, Detergent and Ceramic Industry

Journal of Chemical Health Risks

مقاله 4، دوره 1، شماره 1، آذر 2011   

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/jchr.2011.543968

نویسندگان

M. Moghbeli^{* 1}؛ F. Shakeri¹؛ H. Hashemi-Moghaddam²

¹Department of Microbiology, Damghan Branch, Islamic Azad University, P.O. Box 36716- 39998, Damghan, Iran

²Department of Chemistry, Damghan Branch, Islamic Azad University, P.O. Box 36716-39998, Damghan, Iran

چکیده

Use of microorganisms for removing mercury is an effective technology for the treatment of industrial wastewaters and can become an effective tool for the remediation of man-impacted coastal ecosystems with this metal. In this study, seven types of mercury resistant bacteria were separated from industrial waste and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), were determined for these bacteria. Results showed that two strains of bacteria, which isolated from waste water detergent plants, are more resistant to mercury and able to grow at the presence of 52 ppm of mercuric chloride. These bacteria could be used for biological treatment of mercury in contaminated wastewater.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Biosorption؛ Bacteria؛ Mercury sorption, Industrial waste

مراجع

1. Adebowale A., 2004. Bioremediation of Arsenic,
2. Chromium,Lead, and Mercury, National
3. Network of Environmental Management
4. Studies Fellowfor U.S. Environmental
5. Protection Agency. www.clu-in.org
6. Arif Tasleem J., M. Imtiyaz, A. Arif and H.
7. Rizwanul, 2009. Mercury pollution: an
8. emerging problem and potential Bacterial
9. remediation strategies., World J Microbiol
10. Biotechnol 25:1529ââ‚‌“1537
11. Clarkson T. W., L. Magos and G. J. Myers,
12. Toxicology of mercury;current
13. exposure and clinical manifestations. N Engl
14. J Med 349:1731ââ‚‌“1737
15. Devars S., J. S. Rodríguez-Zavala and R.
16. Moreno-Sánchez, 2010. Enhanced Tolerance
17. to Mercury in a Streptomycin-Resistant Strain
18. of Euglena gracilis, Water, Air, & Soil
19. Pollution
20. Essa A. M. , L. E. Macaskie and N. L.
21. Brown, 2005. A new method for mercury
22. removal, Biotechnology Letters (2005)
23. : 1649ââ‚‌“1655
24. Jaysankar De , N. Ramaiah, A. Mesquita and
25. X. N. Verlekar. (2003), Tolerance to
26. Various Toxicants by Marine Bacteria
27. Highly Resistant to Mercury., Marine
28. Biotechnology
29. Mortazavi S., A. Rezaee, A. Khavanin, S.
30. Varmazyar and M. Iafarzadeh ,2005.
31. Removal of Mercuric Chloride by a
32. Mercury Resistant Pseudomonas putida
33. Strain. Journal ofBiological Sciences 5
34. (3): 269-273
35. Moshafi M.H., Mansori S., Nemati R.,
36. Forootanfar H.(2009), Simultaneous
37. Resistance to heavy Metals and
38. Antibiotics in Escherichia coli Strains
39. Isolated from Clinical Samples.
40. Rafsanjan Med. Sci. Univer. J. , (8),
41. -202
42. Okino S., K. Iwasaki, O. Yagi and H.
43. Tanaka, 2000. Development of a
44. biological mercury removal-recovery
45. system., Biotechnology Letters 22: 783ââ‚‌“
47. Poulain A. J., S. M. N. Chadhain, A. P.
48. Ariya, M. Amyot, E. Garcia, P. G. C.
49. Campbell, G. J. Zylstra and T. Barkay,
50. Potential for mercury reduction by
51. microbes in high Arctic. Appl Environ
52. Microbiol 73(7):2230ââ‚‌“2238
53. Rasmussen LD, Zawadsky C, Binnerup SJ,
54. Oregaard G, Sorensen SJ,Kroer N (2008)
55. Cultivation of hard to culture subsurface
56. mercury resistant bacteria and discovery
57. of new merA gene sequences. Appl
58. Environ Microbiol 74(12):3795ââ‚‌“3803
59. Ruiz NO, Daniell H (2009) Genetic
60. engineering to enhance mercury
61. phytoremediation. Curr Opin Biotechnol
62. :1ââ‚‌“7
63. Schue M, Dover LG, Besra GS, Parkhill J,
64. Brown NL (2009) Sequence and analysis
65. of a plasmid encoded mercury resistance
66. operon from Mycobacterium marinum
67. identifies MerH, a new mercuric ion
68. transporter. J Bacteriol 191(1):439ââ‚‌“444.
69. Doi
70. Summers A. O., 2009. Damage control:
71. regulating defenses against toxic metals
72. and metalloids. Curr Opin Microbiol
73. :1ââ‚‌“7