Biogreen remediation of chromium-contaminated soil using Pseudomonas sp. (RPT) and neem (Azadirachta indica) oil cake
- 59 Downloads
The prospective of indigenous Pseudomonas sp. (RPT) and neem oil cake for enhanced removal of chromium (Cr) from contaminated soil microcosm was explored in this study. The bacteria were isolated from Cr-contaminated soil and identified as Pseudomonas sp. based on partial 16S rDNA sequencing. The isolate RPT showed high Cr(VI) tolerance (1000 mg/l) and removal rate (64.4%) in batch experiments. Transmission electron microscopy observation showed that the isolate effectively precipitated the Cr both intra- and extracellularly. Microcosm studies revealed that neem oil cake amendment (7.5% w/v) enhanced Cr(VI) removal (82%) from contaminated soil. Furthermore, soil enzyme activities were increased in the biostimulated soil. The obtained results indicated that the application of neem oil cake along with indigenous Cr(VI)-resistant bacteria could inspire the bioremediation of Cr(VI)-contaminated soil field scale.
KeywordsChromium Neem oil cake Pseudomonas sp. Remediation Soil
This paper was supported by research funds of Chonbuk National University in 2017. The authors (Fuad Ameen & Sami A. AlYahya) are very grateful to the Localization and Development Technology Platform for the Infectious Diseases Surveillance and the Detection Project at Kind Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.
- Brierley CL, Briggs AP, Mular AL, Halbe DN, Barret DJ (2002) Mineral processing plant design, practice and control. Society of Mining Engineers, Littleton, Colo, pp 1540–1568Google Scholar
- Galstyan AS (1965) A method of determining the activity of the hydrolytic enzymes in soil. Sov Soil Sci 2:170–175Google Scholar
- Gaudette HE, Flight WR, Toner L, Folger DW (1974) An inexpensive titration method for the determination of organic carbon in recent sediments. J Sediment Res 44:249–253Google Scholar
- Helmke PA, Sparks DL (1996) Lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, and cesium. Methods Soil Anal 3:551–574Google Scholar
- Kandeler E (1996) Urease activity by colorimetric technique. Methods in soil biology. Springer, New York, pp 171–174Google Scholar
- Liu YG, Xu WH, Zeng GM, Tang CF, Li CF (2004) Experimental study on reduction by Pseudomonas aeuroginosa. J Environ Sci 16:797–801Google Scholar
- Robati D, Mirza B, Rajabi M, Moradi O, Gupta VK (2016) Removal of hazardous dyes-BR 12 and methyl orange using graphene oxide as an adsorbent from aqueous phase. J Colloid Interface Sci 284:687–697Google Scholar
- Suja F, Rahim F, Taha MR, Hambali N, Razali MR, Khali A, Hamzah A (2014) Effects of local microbial bioaugmentation and biostimulation on the bioremediation of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in crude oil contaminated soil based on laboratory and field observations. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 90:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tabatabai MA (1994) Soil enzymes. In: Weaver RW, Angel JS, Bottomley PS (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 2—microbiological and biochemical properties. Book series no. 5. Soil Science Society of America, SSSA, Madison, pp 775–833Google Scholar
- Thomas GW (1996) Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. SSSA-ASA, Madison, pp 475–490Google Scholar