Cited by 17Fluoride Effects and RemovalMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyFecal contamination and water quality

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 37 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Isolation and identification of high fluoride resistant bacteria from water samples of Dindigul district, Tamil Nadu, South India

Open access
Chellaiah, Edward Raja, Ravi, Pandeeswari, Uthandakalaipandian, Ramesh·2021·Current Research in Microbial Sciences

Abstract

Fluoride (F − ) pollution is one of the major issues in India and worldwide. Water samples were collected, and analyse the physicochemical characteristics. From the results, acceptable limit pH ranges, low and high electrical conductivity (EC) values, high-level of TDS (total dissolved solids) and chloride (Cl − ) values, less than desirable and higher than permissible F − concentrations (4.7 and 11 ppm) were found. At first, ninety-three colonies were screened using rapid hicoliform agar plates. After that, sixty-six F − resistant colonies were picked up from 50 mM NaF (Sodium fluoride) containing LB agar plates. Finally, eight isolates were showing a high degree of F − resistance (200–-300 mM NaF) and selected for further studies. High F − resistance isolates exhibited β and γ-haemolytic activities were determined in blood agar plates. F − resistant isolates showed their salt tolerances ranged from 4% to 7% NaCl and resistant to multiple antibiotics. Biochemical and 16S rRNA sequencing results showed that the F − resistant isolates were identified as Enterobacter cloacae strain 3, E. hormaechei strain 14, Enterobacter sp. strain 21, E. hormaechei strain 22, E . coli strain S2-9, Aeromonas caviae strain 31, A. caviae strain 32, A. caviae strain 34. All strains were submitted in the NCBI database with the accession numbers (MW131637, MW131639; MW131650-655). The F − resistant gene ‘crcB ’ gene was successfully amplified from the resistant isolates using gene-specific primers. These results have demonstrated that fluoride resistant bacteria would be useful for bacterial fluoride bioremediation near future.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Eight high fluoride-resistant bacteria (200–300 mM NaF) were isolated from groundwater in Natham taluk, Dindigul district, Tamil Nadu, where two villages had 4.7 and 11 ppm fluoride. Isolates included *Aeromonas caviae*, *E. coli*, and *Enterobacter* spp.; *crcB* was amplified from *Aeromonas*, *E. coli*, and *Enterobacter*, and *Aeromonas* strains showed β-haemolysis and virulence genes lipase/elastase.

Key findings

  • Water fluoride ranged from 0.409 to 11 ppm; high F− was detected at Odukampatty (4.7 ppm) and Chellapanaikenpatti (11 ppm). pH ranged 6.13–6.94 (average 6.42), EC 2.13–1918 μS/cm, highest TDS 994 mg/L, and Cl− 50–800 mg/L.
  • Eight F−-resistant isolates were identified: *Enterobacter cloacae* strain 3, *E. hormaechei* strain 14, *Enterobacter* sp. strain 21, *E. hormaechei* strain 22, *E. coli* strain S2-9, and *A. caviae* strains 31, 32, and 34. Strains 31, 32, and 34 tolerated 300 mM NaF; strains 3, 14, 21, 22, and S2-9 tolerated up to 250 mM.
  • Salt tolerance ranged from 4% to 7% NaCl: isolates 3, 14, 21, and 22 grew at 7%; S2-9 at 5%; high F−-resistant *Aeromonas* isolates up to 4%. Isolates 3, 14, 21, 22, and S2-9 were γ-haemolytic; 31, 32, and 34 were β-haemolytic. All isolates were resistant to methicillin, rifampicin, penicillin, and vancomycin.
  • *crcB* was amplified from *E. coli* S2-9 (384 bp), *Aeromonas* (375 bp), and *Enterobacter* (375 bp). *Aeromonas* strains 31, 32, and 34 carried lipase (381 bp) and elastase (513 bp) genes; aerolysin, Act, and Ast were not detected.

Methods

  • Water samples were collected from boreholes and handpumps in selected villages of Natham taluk, Dindigul district, Tamil Nadu, South India. Physicochemical parameters measured included pH, EC, TDS, salinity, Cl−, and F−.
  • Bacteria were screened on rapid hicoliform agar, patched on LB agar with 50 mM NaF, and tested for maximum F− tolerance on LB agar containing 50–300 mM NaF. Further characterization used biochemical kits, blood agar, 26-antibiotic disc diffusion, and salt tolerance from 0% to 10% NaCl.
  • Genomic DNA was extracted; 16S rRNA was amplified, sequenced, and compared by BLAST. Specific PCR assays identified *Aeromonas* (16S rRNA, AER8/AER9, AluI restriction), *E. coli* (16E1/16E2, *lacZ*, *uidA*), virulence genes, and *crcB*.

Limitations

  • Stated limitations: Not stated in the paper.
  • Evident from the text: the study is limited to Natham taluk, Dindigul district, and characterizes only eight isolates.
  • Evident from the text: no quantitative fluoride removal or bioremediation experiments were performed, despite the conclusion suggesting future bioremoval use; antibiotic susceptibility tests were performed in duplicate with no statistical analysis described.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100038

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

2 of 37 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 58 claims

  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 18
46 of 46
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No study has been conducted for the isolation of F− resistance bacteria from Natham taluk, Dindigul district, South India.

    “However, no such study has been conducted for the isolation of F− resistance bacteria from Natham taluk, Dindigul district, South India.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    This is the first report identifying fluoride-resistant bacteria from Natham taluk, southern Tamil Nadu.

    “To our knowledge, this is the first report identifying fluoride resistant bacteria especially from Natham taluk, southern part of Tamilnadu.”
2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Two different maximum permissible TDS limits

    Major

    The results give 600 mg/L as the maximum permissible TDS limit, while the discussion gives 500 mg/L for that limit.

  • Not all sample pH values meet the stated safe limit

    Major

    The discussion says the samples are within the stated pH range of 6.6-8.5, but Table 1 includes values below 6.6, including 5.87.

  • Reported minimum pH excludes a measured sample

    Minor

    The results state that the lowest sample pH was 6.13, but Table 1 reports a pH of 5.87 for Sirukudi.

  • A. caviae PCR product size differs between table and results

    Minor

    Table 2 specifies a 280 bp product for the AER8/AER9 primers, whereas the results report a 260 bp product from those primers.

  • Enterobacter crcB primer assignments are reversed

    Minor

    The results assign the first primer set to strain 3 and the second to strains 14, 21, and 22. The Fig. 9 caption instead assigns EAF/EAR to strains 22, 21, and 14 and ERF/ERR to strain 3.

  • Conclusion claims doxycycline resistance absent from Table 5

    Minor

    The conclusion lists doxycycline hydrochloride among antibiotics to which the isolates were resistant, but Table 5 classifies every isolate as sensitive or intermediate, with none resistant.

  • Conclusion claims trimethoprim resistance absent from Table 5

    Minor

    The conclusion lists trimethoprim resistance, but Table 5 classifies every isolate as sensitive or intermediate, with none resistant.

  • Conclusion claims nalidixic acid resistance absent from Table 5

    Minor

    The conclusion lists nalidixic acid resistance, but Table 5 classifies the isolates only as sensitive or intermediate to it.

  • Lipase amplicon size differs between table and results

    Minor

    Table 2 lists the lipase primer product as 382 bp, but the virulence-profile results report 381 bp.

9 of 9

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 34 references

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Banerjee, 2016, Isolation and characterization of fluoride resistant bacterial strains from fluoride endemic areas of West Bengal, India: assessment of their fluoride absorption efficiency, Fluoride, 49, 429
  2. Sankpal, 2012, Physiochemical analysis of effluent discharge of fish processing industries in Ratnagiri, India, Biosci. Discov., 3, 107
  3. Shobana, 2012, Ground water quality of five villages in Natham city, Dindigul District Tamil Nadu (India), Interface J. Currt Sci., 68

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 17

Metadata

Authors
Chellaiah, E. R., Ravi, P., & Uthandakalaipandian, R.
Affiliations
Madurai Kamaraj University (IN)
Venue
Current Research in Microbial Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
2
Pages
100038
ISSN
2666-5174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3161143346
Cited by
17
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Research in Microbial Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India (SB/S2/RJN-009/2016)
  • Science and Engineering Research Board
  • Madurai Kamaraj University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fluoride Effects and Removal
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fecal contamination and water quality
Keywords
fluoride contamination, drinking water quality, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter hormaechei, Aeromonas caviae, bacterial bioremediation, Dindigul district

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review