CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensingMercury impact and mitigation studiesAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Biofilm formation by selected microbial strains isolated from wastewater and their consortia: mercury resistance and removal potential

Open access
Radojević, Ivana, Jakovljević, Violeta, Grujić, Sandra, Ostojić, Aleksandar, Ćirković, Katarina·2024·Research in Microbiology
DOI 10.1016/j.resmic.2023.104092
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Wastewater often contains an increased amount of mercury and, at the same time, resistant microorganisms. During wastewater treatment, a biofilm of indigenous microorganisms is often unavoidable. Therefore, the objective of this research is to isolate and identify microorganisms from wastewater and investigate their ability to form biofilms for possible application in mercury removal processes. The resistance of planktonic cells and their biofilms to the effects of mercury was investigated using Minimum Biofilm Eradication Concentration-High Throughput Plates. The formation of biofilms and the degree of resistance to mercury were confirmed in polystyrene microtiter plates with 96 wells. Biofilm on AMB Media carriers (Assisting Moving Bad Media) was quantified using the Bradford protein assay. The removal of mercury ions by biofilms formed on AMB Media carriers of selected isolates and their consortia was determined by a removal test in Erlenmeyer flasks simulating MBBR. All isolates in planktonic form showed some degree of resistance to mercury. The most resistant microorganisms (Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Serratia odorifera, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) were tested for their ability to form biofilms in the presence and absence of mercury, both in polystyrene plates and on ABM carriers. The results showed that among planktonic forms, K. oxytoca was the most resistant. A biofilm of the same microorganisms was more than 10-fold resistant. Most consortia biofilms…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resmic.2023.104092

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Flemming, 2016, Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life, Nat Rev Microbiol, 14, 563, 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.94 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Koechler, 2015, Toxic metal resistance in biofilms: diversity of microbial responses and their evolution, Res Microbiol, 166, 764, 10.1016/j.resmic.2015.03.008 · DOI
  3. Mishra, 2022, Biofilm-mediated bioremediation is a powerful tool for the removal of environmental pollutants, Chemosphere, 294, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133609 · DOI
  4. Park, 2012, Human exposure and health effects of inorganic and elemental mercury, J Prev Med Public Health, 45, 344
  5. Carocci, 2014, Mercury toxicity and neurodegenerative effects, Rev Environ Contam Toxicol, 229, 1
  6. Sedlakova-Kadukova, 2022, Microorganisms in metal recovery—tools or teachers? – chapter 4, 71
  7. Rani, 2021, Bioremediation: an effective approach of mercury removal from the aqueous solutions, Chemosphere, 280, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130654 · DOI
  8. Zeroual, 2001, Volatilization of mercury by immobilized bacteria (Klebsiella pneumoniae) in different support by using fluidized bed bioreactor, Curr Microbiol, 43, 322, 10.1007/s002840010310 · DOI
  9. Zhang, 2006, Identification of environmental plasmid-bearing Vibrio species isolated from polluted and pristine marine reserves of Hong Kong, and resistance to antibiotics and mercury, Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 89, 307, 10.1007/s10482-005-9032-z · DOI
  10. Wang, 2010, Hg(II) removal from aqueous solutions by Bacillus subtilis biomass, Clean Soil Air Water, 38, 44, 10.1002/clen.200900201 · DOI
  11. Li, 2021, Reduction and bacterial adsorption of dissolved mercuric ion by indigenous bacteria at the Oak Ridge Reservation site, Chemosphere, 280, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130629 · DOI
  12. Li, 2022, Bacterial biofilms as platforms engineered for diverse applications, Biotechnol Adv, 57, 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2022.107932 · DOI
  13. Grujić, 2017, Heavy metal tolerance and removal potential in mixed-species biofilm, Water Sci Technol, 76, 806, 10.2166/wst.2017.248 · DOI
  14. Buzejić, 2016, Pb and Hg metal tolerance of single- and mixed-species biofilm (Rhodotorula mucilaginosa and Escherichia coli), Kragujevac J Sci, 38, 115, 10.5937/KgJSci1638115B · DOI
  15. Fathollahi, 2020, The biosorption of mercury by permeable pavement biofilms in stormwater attenuation, Sci Total Environ, 741, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140411 · DOI
  16. Giovanella, 2017, Metal resistance mechanisms in Gram-negative bacteria and their potential to remove Hg in the presence of other metals, Ecotoxicol Environ Saf, 140, 162, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.02.010 · DOI
  17. Pepi, 2011, Mercury-resistant bacterial strains Pseudomonas and Psychrobacter spp. isolated from sediments of Orbetello Lagoon (Italy) and their possible use in bioremediation processes, Int Biodeterior Biodegrad, 65, 85, 10.1016/j.ibiod.2010.09.006 · DOI
  18. Jafari, 2015, Employing response surface methodology for optimization of mercury bioremediation by Vibrio parahaemolyticus PG02 in coastal sediments of Bushehr, Iran, Clean Soil Air Water, 43, 118, 10.1002/clen.201300616 · DOI
  19. Wagner-Döbler, 2003, Pilot plant for bioremediation of mercury-containing industrial wastewater, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 62, 124, 10.1007/s00253-003-1322-7 · DOI
  20. Chien, 2012, Mercury removal and recovery by immobilized Bacillus megaterium MB1, Front Chem Sci Eng, 6, 192, 10.1007/s11705-012-1284-3 · DOI
  21. Dash, 2015, Bioremediation of inorganic mercury through volatilization and biosorption by transgenic Bacillus cereus BW-03 (pPW-05), Int Biodeterior Biodegrad, 103, 179, 10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.04.022 · DOI
  22. Igiri, 2018, Toxicity and bioremediation of heavy metals contaminated ecosystem from tannery wastewater: a review, J Toxicol, 2018
  23. De, 2008, Detoxification of toxic heavy metals by marine bacteria highly resistant to mercury, Mar Biotechnol, 10, 471, 10.1007/s10126-008-9083-z · DOI
  24. Muneer, 2013, Tolerance and biosorption of mercury by microbial consortia: potential use in bioremediation of wastewater, Pak J Zool, 45, 247
  25. Jakovljević, 2022, Finding the best combination of autochthonous microorganisms with the most effective biosorption ability for heavy metals removal from wastewater, Front Microbiol, 13, 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1017372 · DOI
  26. Ceri, 1999, The Calgary Biofilm Device: new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms, J Clin Microbiol, 37, 1771, 10.1128/JCM.37.6.1771-1776.1999 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Adam, 2002, Mixed species biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus epidermidis, J Med Microbiol, 51, 344, 10.1099/0022-1317-51-4-344 · DOI
  28. Almeida, 2011, Discriminating multi-species populations in biofilms with peptide nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridization (PNA FISH), PLoS One, 6, 10.1371/journal.pone.0014786 · DOI
  29. Beściak, 2011, Biofilm as a basic life form of bacteria. Proceedings of a Polish–Swedish–Ukrainian Seminar, Krakow Poland, 17
  30. Ahmad, 2001, Spectrophometric method for Hg(II) determination in aqueous environment using zinc-dithizonate complex, ASEAN J Sci Technol Dev, 18, 25, 10.29037/ajstd.194 · DOI
  31. Basak, 2014, Removal of Zn (II) from electroplating effluent using yeast biofilm formed on gravels: batch and column studies, J Environ Health Sci Eng, 12, 8, 10.1186/2052-336X-12-8 · DOI
  32. Okino, 2000, Development of a biological mercury removal-recovery system, Biotechnol Lett, 22, 783, 10.1023/A:1005653825272 · DOI
  33. Najera, 2005, Effect of chemical speciation on toxicity of mercury to Escherichia coli biofilms and planktonic cells, Environ Sci Technol, 39, 3116, 10.1021/es048549b · DOI
  34. Huguet, 2010, Mercury methylation rates of biofilm and plankton microorganisms from a hydroelectric reservoir in French Guiana, Sci Total Environ, 408, 1338, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.058 · DOI
  35. Völkel, 2018, Heavy metal ion stress on Halobacterium salinarum R1 planktonic cells and biofilms, Front Microbiol, 9, 3157, 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03157 · DOI
  36. Camarillo-Márquez, 2018, Antagonistic interaction of Staphylococcus aureus toward Candida glabrata during in vitro biofilm formation is caused by an apoptotic mechanism, Front Microbiol, 9, 2031, 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02031 · DOI
  37. Joshi, 2021, Deep-sea mercury resistant bacteria from the Central Indian Ocean: a potential candidate for mercury bioremediation, Mar Pollut Bull, 169, 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112549 · DOI
  38. Wei, 2018, Cell surface display of MerR on Saccharomyces cerevisiae for biosorption of mercury, Mol Biotechnol, 60, 12, 10.1007/s12033-017-0039-2 · DOI
  39. Deng, 2012, Isolation of marine bacteria highly resistant to mercury and their bioaccumulation process, Bioresour Technol, 121, 342, 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.017 · DOI
  40. Sinha, 2012, Mercury bioremediation by mercury accumulating Enterobacter sp. cells and its alginate immobilized application, Biodegradation, 23, 25, 10.1007/s10532-011-9483-z · DOI
  41. Dranguet, 2019, Long-term effects of mercury on biofilms grown in contaminated microcosms: a pilot study, Environments, 6, 28, 10.3390/environments6030028 · DOI
  42. Mahbub, 2016, Mercury resistance and volatilization by Pseudoxanthomonas sp. SE1 isolated from soil, Environ Technol Innov, 6, 94, 10.1016/j.eti.2016.08.001 · DOI
  43. Chen, 2018, Development of a two-stage biotransformation system for mercury-contaminated soil remediation, Chemosphere, 200, 266, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.02.085 · DOI
  44. Nurfitriani, 2020, Bioaccumulation of mercury by bacteria isolated from small scale gold mining tailings in Lombok, Indonesia, J Ecol Eng, 21, 127
  45. Jacobsen, 2011, Proteus mirabilis biofilms and catheter-associated urinary tract infections, Virulence, 2, 460, 10.4161/viru.2.5.17783 · DOI
  46. Reynolds, 2001, Bakers' yeast, a model for fungal biofilm formation, Science, 291, 878, 10.1126/science.291.5505.878 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Radojević, I., Jakovljević, V., Grujić, S., Ostojić, A., & Ćirković, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Kragujevac (RS)
  • State University of Novi Pazar (RS)
Corresponding author
Radojević, Ivana
ORCID
Venue
Research in Microbiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-03
Volume
175
Issue
3
Pages
104092
ISSN
  • 0769-2609 (ISSN-L)
  • 0923-2508
DOI
10.1016/j.resmic.2023.104092
OpenAlex
W4380894286
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Research in Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Republic of Serbia Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development (451-03-47/2023-01/ 200122)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Mercury impact and mitigation studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
Keywords
biofilm formation, mercury resistance, mercury removal, microbial consortia, minimum biofilm eradication concentration, Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Serratia odorifera, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, moving bed biofilm reactor, wastewater treatment
MeSH terms
Mercury, Polystyrenes, Biofilms, Bioreactors, Wastewater

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.

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