In the realm of wastewater treatment, a green revolution is taking place, and it’s powered by algae. Phycoremediation, the use of algae for wastewater treatment, is gaining traction as a sustainable, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly approach. Recent advancements in phycoremediation technology and research are pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, offering innovative solutions to the global water pollution crisis. In this article, we will explore the latest breakthroughs in phycoremediation, their potential impact on the industry, and how these innovations are revolutionizing the way we treat wastewater.
The Algae Revolution: Why Phycoremediation Matters
Wastewater treatment is a pressing global challenge. Traditional methods often involve chemicals or energy-intensive processes, leading to high operational costs and environmental concerns. Phycoremediation, powered by the remarkable capabilities of algae, presents a compelling alternative.
Algae, including microalgae and macroalgae, are photosynthetic organisms that thrive in aquatic environments. They can absorb nutrients, heavy metals, and even certain organic pollutants, all while producing oxygen. This unique combination of capabilities makes algae ideal candidates for wastewater treatment. Here, we delve into recent innovations in phycoremediation that are reshaping the field.
Innovations in Algae Strain Selection
One of the fundamental aspects of phycoremediation is selecting the right algae species for the job. Recent advancements in strain selection are enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of algae-based wastewater treatment.
Traditionally, researchers relied on naturally occurring algae strains for treatment. However, advancements in genetic engineering have allowed scientists to modify algae strains for enhanced pollutant removal. For example, researchers have created genetically modified algae strains with an increased capacity to absorb heavy metals or break down specific organic pollutants.
In addition to genetic engineering, advanced screening techniques are being used to identify native algae strains that possess exceptional pollutant-removal capabilities. These strains can then be cultivated and used for efficient and natural wastewater treatment.
Breakthroughs in Algae Cultivation Techniques
The scalability of algae-based wastewater treatment has always been a concern. Recent innovations in algae cultivation techniques are addressing this challenge, making large-scale phycoremediation projects more feasible.
Photobioreactors: Photobioreactors are enclosed systems that provide controlled conditions for algae growth. Recent improvements in photobioreactor design have increased the productivity of algae cultivation. These systems allow for precise control of environmental variables like temperature, light intensity, and nutrient supply, resulting in higher biomass yields.
Algae Farming: Large-scale algae farming has become more practical due to innovations in pond and raceway designs. Advanced monitoring and automation systems now equip algae ponds, enabling efficient nutrient delivery and biomass harvesting. The development of floating algae platforms has also expanded the potential for algae farming in various water bodies.
Wastewater Integration: Researchers are exploring the integration of algae cultivation systems with existing wastewater treatment facilities. Incorporating algae ponds into the treatment process naturally treats wastewater while simultaneously generating valuable algal biomass for various applications.
Enhanced Nutrient Removal
Nutrient pollution, particularly excess nitrogen, and phosphorus, is a major concern in wastewater. Algae possess a renowned ability to assimilate and remove nutrients from water. Recent advancements are making this process even more efficient.
Algae-Bacteria Symbiosis: Researchers have discovered symbiotic relationships between algae and certain bacteria that enhance nutrient removal. These bacteria can convert ammonia into nitrate, a form of nitrogen that algae can more readily absorb. This synergy between algae and bacteria has the potential to significantly improve nutrient removal in phycoremediation systems.
Nutrient Recovery: Beyond removal, recent research has focused on nutrient recovery from algal biomass. Techniques like pyrolysis and hydrothermal liquefaction can convert algal biomass into nutrient-rich biochar or liquid fertilizers. In agriculture, people can use these products to close the nutrient cycle and reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers.
Algae-Based Biosensors for Monitoring
Effective monitoring is crucial for the success of phycoremediation projects. Recent innovations involve the development of algae-based biosensors that can provide real-time data on water quality.
Algae biosensors use changes in the fluorescence or growth of algae in response to specific pollutants as indicators of water quality. These biosensors are highly sensitive and can detect pollutants at low concentrations. They offer a cost-effective and eco-friendly solution for the continuous monitoring of water bodies, ensuring the efficiency of phycoremediation processes.
Algae for Value-Added Products
The potential of algae extends beyond wastewater treatment. Recent advancements are unlocking the possibilities of turning algal biomass into valuable products.
Biofuels: Algae are known for their high oil content, making them a promising source of biofuels. Advances in extraction and conversion technologies are improving the viability of algal biofuels as a sustainable energy source.
Food and Pharmaceuticals: Some algae species are rich in essential nutrients and bioactive compounds. Research is ongoing to develop algae-based products in the food and pharmaceutical industries. People can use algae for nutraceuticals, dietary supplements, and even plant-based proteins.
Bioplastics: Algae-derived bioplastics are gaining attention as an eco-friendly alternative to conventional plastics. Researchers are exploring ways to produce biodegradable plastics from algal biomass.
Implications for the Wastewater Industry
The innovations in phycoremediation are poised to have a profound impact on the wastewater treatment industry. Here are some key implications:
Sustainability: Algae-based wastewater treatment is inherently sustainable, as it relies on natural processes. As advancements continue, it’s likely to become an even more eco-friendly alternative to traditional treatment methods.
Cost-Effectiveness: The scalability and efficiency of modern algae cultivation techniques are making phycoremediation increasingly cost-effective. This could lead to reduced operational costs for wastewater treatment plants.
Resource Recovery: The ability to recover valuable resources from algal biomass, such as nutrients and biofuels, can create new revenue streams for wastewater treatment facilities.
Real-Time Monitoring: Algae-based biosensors offer a means of continuous monitoring, helping treatment plants respond rapidly to changes in water quality.
Versatility: Phycoremediation can be applied to a wide range of wastewater types, from municipal sewage to industrial effluents. Its versatility makes it a valuable tool in addressing various pollution challenges.
Challenges and Future Directions
While the recent innovations in phycoremediation are promising, several challenges remain:
Strain Optimization: Fine-tuning algae strains for specific contaminants and environmental conditions is an ongoing process.
Regulatory Frameworks: Regulations governing the use of genetically modified algae and the discharge of treated wastewater need to be developed and standardized.
Scale-Up: Scaling up phycoremediation projects for industrial use requires overcoming technical and logistical challenges.
Public Awareness: Raising public awareness about the benefits of algae-based wastewater treatment is essential for widespread adoption.
Long-Term Sustainability: Ensuring the long-term sustainability of phycoremediation projects, including the prevention of algal blooms, is critical.
Conclusion
Phycoremediation is at the forefront of sustainable wastewater treatment solutions, and recent innovations are pushing the boundaries of its potential. From enhanced algae strains and cultivation techniques to nutrient recovery and real-time monitoring, these breakthroughs are revolutionizing the field. The implications are far-reaching, offering a greener, more cost-effective, and versatile approach to addressing water pollution challenges. While challenges remain, the future of phycoremediation holds promise, transforming the way we treat and value our most precious resource — water. As society continues to grapple with water pollution and environmental sustainability, the algae revolution is a beacon of hope on the horizon.
Wastewater treatment is a pressing global concern, as the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastewater poses severe environmental and public health risks. While conventional wastewater treatment methods play a crucial role in addressing this issue, innovative and sustainable alternatives like bioremediation have gained prominence. In this article, we explore real-world case studies of successful wastewater treatment projects that have harnessed the power of bioremediation, shedding light on their outcomes and the valuable lessons learned.
Case Study 1: The Hudson River PCB Cleanup
One of the most iconic bioremediation projects took place along the Hudson River in the United States. The river had been contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a group of toxic industrial chemicals, released into the water by General Electric (GE) factories over several decades.
The Problem: PCBs had accumulated in the sediment, posing a significant threat to aquatic life and human health. Conventional dredging and disposal methods were considered, but they were costly and environmentally damaging.
Bioremediation Approach: GE collaborated with environmental scientists to implement a natural, environmentally friendly solution. They introduced a PCB-degrading bacterium called Dehalococcoides into the contaminated sediment. This bacterium had the unique ability to break down PCBs into harmless byproducts under anaerobic conditions.
Outcomes: Over time, the bioremediation approach significantly reduced PCB levels in the sediment. Native microorganisms also played a role in the cleanup. The project demonstrated that bioremediation could effectively remediate PCB-contaminated sites, offering a more sustainable alternative to traditional methods.
Lessons Learned: This case study emphasized the importance of selecting the right microorganisms for the specific contaminants present in the environment. It also highlighted the need for ongoing monitoring and adaptive management to ensure the success of bioremediation projects.
Case Study 2: The Tianjin Binhai New Area Oil Spill
In 2010, a catastrophic oil spill occurred in the Tianjin Binhai New Area in China, resulting in the release of thousands of tons of crude oil into the Bohai Sea. The spill posed a severe threat to marine ecosystems and coastal communities.
The Problem: Conventional cleanup methods, such as mechanical skimming and chemical dispersants, were insufficient to address the scale of the oil spill. The contamination persisted, endangering marine life and local economies.
Bioremediation Approach: Chinese authorities, in collaboration with environmental experts, decided to employ a bioremediation technique using naturally occurring oil-degrading bacteria. These microorganisms would break down the oil into less harmful substances.
Outcomes: Over time, the oil-degrading bacteria multiplied and effectively consumed the oil. This natural process significantly reduced the oil’s impact on the marine ecosystem. The success of the bioremediation approach minimized ecological damage and allowed for a quicker recovery of the affected areas.
Lessons Learned: The Tianjin Binhai New Area oil spill demonstrated the efficacy of bioremediation in addressing large-scale oil contamination. It highlighted the importance of promptly identifying and utilizing native oil-degrading bacteria to expedite the cleanup process.
Case Study 3: Rhizofiltration in Mining Wastewater
Mining operations often generate highly contaminated wastewater, particularly from metal and metalloid-rich ores. Rhizofiltration, a bioremediation technique that uses the roots of plants to absorb and accumulate contaminants, has shown promise in remediating mining wastewater.
The Problem: A gold mine in South Africa was facing a significant challenge with its wastewater, which contained elevated levels of heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and cadmium. Traditional treatment methods were expensive and generated chemical sludge.
Bioremediation Approach: Researchers introduced certain hyperaccumulator plants with a high affinity for heavy metals to the wastewater ponds. The plants absorbed the metals through their roots, effectively removing them from the water.
Outcomes: Over time, the plants accumulated substantial quantities of heavy metals, reducing the pollutant levels in the wastewater. The approach not only cleaned the water but also provided an opportunity to recover valuable metals from the plant biomass.
Lessons Learned: This case study highlighted the potential of rhizofiltration as a cost-effective and sustainable method for treating mining wastewater. It emphasized the importance of selecting appropriate plant species for specific contaminants and maintaining a balance to prevent overloading the plants.
Case Study 4: The Lake Washington Cleanup Project
Lake Washington in Seattle, Washington, USA, faced severe pollution problems in the mid-20th century due to untreated sewage discharges. The lake had become a cesspool, with low oxygen levels and high nutrient concentrations.
The Problem: Lake Washington was experiencing eutrophication, a process where excessive nutrients lead to harmful algal blooms and oxygen depletion, threatening aquatic life.
Bioremediation Approach: Authorities and scientists undertook an ambitious bioremediation effort, which involved diverting sewage to a wastewater treatment plant and allowing the lake’s natural ecosystem to recover. This process reduced nutrient inputs and allowed the lake to gradually cleanse itself.
Outcomes: Over several decades, the lake’s water quality improved significantly. Oxygen levels increased, harmful algal blooms diminished, and native fish populations rebounded. The project demonstrated that, in some cases, nature’s ability to self-cleanse can be harnessed through appropriate management.
Lessons Learned: The Lake Washington Cleanup Project showcased the importance of holistic, long-term approaches to bioremediation. It underscored the need for combining bioremediation techniques with prudent management practices to achieve lasting results.
Conclusion
These case studies exemplify the success and potential of bioremediation as a sustainable and effective approach to wastewater treatment. From remediating PCB-contaminated rivers to cleaning up oil spills and addressing mining wastewater challenges, bioremediation has proven its worth in diverse real-world scenarios. The lessons learned from these projects emphasize the importance of careful planning, monitoring, and adaptability when applying bioremediation techniques. As we continue to seek environmentally friendly solutions to our wastewater woes, these case studies provide valuable insights into the promising future of bioremediation.
The environmental impact of untreated or poorly treated wastewater is undeniable. Pollution of our water bodies, contamination of drinking water sources, and the destruction of aquatic ecosystems are just some of the dire consequences. In response to this growing crisis, we urgently need innovative and sustainable approaches to combat wastewater treatment. One such promising solution is phycoremediation, a process that harnesses the power of green algae to remove pollutants from wastewater. In this article, we will delve into the potential of green algae in wastewater treatment, highlighting its environmental advantages and diverse applications.
Understanding Phycoremediation
Phycoremediation, often referred to as algae-based wastewater treatment, is a natural and eco-friendly method that utilizes various species of green algae to purify wastewater. These algae, primarily belonging to the Chlorophyta division, are proficient in photosynthesis, enabling them to absorb nutrients and pollutants while releasing oxygen, making them nature’s own water purifiers.
The Environmental Advantages of Phycoremediation
Nutrient Uptake: One of the key environmental benefits of phycoremediation is its capacity to remove excess nutrients from wastewater. Algae are voracious consumers of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which are often the culprits behind water pollution and harmful algal blooms. By absorbing these nutrients, algae help prevent eutrophication in receiving water bodies, thereby safeguarding aquatic ecosystems.
Carbon Sequestration: Green algae have a unique ability to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. This not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also promotes carbon sequestration, aiding in the fight against climate change.
Toxic Metal Removal: Some species of green algae have demonstrated a remarkable capability to accumulate heavy metals and other toxic substances from wastewater. This feature makes them invaluable in the treatment of industrial effluents contaminated with heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and mercury.
Applications of Green Algae in Wastewater Treatment
Municipal Wastewater Treatment: Green algae-based systems are increasingly being incorporated into municipal wastewater treatment plants as an efficient and cost-effective means to reduce nutrient levels. These systems not only enhance the quality of treated effluent but also reduce the environmental impact of wastewater discharge.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment: Industries generating wastewater with high levels of nutrients or heavy metals can benefit from phycoremediation. Algae also can be cultivated in wastewater ponds or reactors, where they absorb pollutants, rendering the water suitable for safe discharge or even reuse in industrial processes.
Agricultural Runoff Remediation: Agricultural runoff laden with fertilizers and pesticides is a significant source of water pollution. Constructed wetlands also can deploy green algae to absorb excess nutrients, providing a natural buffer against pollution in agricultural areas.
Aquaculture Wastewater Treatment: In aquaculture, the buildup of nutrients and organic matter in water can be detrimental to fish health. Phycoremediation can be used to maintain optimal water quality in aquaculture systems, benefiting both fish health and the environment.
Challenges and Future Directions
While the potential of green algae in wastewater treatment is promising, there are challenges to address. These include optimizing algae cultivation methods, scaling up systems for larger applications, and ensuring the effective harvesting of algae biomass.
In the future, research into genetically modified algae strains with enhanced pollutant-uptake capabilities and increased resistance to adverse environmental conditions could further improve the efficiency of phycoremediation.
Conclusion
Green algae, with their remarkable ability to remove pollutants, sequester carbon, and promote water quality, hold immense promise in the realm of wastewater treatment. As we confront the pressing issues of water pollution and sustainability, phycoremediation emerges as a green, cost-effective, and also ecologically sound solution. Therefore, by harnessing the power of these microscopic organisms, we can work toward cleaner waterways, healthier ecosystems, and a more sustainable future for all. Phycoremediation is not just a rescue; it’s a step towards a brighter and cleaner tomorrow.
Biofilm, a complex assembly of microbial cells anchored to surfaces within a polysaccharide matrix, forms a harmonious and organized microbial community. This strategy enables microorganisms to thrive in favorable conditions, avoiding displacement by currents. Comprising cells and extracellular polymeric substances, biofilms exhibit dynamic equilibrium with their surroundings, cycling through growth, death, and regeneration.
Microorganisms gain remarkable advantages from biofilm cultivation, including protection from harsh conditions, enhanced resilience to stress, and cooperative metabolic and gene expression adjustments. Microorganisms thriving in biofilms exhibit an astonishing ability to adapt, demonstrating a captivating collective and synchronized behavior that intrigues both scientists and enthusiasts. (Donlan et al., 2002; Chmielewski and Frank et al., 2004; Van Houdt and Michiels et al., 2010). Multispecies biofilms are prevalent in nature, significantly impacting ecosystems (Donlan et al., 2002; Hall-Stoodley et al., 2004).
1. Microbial Biofilm Formation: A Complex Developmental Process in Bacteria
Biofilm formation is a captivating process wherein bacteria transition from single cells to structured multicellular communities. These parallels other bacterial developmental processes like sporulation (Dunny GM, Leonard BA. Et al.,1997), fruiting body formation (Plamann L et al.,1995, Shimkets et al.;1999, Wall D et al.,1999), and stalked-cell formation (Fukuda AK et al.,1977, Hecht GB et al., 1995, Trun NJ et al.,1990, Quon KC et al., 1996, Wu J et al.,1997). In nature, biofilms exist as diverse microbial communities, with bacteria joining, departing, exchanging genetic material, and occupying specific niches, resembling complex cities rather than developed organisms.
1.1 Biofilm Formation in Non-Motile Species
In non-motile species, during favorable conditions for biofilm formation, bacteria increase adhesin expression, enhancing stickiness for cell-to-cell and cell-to-surface adherence (Gotz, 2002). Surface proteins like Bap(biofilm-associated protein) in staphylococci aid cell interactions and matrix creation (Lasa and Penades et al., 2006). Similar proteins exist in other species, often with repeated domains undergoing recombination within the bap gene, yielding variable-length proteins (Latasa et al., 2006). Additionally, species that lack motility also generate exopolysaccharides (EPS), which subsequently become crucial constituents of the extracellular matrix. An illustrative instance of this is the production of PIA(Polysaccharide intercellular adhesion )/PNAGS (Poly-N-acetylglucosamine )EPS by the gene products originating from the ica operon in staphylococcal species. Thus, altered surface proteins and EPS production are key in initiating biofilm formation in non-motile bacteria.
1.2 Biofilm Formation in Motile Species
In motile species, conducive conditions trigger bacteria to adhere to a surface, lose motility, and form biofilms. An extracellular matrix binds them together. Flagella are vital for biofilm initiation; flagella-minus mutants show reduced biofilm formation (Pratt and Kolter et al., 1998; Watnick and Kolter 1999; Lemon et al., 2007). Listeria monocytogenes recover initial adhesion with directed movement, indicating motility’s role in overcoming repulsion for biofilm formation (Lemon et al., 2007). The initial surface encounter leads to transient adherence, determining stable biofilm development or return to planktonic state.
2. Genetically Distinct Stages of Biofilm Formation
Biofilm formation can be divided into five genetically distinct stages:
1. Initial surface attachment
2. Monolayer formation
3. Migration to form multilayered microcolonies
4. Production of extracellular matrix
5. Biofilm maturation with characteristic three-dimensional architecture (O’Toole et al., 2000)(fig 1).
3. Regulatory Variations in Biofilm Formation
In numerous motile bacteria, initial surface attachment relies on flagella-mediated motility. However, specific Gram-negative bacteria require type IV pili-associated surface motility for microcolony and three-dimensional architecture formation. Notably, this motility is absent in Gram-positive bacteria, except for Clostridia ssp. (Varga et al., 2006; O’Toole et al., 2000)
4. Extensive Cellular Differentiation in Biofilm Environment
Once the bacteria have successfully adhered to the surface, they begin producing an extracellular matrix. This matrix serves as a crucial organizational element, enabling the formation of structured communities within the biofilm. As a result, extensive cellular differentiation can occur within the biofilm environment.
5. Biofilm Composition and Architecture
Its composition hinges on the inoculum’s characteristics, while external factors like substrate, nutrients, competition, and grazing shape colonization and growth (Baier et al., 1980; Characklis & Cooksey et al., 1983; Marshall et al., 1985).
The architecture of biofilm is shaped by hydrodynamics, nutrients, bacterial motility, communication, exopolysaccharides, and proteins. Altered biofilm morphology in mutants lacking components of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) illustrates their impact. Exopolysaccharides in Vibrio cholerae and colanic acid in Escherichia coli influence three-dimensional biofilm formation.
5.1 Biofilm Architecture in Bacillus subtilis
In the case of Bacillus subtilis biofilm, the matrix consists of an exopolysaccharide and the secreted protein Tas A, both of which are essential for maintaining the structural integrity of the matrix and facilitating the development of biofilm architecture resembling fruiting body-like structures (Fig 2).
6. Factors affecting the formation of biofilm.
Biofilms form at interfaces of aqueous or gaseous phases and substratum surfaces in diverse systems. Metabolic substrates required for growth must be accessible in the aqueous phase (e.g., medical catheters) or between aqueous and solid phases (e.g., minerals). Nutrient quantity and ratios in the liquid phase impact growth-limiting factors (van Loosdrecht et al., 2002).
Biofilm development is influenced by factors like temperature, pH, Oxygen levels, hydrodynamics, osmolarity, ions, nutrients, and biotic elements, collectively shaping bacterial behavior as mentioned in Fig 3 (van Loosdrecht et al., 2002).
6.1 The Relevence of EPS in Biofilm Composition
In biofilms, microorganisms make up less than 10% of the dry mass, with over 90% being the EPS matrix. EPS facilitates cell adhesion, cohesion, and interactions, including cell-cell communication, promoting the formation of micro consortia. It acts as an external digestive system, retaining enzymes to sequester nutrients from the water phase. Biofilm morphology varies, from smooth and flat to rough, fluffy, or filamentous, even forming mushroom-shaped colonies surrounded by water-filled voids. The structure adapts in response to nutritional changes, supporting diverse habitats and the coexistence of mixed-species consortia (Klausen et al., 2003).
Table 1 Function of EPS for Biofilm Formation ( Flemming HC, Wingender J et al., 2010)
6.2 Surface factor
Interactions between bacterial cell walls and surfaces are influenced by interfacial electrostatic and van der Waals forces (McClaine JW et al.,2002, Vigeant MA et al.,2002). Other factors, such as hydration forces, hydrophobic interactions, and steric forces, also impact cell attachment (Findenegg GH. JN Israelachvili et al., 1985). Hydrophobic interactions (low surface energy) and electrostatic interactions charge have been extensively studied.
6.2.1 Interactions Driving Bacterial Cell Attachment to Surfaces: Electrostatic Force
Electrostatic forces drive bacterial cell attachment to surfaces, given bacteria’s net negative charge (Soni KA et al., 2008, Katsikogianni MG et al 2010). Positively charged surfaces facilitate rapid attachment, while negative surfaces hinder it. Extracellular organelles aid in overcoming repulsion (Bullitt E et al., 1995). High ionic strength reduces charge effects. Bacterial cell walls expose functional groups interacting with substrates (Hong Y et al.,2008). Adsorbed molecules influence surface chemistry and charge, aiding adsorption and biofilm growth. Hydrophobic groups and organelles stabilize interactions after repulsion.
Biofilms form on various materials in contact with bacteria-containing fluids, influenced by surface roughness, chemistry, and conditioning films (Donlan et al., 2002). Hydrophobic surfaces promote faster attachment through interactions with flagella, fimbriae, and pili (Donlan et al., 2002; Donlan and Costerton et al., 2002). However, exceptions like Listeria monocytogenes prefer hydrophilic surfaces (Chavant et al., 200). Clinical isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis favor biofilm formation on hydrophobic substrates (Cerca et al., 2005). Hydrophilic surfaces generally exhibit higher bacterial attachment than hydrophobic surfaces (Donlan, 2002).
6.2.2 High energy surface
Thermodynamic analysis of surface energies reveals insights into bacterial adhesion (Absolom DR 1983). Hydrophilic surfaces enhance bacterial adhesion when cell wall surface tension exceeds the surrounding liquid (Absolom DR et al.,1983). Fluorinated materials with large contact angles indicate low-energy surfaces (Absolom DR et al., 1983). Oxidation of fluorinated surfaces reduces initial bacterial attachment due to altered hydrophilic properties (Davidson CA et al., 2004). Bacterial attachment depends on surface free energy; high surface free energy surfaces like stainless steel and glass are more hydrophilic (Davidson CA et al., 2004). Biofilm growth depends on various factors, including nutrient concentrations and light availability, once bacterial cells adhere and achieve confluence.
6.3 Role of Biosurfactants in Bacterial Attachment and Biofilm Formation
Biosurfactants with antibacterial and antifungal properties are crucial for bacterial attachment to and detachment from oil droplets (Kim HJ et al., 2011 ). Research interest in environmentally friendly chemicals has grown, including biosurfactants (Kim HJ, Boedicker JQ, Choi JW, Ismagilov RF et al., 2008, Eun YJ et al.,2009 ). Microorganisms produce biosurfactants at the air-water interface, influencing surface tension and gas exchange in surface waters (Flickinger ST et al.,2011). Rhamnolipids, found in the EPS matrix of P. aeruginosa, act as surfactants, contributing to microcolony formation, bacterial migration, and biofilm dispersion (Boedicker JQ et al.,2009) (Vincent ME et al.,2010, Renner LD, Weibel DB et al.,2011) (Harmsen M et al., 2010).
6.4 Influence of Quorum Sensing (QS) on Biofilm Formation
Quorum sensing (QS) is a crucial regulatory mechanism for biofilm formation (Parsek and Greenberg 2005). Microorganisms release auto-inducers (AIs) that induce or repress QS-controlled genes, impacting biofilm structure and 3-dimensional organization (Steinmoen et al. 2002). QS also influences population size and dispersion in biofilms (Lewis et al., 2001; Davies et al., 2003; Jesaitis et al. 2003). Additionally, QS can induce behaviors and control group activities, affecting biofilm development and resistance to stress (Camilli and Bassler et al.,2006). Cell properties like hydrophilicity, fimbriae, and flagella also influence microbial attachment in biofilms.
6.5 Chemotaxis triggers biofilm formation
Chemotaxis is vital for biofilm formation in bacteria like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli, and Vibrio cholerae (O’Toole GA et al., 1998, Pratt LA et al.,1998, Watnick PI et al.,1999). Bacteria sense chemical stimuli, use flagella to swim toward nutrients, and attach to the substrate. Flagella and/or type IV pili are essential for initial cell adhesion, leading to microcolony formation (Stelmack PL et al.,1999). E. coli also utilizes type I pili for initial attachment. Bacterial chemotaxis aids biofilm growth and spread as it develops.
6.6 Importance of Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) in Microbial Communities
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is crucial for microbial evolution, facilitated by mobile genetic elements like plasmids, transposons, and bacteriophages (Koonin EV et al., 200) Bacterial biofilms show distinct gene expression compared to planktonic counterparts, influenced by the surface they settle on (Keyhani NO et al.,1996) HGT occurs within biofilms, allowing gene transfer between bacteria (Roberts AP et al.,1999).HGT also plays a significant role in animal evolution, diseases, and intercellular processes, like Agrobacterium transferring genetic material to plants (Guo M et al.,2019). Chemotaxis influences HGT, seen in Agrobacterium’s DNA transfer to plant cells (Guo M et al.,2019)., Niehus R et al.,2015). Other pathogenic bacteria also employ chemotaxis-derived HGT within host cells (Dougherty K et al.,2014 , Desmond E et al.,2007).
6.7 Interspecies Interactions in Bacterial Adhesion: Implications for Biofilm Stabilization and Commensal Relationships
McEldowney and Fletcher (McEldowney S, Fletcher M et al.,1987) showed that bacterial adhesion to a surface can affect other species differently, with negative, positive, or neutral outcomes. Inhibitory interactions may involve cell blockage or secretion of inhibitory macromolecules (Belas MR, Colwell RR et al.,1982).
6.7.1 Positive Interactions during Adhesion
Positive interactions during adhesion can result from bacterial products modifying the conditioning film or direct cell-to-cell contact. Dental plaque exemplifies direct interactions, where ligand-receptor interactions cause interspecies coaggregation (Kolenbrander PE et al., 1989). Hydroxyapatite attachment enhances the adhesion of co-aggregating pairs (Ciardi JE, McCray GF et al.,1987, Schwarz SU, Ellen RP 1987 ). Other interactions, like mutans streptococci adhering to immobilized oral bacteria, play a role in biofilm formation (Lamont RJ et al.,1990). Interspecies interactions are crucial during the initial stages of biofilm formation.
6.7.2 Neutral Adhesion Interactions
The attachment of one species to a substrate may not always be influenced by another species’ attachment (Cowan MM et al.,1991, McEldowney S et al.,1987). Neutral interactions could result from separate binding sites on the substrate for each species, including multiple high- and low-affinity sites within species (Gibbons RJ et al.,1983, Korber DR et al.,1994). For example, a nonmotile mutant strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens attached to glass independently of the parent strain, suggesting different binding sites (, Korber DR et al.,1994). Adhesion interactions depend on the surface and species involved (McEldowney S, Fletcher M et al.,1987), leading to variations in adhesion mechanisms for different substrates. Vibrio proteolytica’s adhesion to hydrophobic substrates was inhibited by proteases, while hydrophilic substrates were unaffected (Paul JH et al.,1985).
6.8 Commensal Interactions in Biofilm Stabilization
One intriguing aspect of biofilm stabilization is that it can be seen as a commensal interaction, where one species benefits from another’s ability to form a stable film.
6.8.1 Types of Commensal Interactions in Biofilms
Commensal interactions in biofilms occur when one population benefits without affecting the other. Oxygen consumption by aerobic/facultative microorganisms creates oxygen gradients, enabling the growth of obligate anaerobes (Costerton JW et al.,1994,De Beer D et al.,1994, Lewandowski Z et al.,1994). This interaction is crucial for sulfate-reducing bacteria growth in anaerobic microniches, contributing to microbially-induced corrosion (Hamilton WA. et al.,1985, Lee W, Lewandowski Z et al.,1993).
6.8.2 Commensalism in Dental Plaque Development
In dental plaque development, commensalism involving oxygen consumption occurs, with aerobic bacteria declining, and anaerobic Veillonella spp. predominating in deeper layers, while aerobic species dominate upper layers (Ritz HL et al.,1967 1969). Also in waste-water treatment biofilms, layering of aerobic and anaerobic bacterial species illustrates commensal interactions (Alleman JE, Veil JA et al.,1982). Other commensal interactions like substrate provision may be common in biofilms but require further research (Ritz HL et al.,1967).
Bacteria initiate EPS matrix formation in algal biofilms, leading to symbiotic relationships and competition with algae (Davis LS, Hoffmann JP et al.,1990, Mack WN et al., 1975). Studies show significant benefits of bacterial presence for algal recruitment and growth (Irving TE et al.,2011, Hodoki Y et al.,2005, Sekar R et al., 2004, Holmes PE et al., 1986). Algal biomass increases with rising pre-conditioned bacterial biofilm concentrations (Hodoki Y et al.,2005). Mixed community biofilms exhibit higher algal growth compared to pure algal cultures (Holmes PE et al., 1986).
Algae biofilms in non-sterile wastewater show increased thickness, switch to a sessile state, and resist shear stress better due to bacteria and EPS presence (Irving TE et al.,2011).Irving and Allen (Irving TE et al.,2011) demonstrated a nine-fold increase in algae biofilm thickness when grown on non-sterile secondary wastewater effluent compared to sterile wastewater. They also found that in the presence of unsterile wastewater, algae cells had a greater tendency to switch from a planktonic (free-floating) to a sessile (attached) state and exhibited enhanced resistance to shear stress.
8. Impactful Roles of Biofilm in Chemistry and Environmental Restoration
Biofilms are valuable in chemical synthesis processes, including ethanol, poly-3-hydroxybutyrate, and benzaldehyde production (Kunduru and Pometto, 1996; Li et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2004). They also play essential roles in wastewater treatment, phenol bioremediation, and the degradation of dinitrophenols and toxic metals in environmental remediation (Lendenmann et al., 1998; Luke and Burton, 2001; Nicolella et al., 2000; Singh and Cameotra, 2004). Biofilms are highly resilient and serve as valuable tools for beneficial purposes in various chemical processes and environmental applications.
9. Conclusion
Biofilms represent dynamic and well-organized microbial communities that play a vital role in various ecological and industrial processes. They form through a complex developmental process, transitioning bacteria from a free-floating state to sedentary, multi-layered communities. The formation of biofilms involves various factors, such as surface characteristics, chemotaxis, and horizontal gene transfer, which contribute to the unique three-dimensional architecture and stability of these communities. Interspecies interactions within biofilms further enhance their complexity, leading to commensal relationships and symbiotic associations that benefit different microbial species within the community. Bacteria initiate biofilm formation, and their presence fosters the recruitment and growth of algae, creating symbiotic relationships within mixed community biofilms. The significance of biofilms extends beyond microbial interactions, as they also find applications in chemical synthesis and environmental restoration. Biofilms play crucial roles in wastewater treatment, bioremediation of contaminated sites, and the production of various chemicals, showcasing their potential as valuable tools for beneficial purposes. Overall, the study of biofilms provides valuable insights into the intricacies of microbial communities, their interactions, and their adaptability to diverse environments. Understanding biofilm formation and behaviour can lead to the development of innovative strategies for improving industrial processes, environmental management, and human health. As researchers delve deeper into the world of biofilms, they uncover the fascinating intricacies of these dynamic microbial communities and their impact on the ecosystem and human activities.
Chmielewski RA, Frank JF. A predictive model for heat inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes biofilm on buna-N rubber. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2006 Jan 1;39(1):11-9.
Dunny GM, Leonard BA. Cell-cell communication in gram-positive bacteria. Annual review of microbiology. 1997 Oct;51(1):527-64.
Plamann L, Li Y, Cantwell B, Mayor J. The Myxococcus xanthus asgA gene encodes a novel signal transduction protein required for multicellular development. Journal of bacteriology. 1995 Apr;177(8):2014-20.
Shimkets LJ. Intercellular signaling during fruiting-body development of Myxococcus xanthus. Annual Reviews in Microbiology. 1999 Oct;53(1):525-49.
Wall D, Kaiser D. Type IV pili and cell motility. Molecular microbiology. 1999 Apr;32(1):01-10.
Fukuda AK, Iba HI, Okada YO. Stalkless mutants of Caulobacter crescentus. Journal of Bacteriology. 1977 Jul;131(1):280-7.
Hecht GB, Newton A. Identification of a novel response regulator required for the swarmer-to-stalked-cell transition in Caulobacter crescentus. Journal of bacteriology. 1995 Nov;177(21):6223-9.
Trun NJ, Gottesman S. On the bacterial cell cycle: Escherichia coli mutants with altered ploidy. Genes & development. 1990 Dec 1;4(12a):2036-47.
Quon KC, Marczynski GT, Shapiro L. Cell cycle control by an essential bacterial two-component signal transduction protein. Cell. 1996 Jan 12;84(1):83-93.
Wu J, Newton A. Regulation of the Caulobacter flagellar gene hierarchy; not just for motility. Molecular microbiology. 1997 Apr;24(2):233-9.
Götz F. Staphylococcus and biofilms. Molecular microbiology. 2002 Mar;43(6):1367-78.
Lasa I, Penadés JR. Bap: a family of surface proteins involved in biofilm formation. Research in microbiology. 2006 Mar 1;157(2):99-107.
Pratt LA, Kolter R. Genetic analysis of Escherichia coli biofilm formation: roles of flagella, motility, chemotaxis and type I pili. Molecular microbiology. 1998 Oct;30(2):285-93.
Watnick PI, Kolter R. Steps in the development of a Vibrio cholerae El Tor biofilm. Molecular microbiology. 1999 Nov;34(3):586-95.
Reference:
Lemon KP, Higgins DE, Kolter R. Flagellar motility is critical for Listeria monocytogenes biofilm formation. Journal of bacteriology. 2007 Jun 15;189(12):4418-24.
O’Toole G, Kaplan HB, Kolter R. Biofilm formation as microbial development. Annual Reviews in Microbiology. 2000 Oct;54(1):49-79.
Varga JJ, Nguyen V, O’Brien DK, Rodgers K, Walker RA, Melville SB. Type IV pili‐dependent gliding motility in the Gram‐positive pathogen Clostridium perfringens and other Clostridia. Molecular microbiology. 2006 Nov;62(3):680-94.
Baier RE. Substrata influences on adhesion of microorganisms and their resultant new surface properties. Adsorption of microorganisms to surfaces. 1980:59-104.
Characklis WG, Cooksey KE. Biofilms and microbial fouling. InAdvances in applied microbiology 1983 Jan 1 (Vol. 29, pp. 93-138). Academic Press.
Van Loosdrecht MC, Heijnen JJ, Eberl H, Kreft J, Picioreanu C. Mathematical modelling of biofilm structures. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 2002 Dec;81:245-56.
Klausen M, Heydorn A, Ragas P, Lambertsen L, Aaes‐Jørgensen A, Molin S, Tolker‐Nielsen T. Biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa wild type, flagella and type IV pili mutants. Molecular microbiology. 2003 Jun;48(6):1511-24.
McClaine JW, Ford RM. Reversal of flagellar rotation is important in initial attachment of Escherichia coli to glass in a dynamic system with high-and low-ionic-strength buffers. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2002 Mar;68(3):1280-9.
Vigeant MA, Ford RM, Wagner M, Tamm LK. Reversible and irreversible adhesion of motile Escherichia coli cells analyzed by total internal reflection aqueous fluorescence microscopy. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2002 Jun;68(6):2794-801.
Findenegg GH. JN Israelachvili: Intermolecular and Surface Forces (With Applications to Colloidal and Biological Systems). Academic Press, London, Orlando, San Diego, New York, Toronto, Montreal, Sydney, Tokyo 1985. 296 Seiten, Preis: $65.00.
Soni KA, Balasubramanian AK, Beskok A, Pillai SD. Zeta potential of selected bacteria in drinking water when dead, starved, or exposed to minimal and rich culture media. Current microbiology. 2008 Jan;56:93-7.
Reference:
Katsikogianni MG, Missirlis YF. Interactions of bacteria with specific biomaterial surface chemistries under flow conditions. Acta biomaterialia. 2010 Mar 1;6(3):1107-18.
Hong Y, Brown DG. Electrostatic behavior of the charge-regulated bacterial cell surface. Langmuir. 2008 May 6;24(9):5003-9.
Bullitt E, Makowski L. Structural polymorphism of bacterial adhesion pili. Nature. 1995 Jan 12;373(6510):164-7.
Chavant P, Martinie B, Meylheuc T, Bellon-Fontaine MN, Hebraud M. Listeria monocytogenes LO28: surface physicochemical properties and ability to form biofilms at different temperatures and growth phases. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2002 Feb;68(2):728-37.
Cerca N, Pier GB, Vilanova M, Oliveira R, Azeredo J. Quantitative analysis of adhesion and biofilm formation on hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces of clinical isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Research in microbiology. 2005 May 1;156(4):506-14.
Absolom DR, Lamberti FV, Policova Z, Zingg W, van Oss CJ, Neumann AW. Surface thermodynamics of bacterial adhesion. Applied and environmental microbiology. 1983 Jul;46(1):90-7.
Davidson CA, Lowe CR. Optimisation of polymeric surface pre‐treatment to prevent bacterial biofilm formation for use in microfluidics. Journal of Molecular Recognition. 2004 May;17(3):180-5.
Kim HJ, Du W, Ismagilov RF. Complex function by design using spatially pre-structured synthetic microbial communities: degradation of pentachlorophenol in the presence of Hg (II). Integrative Biology. 2011 Feb 8;3(2):126-33.
Kim HJ, Boedicker JQ, Choi JW, Ismagilov RF. Defined spatial structure stabilizes a synthetic multispecies bacterial community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008 Nov 25;105(47):18188-93.
Eun YJ, Weibel DB. Fabrication of microbial biofilm arrays by geometric control of cell adhesion. Langmuir. 2009 Apr 21;25(8):4643-54.
Flickinger ST, Copeland MF, Downes EM, Braasch AT, Tuson HH, Eun YJ, Weibel DB. Quorum sensing between Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms accelerates cell growth. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 2011 Apr 20;133(15):5966-75.
References:
Boedicker JQ, Vincent ME, Ismagilov RF. Supporting Information for Microfluidic confinement of single cells of bacteria in small volumes initiates high-density behavior of quorum sensing and growth and reveals its variability. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2009;48(32):5908-11.
Vincent ME, Liu W, Haney EB, Ismagilov RF. Microfluidic stochastic confinement enhances analysis of rare cells by isolating cells and creating high density environments for control of diffusible signals. Chemical Society Reviews. 2010;39(3):974-84.
Harmsen M, Yang L, Pamp SJ, Tolker-Nielsen T. An update on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation, tolerance, and dispersal. FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology. 2010 Aug 1;59(3):253-68.
Parsek MR, Greenberg EP. Sociomicrobiology: the connections between quorum sensing and biofilms. Trends in microbiology. 2005 Jan 1;13(1):27-33.
Steinmoen H, Knutsen E, Håvarstein LS. Induction of natural competence in Streptococcus pneumoniae triggers lysis and DNA release from a subfraction of the cell population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2002 May 28;99(11):7681-6.
Lewis KI. Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2001 Apr 1;45(4):999-1007.
Jesaitis AJ, Franklin MJ, Berglund D et al (2003) Compromised host defense on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms: characterization of neutrophil and biofilm interactions. J Immunol 171:4329–4339
Camilli A, Bassler BL. Bacterial small-molecule signaling pathways. Science. 2006 Feb 24;311(5764):1113-6.
O’Toole GA, Kolter R. Flagellar and twitching motility are necessary for Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm development. Molecular microbiology. 1998 Oct;30(2):295-304.
Pratt LA, Kolter R. Genetic analysis of Escherichia coli biofilm formation: roles of flagella, motility, chemotaxis and type I pili. Molecular microbiology. 1998 Oct;30(2):285-93.
Watnick PI, Kolter R. Steps in the development of a Vibrio cholerae El Tor biofilm. Molecular microbiology. 1999 Nov;34(3):586-95.
Stelmack PL, Gray MR, Pickard MA. Bacterial adhesion to soil contaminants in the presence of surfactants. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1999 Jan 1;65(1):163-8.
Reference:
Koonin EV, Makarova KS, Aravind L. Horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes: quantification and classification. Annual Reviews in Microbiology. 2001 Oct;55(1):709-42.
Keyhani NO, Roseman S. The chitin catabolic cascade in the marine bacterium Vibrio furnissii: molecular cloning, isolation, and characterization of a periplasmic chitodextrinase. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1996 Dec 27;271(52):33414-24.
Roberts AP, Pratten J, Wilson M, Mullany P. Transfer of a conjugative transposon, Tn 5397 in a model oral biofilm. FEMS microbiology letters. 1999 Aug 1;177(1):63-6.
Guo M, Ye J, Gao D, Xu N, Yang J. Agrobacterium-mediated horizontal gene transfer: Mechanism, biotechnological application, potential risk and forestalling strategy. Biotechnology advances. 2019 Jan 1;37(1):259-70.
Niehus R, Mitri S, Fletcher AG, Foster KR. Migration and horizontal gene transfer divide microbial genomes into multiple niches. Nature communications. 2015 Nov 23;6(1):8924.
Dougherty K, Smith BA, Moore AF, Maitland S, Fanger C, Murillo R, Baltrus DA. Multiple phenotypic changes associated with large-scale horizontal gene transfer. PloS one. 2014 Jul 21;9(7):e102170.
Desmond E, Brochier-Armanet C, Gribaldo S. Phylogenomics of the archaeal flagellum: rare horizontal gene transfer in a unique motility structure. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2007 Dec;7(1):1-3.
McEldowney S, Fletcher M. Adhesion of bacteria from mixed cell suspension to solid surfaces. Archives of Microbiology. 1987 Jun;148:57-62.
Belas MR, Colwell RR. Adsorption kinetics of laterally and polarly flagellated Vibrio. Journal of bacteriology. 1982 Sep;151(3):1568-80.
Kolenbrander PE. Surface recognition among oral bacteria: multigeneric coaggregations and their mediators. Critical reviews in microbiology. 1989 Jan 1;17(2):137-59.
Ciardi JE, McCray GF, Kolenbrander PE, Lau A. Cell-to-cell interaction of Streptococcus sanguis and Propionibacterium acnes on saliva-coated hydroxyapatite. Infection and immunity. 1987 Jun;55(6):1441-6.
Schwarz SU, Ellen RP, Grove DA. Bacteroides gingivalis-Actinomyces viscosus cohesive interactions as measured by a quantitative binding assay. Infection and immunity. 1987 Oct;55(10):2391-7.
Lamont RJ, Rosan B. Adherence of mutans streptococci to other oral bacteria. Infection and immunity. 1990 Jun;58(6):1738-43.
References:
Cowan MM, Warren TM, Fletcher M. Mixed‐species colonization of solid surfaces in laboratory biofilms. Biofouling. 1991 Feb 1;3(1):23-34.
Gibbons RJ, Moreno EC, Etherden I. Concentration-dependent multiple binding sites on saliva-treated hydroxyapatite for Streptococcus sanguis. Infection and Immunity. 1983 Jan;39(1):280-9.
Korber DR, Lawrence JR, Caldwell DE. Effect of motility on surface colonization and reproductive success of Pseudomonas fluorescens in dual-dilution continuous culture and batch culture systems. Applied and environmental microbiology. 1994 May;60(5):1421-9.
Paul JH, Jeffrey WH. Evidence for separate adhesion mechanisms for hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces in Vibrio proteolytica. Applied and environmental microbiology. 1985 Aug;50(2):431-7.
Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, DeBeer D, Caldwell D, Korber D, James G. Biofilms, the customized microniche. Journal of bacteriology. 1994 Apr;176(8):2137-42.
De Beer D, Stoodley P, Roe F, Lewandowski Z. Effects of biofilm structures on oxygen distribution and mass transport. Biotechnology and bioengineering. 1994 May;43(11):1131-8.
Lewandowski Z. Dissolved oxygen gradients near microbially colonized surfaces. Biofouling and biocorrosion in industrial water systems. 1994 Apr 15:175-88.
Hamilton WA. Sulphate-reducing bacteria and anaerobic corrosion. Annual review of microbiology. 1985 Oct;39(1):195-217.
Lee W, Lewandowski Z, Morrison M, Characklis WG, Avci R, Nielsen PH. Corrosion of mild steel underneath aerobic biofilms containing sulfate‐reducing bacteria part II: At high dissolved oxygen concentration. Biofouling. 1993 Nov 1;7(3):217-39.
Ritz HL. Microbial population shifts in developing human dental plaque. Archives of Oral Biology. 1967 Dec 1;12(12):1561-8.
Ritz HL. Fluorescent antibody staining of Neisseria, Streptococcus and Veillonella in frozen sections of human dental plaque. Archives of Oral Biology. 1969 Sep 1;14(9):1073-IN18.
Alleman JE, Veil JA, Canaday JT. Scanning electron microscope evaluation of rotating biological contactor biofilm. Water research. 1982 Jan 1;16(5):543-50.
Davis LS, Hoffmann JP, Cook PW. SEASONAL SUCCESSION OF ALGAL PERIPHYTON FROM A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 1. Journal of Phycology. 1990 Dec;26(4):611-7.
References:
Mack WN, Mack JP, Ackerson AO. Microbial film development in a trickling filter. Microbial ecology. 1975 Sep;2:215-26.
Irving TE, Allen DG. Species and material considerations in the formation and development of microalgal biofilms. Applied microbiology and biotechnology. 2011 Oct;92:283-94.
Hodoki Y. Bacteria biofilm encourages algal immigration onto substrata in lotic systems. Hydrobiologia. 2005 May;539:27-34.
Sekar R, VenugopalanVP, Nanda kumarK, Nair KVK, Rao VNR. Early states of biofilm succession in alentic freshwater environment. Hydrobiologia 2004;512:97–108.
Holmes PE. Bacterial enhancement of vinyl fouling by algae. Applied and environmental microbiology. 1986 Dec;52(6):1391-3.
Kunduru MR, Pometto AL. Continuous ethanol production by Zymomonas mobilis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in biofilm reactors. Journal of industrial microbiology. 1996 Apr;16:249-56.
Lendenmann U, Spain JC, Smets BF. Simultaneous biodegradation of 2, 4-dinitrotoluene and 2, 6-dinitrotoluene in an aerobic fluidized-bed biofilm reactor. Environmental science & technology. 1998 Jan 1;32(1):82-7.
Flemming HC, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nature reviews microbiology. 2010 Sep;8(9):623-33
Bioremediation technology utilizes the natural capabilities of living organisms such as plants, microbes, algae, and fungi to remove or degrade contaminants from the environment. This technology is gaining wide acceptance due to its potential to reduce anthropogenic pollutants and toxins from various environmental components. The technology can be applied in both in-situ and ex-situ conditions. Different biotechnological and genetic engineering strategies have been employed to improve the efficacy of this technique for the complete degradation of pollutants. Microbes and plants are used to achieve maximum removal of inorganic and organic contaminants. The process also enhances the potential of both plants and microbes for the successful remediation of one or more pollutants. The technology can be used to clean up contaminated sites, reduce the risk of health problems associated with pollution and ultimately improve the quality of the environment.
Bioremediation:
Bioremediation technology is primarily based on metabolic activities of microorganisms such as microbial degradation of organic pollutants, biosorption, binding of ions, molecules of pollutants, and transformation of pollutants to less toxic forms. In this technique, microbes, microalgae, fungi, plants, and enzymes are used to reduce the concentration of pollutants. Among the microbial species, bacteria, algae, yeasts, fungi, and actinomycetes are most commonly used in bioremediation processes. These microorganisms possess diverse metabolic capabilities and can degrade a wide variety of pollutants. In addition, certain plant species are also used to absorb pollutants from the environment and subsequently degrade them. The metabolic activities of microorganisms and plants are enhanced by the addition of various nutrients, enzymes, and other components. The bioremediation technology is also used to clean up spilled oil, reduce heavy metal contamination and treat wastewater. The bioremediation process is usually monitored by measuring the concentration of pollutants at regular intervals.
Categories of Bioremediation:
In Situ Bioremediation:
In situ bioremediation is a process that uses natural or engineered microorganisms to degrade, transform, or immobilize environmental pollutants in contaminated soil or groundwater. It is one of the most widely used methods of environmental remediation and treating a variety of contaminants. It includes petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals. In situ bioremediation involves the introduction of microorganisms into the subsurface environment, where they are able to degrade or transform contaminants. This process can be or by stimulating the indigenous microorganisms in the contaminated area. In either case, the microorganisms are typically stimulated by the addition of nutrients and/or oxygen to the subsurface environment.
In Situ Bioremediation techniques
Bioventing:
Bioventing is an effective and efficient way to remediate contaminated soil. It has been used successfully to treat hydrocarbons, perchlorate, explosives, and propellants. Bioventing is most suitable for sites with low to moderate levels of contamination and is typically used in conjunction with other methods of remediation such as pump and treat systems or soil vapor extraction. The process can also be used to treat complex contaminants, including petroleum hydrocarbons, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and phenols. Once the oxygen is introduced into the subsurface, bioventing can be used to stimulate the growth of naturally occurring microorganisms that degrade the target contaminants. Generally, bioventing is used to treat non-aqueous-phase liquids (NAPLs) such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and petroleum products. But it can also be used to treat aqueous-phase contaminants such as chlorinated solvents and explosives.
Biostimulation:
Biostimulation has been used to reduce the toxicity of pollutants in contaminated soil, groundwater, and sediment. A variety of organisms such as bacteria, fungi, and algae have been used to promote the biodegradation of pollutants. Biostimulation is more effective when the pollutant is not very toxic and the environment is conducive to the growth of microorganisms. Biostimulation can be used to degrade persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated solvents, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The addition of nitrogen and phosphorus can enhance the biodegradation of these pollutants by stimulating the growth of indigenous microorganisms. Biostimulation may also reduce the toxicity of pollutants by increasing the biodegradation rate of the pollutant. Thus, reducing the concentration of pollutants in the environment.
Bioattenuation:
Bioattenuation is a process by which contaminants are reduced in mass, toxicity, volume, or concentration. This can be done through a variety of means, including aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation, sorption, volatilization, and chemical or biological stabilization. Bioattenuation is often used on sites where other remedial techniques are not applicable, or where concentrations of contaminants are low.
Biosparging:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be a major problem for groundwater quality. Biosparging is an effective way to remove them. Biosparging works by injecting air into the aquifer below the zone of contamination. This oxygenates the aquifer and stimulates indigenous bacteria to degrade the VOCs. This process is relatively simple and can be quite effective in cleaning up groundwater contamination.
Ex Situ Bioremediation:
Ex-situ bioremediation is a biological process in which soil is excavated and placed in a lined above-ground treatment area. Where it is aerated to enhance the degradation of organic contaminants by the indigenous microbial population. This process is used to clean up contaminated sites, impacted by oil spills, hazardous waste, and agricultural chemicals.
Ex situ Bioremediation techniques:
Biopiles:
Biopile-mediated bioremediation is an effective way to clean up polluted soil. By excavating the soil and piling it above ground, and treatment bed is also created that is well-aerated and irrigated. This will encourage microbial activity and help to break down pollutants. The addition of nutrients to the soil may also be conducted to help speed up the process. Finally, a leachate collection system can be used to collect and treat any water that leaches from the soil.
Windrows:
Windrows can be used for bioremediation of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons, such as oil spills and refinery waste. Other contaminants include pesticides, heavy metals, and other persistent organic pollutants. The microbes in the windrows degrade the pollutants through oxidation, reduction, and hydrolysis. The pollutants are converted into harmless end products, such as carbon dioxide, water, and biomass. Moreover, windrows can also reduce odors associated with contaminated soils.
Landfarming:
Landfarming is a process through which pollutants are degraded in soil by manipulating its physical conditions. This is usually done by tilling or plowing the soil to create favorable conditions for microbial growth, which in turn would degrade the pollutants. The process of landfarming also includes the addition of certain amendments like organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorous to stimulate microbial growth and enhance the pollutant degradation process. Land farming can also be used to treat a wide range of pollutants, including hydrocarbons, pesticides, dioxins, and metals. • The main advantage of land farming is that it is a cost-effective and relatively low-tech technique. Also, making it is suitable for small-scale operations. Furthermore, landfarming offers the possibility to treat a wide range of pollutants at the same time. It is not possible with other bioremediation techniques. Finally, landfarming can be used in a variety of soil types, including clay, loam, and sandy soils. • However, landfarming also has some drawbacks. For instance, it is a slow process, and it can be difficult to monitor the process and determine the degree of pollutant removal from the soil. Furthermore, landfarming is not suitable for treating pollutants with high concentrations. It may result in the redistribution of pollutants in the soil. Finally, landfarming can cause the release of pollutants into the air and water, which may result in environmental pollution.
Bioreactor:
A bioreactor is used to break down organic matter, reduce chemical oxygen demand (COD), and reduce suspended solids to levels deemed safe for discharge. Bioreactors also have applications in the biodegradation of pollutants, where the bioreactor is used to treat contaminated soils by bioremediation. Bioreactors are also used in industrial processes to produce chemicals, enzymes, and other products. They are designed to provide optimal conditions for the growth of microorganisms. And to control the process parameters (such as temperature, pH, nutrient supply, and oxygen supply) to yield the desired product.
Types of Bioremediation:
This is the classified basis on the type of microorganisms of living species used for bioremediation purposes.
Microbial Remediation
Microbial remediation is a form of bioremediation that utilizes microorganisms to transform, degrade, or remove contaminants from an environment. This process can occur naturally in the environment or be enhanced through the introduction of additional organisms or even nutrients.
Organic pollutants, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are among the most common pollutants found in soil and groundwater. Microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and yeasts, in the presence of suitable environmental conditions and nutrients, break down the pollutants into less toxic compounds. For example, Pseudomonas bacterial strains have been shown to efficiently degrade petroleum hydrocarbons. While Trichoderma harzianum fungal species have been used to degrade PCBs and PAHs. In addition, various other species of bacteria and fungi have been successfully used for the bioremediation of organic pollutants.
Inorganic pollutants, such as heavy metals, are also of major environmental concern. Microorganisms can be used to reduce the bioavailability of heavy metals and reduce their toxicity. This can be achieved either directly, by binding the metal ions, or indirectly, by creating a complexing agent which reduces the metal’s solubility. In addition, some microorganisms are capable of transforming the metal ions into less toxic forms. For example, a consortium of bacteria, including Pseudomonas fluorescens, has been shown to efficiently reduce the bioavailability of lead ions. Microalgal species like Chlorella sorokiniana and Diatoms and some cyanobacterial species are scientifically proven to have bioremediation activity on many water-soluble pollutants. Moreover, blue-green algae like Rivularia and Phormidium species are rather the best biological indicators of pollution levels in the environment. (Mateo, P. et al. 2015)
Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation has several advantages over more traditional methods of environmental remediation such as incineration and landfills. It is relatively inexpensive, safe, and efficient. Additionally, it can be used in a wide range of environmental conditions and can be implemented rapidly. Furthermore, the process is relatively self-sustaining and can be used in areas where it may be difficult or impossible to use other methods.
The most common techniques used in phytoremediation include phytoextraction, phytodegradation, phytostabilization, and rhizofiltration. Phytoextraction involves the use of plants to extract metals from soils, sediments, and other matrices. These plants accumulate the metals in their tissues and can be harvested for removal and disposal. Phytodegradation involves the use of plants and their associated microorganisms to degrade organic contaminants. This is accomplished through a process known as biotransformation, in which the organisms transform the contaminants into less toxic or non-toxic forms. Phytostabilization involves the use of plants to immobilize or reduce the bioavailability of metals and other contaminants in soils and sediments. Finally, rhizofiltration involves the use of plants and their associated microorganisms to remove contaminants from water, such as heavy metals, pesticides, and other organic contaminants.
Phytoremediation may be applied to polluted soil or static water environment. This technology has been increasingly investigated and employed at sites with soils contaminated heavy metals like with cadmium, lead, aluminum, arsenic, and antimony. Many plants such as mustard plants, alpine pennycress, hemp, and pigweed have proven to be successful at hyper-accumulating contaminants at toxic waste sites. Not all plants are able to accumulate heavy metals or organic pollutants due to differences in the physiology of the plant.
Phycoremediation
Phycoremediation is a type of bioremediation process that uses algae and seaweed to clean up pollutants from a contaminated environment. In this process algae and seaweed help to naturally clean up pollutants, such as heavy metals and organic pollutants, from a contaminated environment. Algae and seaweed are naturally efficient at absorbing a wide range of pollutants and heavy metals.
The phycoremediation process begins with the selection of a suitable site for the algae or seaweed to be placed. The chosen site should have the right amount of light and nutrients, where either algae or seaweed or both are placed and allowed to grow. As the algae or seaweed grows, it absorbs the pollutants and heavy metals from the environment. The pollutants are then metabolized and converted into harmless compounds, which are then released back into the environment.
This process has been used to successfully remove heavy metals, such as lead, chromium, mercury, and arsenic, as well as organic pollutants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, from contaminated sites. Phycoremediation has been used to clean up polluted rivers, lakes, and oceans, as well as contaminated soils and sediments. In addition, it has also been used to treat wastewater from industrial and municipal sources.
The process of phycoremediation is both cost-effective and environmentally friendly. It is a much cheaper and faster method than other conventional remediation processes. Additionally, it does not produce any hazardous chemicals, so it does not contribute to air or water pollution. Phycoremediation is a viable option for cleaning up contaminated environments, and it has been successfully used in many locations around the world.
Mycoremediation
Mycoremediation is a form and a process of using organisms such as fungi, particularly white rot fungus like Phanerochaete chrysosporium, to degrade a multitude of persistent or toxic environmental contaminants. It has several advantages over other remediation methods including low cost, low energy requirement, minimal impact on the environment, and the potential for on-site treatment (Sylvestre et al. 2009). It is attractive for contaminated sites where the cost of excavating and disposing of the contaminated soil is prohibitively high. Mycoremediation is also attractive for sites with groundwater contamination, as the fungi can penetrate deep into the soils and contaminate the groundwater.
Conclusion:
In the current world scenario, bioremediation is being increasingly used to clean up contaminated sites. It is a cost-effective and environment-friendly way of dealing with pollution, as it uses natural organisms to break down hazardous materials. In recent years due to the scarcity of water resources and global warming government agencies are stressing policies for the reuse and reclamation of wastewater has promoted phycoremediation technology for wastewater treatment.
Algae and seaweed are being used extensively in bioremediation and phycoremediation processes, as they are capable of removing toxins and pollutants from the environment. Algae can absorb large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus and can uptake heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead, from the environment. Seaweed is an important component of ocean ecosystems and is capable of sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Algae are also known to utilize double the concentration of carbon dioxide for their biomass production as compared to terrestrial plants.
With advancements in bioremediation technologies and with emerging needs for these solutions in the world. Bioremediation is new hope for land, water resources, pollution control, and climate change.
References:
Sylvestre M., Macek T, Mackova M (2009) transgenic plants to improve rhizoremediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Curr Opin Biotechnol 20: 242–247
Mateo, P., Leganés, F., Perona, E., Loza, V., & Fernández-Piñas, F. (2015). Cyanobacteria as bioindicators and bioreporters of environmental analysis in aquatic ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(4), 909-948.