Next Article in Journal
Future Projection of Extreme Precipitation Indices over the Qilian Mountains under Global Warming
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Climate Change Belief and the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) on Eco-Tourism Attitudes of Tourists: Moderator Role of Green Self-Identity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unveiling the Role of Dissolved Organic Matter on the Hg Phytoavailability in Biochar-Amended Soils
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bioremediation of Heavy Metals by the Genus Bacillus

by
Monika Wróbel
1,*,†,
Wojciech Śliwakowski
2,
Paweł Kowalczyk
3,
Karol Kramkowski
4 and
Jakub Dobrzyński
2,*,†
1
Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Miecznikowa 1, 02-096 Warsaw, Poland
2
Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute, Falenty, 3 Hrabska Avenue, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland
3
Department of Animal Nutrition, The Kielanowski Institute of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, Polish Academy of Sciences, Instytucka 3, 05-110 Jabłonna, Poland
4
Department of Physical Chemistry, Medical University of Białystok, Kilińskiego 1 Str., 15-089 Białystok, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(6), 4964; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064964
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 7 March 2023 / Accepted: 9 March 2023 / Published: 11 March 2023

Abstract

:
Environmental contamination with heavy metals is one of the major problems caused by human activity. Bioremediation is an effective and eco-friendly approach that can reduce heavy metal contamination in the environment. Bioremediation agents include bacteria of the genus Bacillus, among others. The best-described species in terms of the bioremediation potential of Bacillus spp. Are B. subtilis, B. cereus, or B. thuringiensis. This bacterial genus has several bioremediation strategies, including biosorption, extracellular polymeric substance (EPS)-mediated biosorption, bioaccumulation, or bioprecipitation. Due to the above-mentioned strategies, Bacillus spp. strains can reduce the amounts of metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium, arsenic or nickel in the environment. Moreover, strains of the genus Bacillus can also assist phytoremediation by stimulating plant growth and bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the soil. Therefore, Bacillus spp. is one of the best sustainable solutions for reducing heavy metals from various environments, especially soil.

1. Introduction

Heavy metals are a collection of metals and semi-metals, characterized by high density and usually toxic properties [1,2,3,4,5]. Of all the heavy metals found in the environment, dangerously increased amounts of Cd and Pb are the biggest concern, i.e., ballast elements that are completely unnecessary for living organisms [1]. These metals enter the biological cycle to the greatest extent through crops, taking up metals from soils [1,6,7,8]. Studies have shown that these elements caused changes in the cell cycle, carcinogenesis, or apoptosis [9].
In 2015, the United Nations (UN) set a key sustainable development objective to reduce diseases and deaths associated with soil contamination by 2030 [10]. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to seek sustainable methods for remediating heavy metals in soil [11]. There are several conventional techniques to remove heavy metals including chemical precipitation, oxidation or reduction, filtration, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, membrane technology, evaporation, and electrochemical treatment. However, most of these techniques are becoming ineffective [8,12,13]. Metals in soils form such stable compounds, that natural removal processes are unable to remove them [3,4,6,14,15]. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to reduce the influx of these toxic compounds into the human body [1]. Thanks to modern research, the now-improved bioremediation methods using suitable microbial species (that can act alone or support the action of hyperaccumulators) are becoming more common in environmental protection [8,16].
One way of bioremediation may be the use of bacteria of the genus Bacillus [8,17,18,19,20,21]. They are Gram-positive, spore-forming, rod-shaped, and aerobic or facultative anaerobes. Overall, the genus Bacillus is most commonly found in soil, but can also be isolated from other sources, e.g., water, air, water, vegetables, and food, as well as human and animal intestines [22,23,24,25,26,27]. The unique trait of Bacillus spp. is the ability of spore-forming under extreme conditions. Due to their specific structure, the spores are able to resist significant environmental stresses, including high temperature, drought, humidity, and radiation. This characteristic gives them an advantage over other bacteria and makes them eagerly used commercially in various fields of industry and agriculture [8,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37].
Thus, the review aims to summarize the current knowledge of the possibility of using Bacillus spp. directly in soil bioremediation, and in supporting phytoremediation, a technology that uses higher plants in the environmental clean-up processes.

2. Scale of Heavy Metal Contamination

Heavy metals present in the environment are of various origins. They can be natural processes, such as rock weathering, volcanic eruption, forest fires, or soil-forming processes. However, the most significant sources of heavy metal contamination are anthropogenic processes [1,2,15].
Metals have been, and continue to be, important raw materials for economic development [3,5]. Since the early Middle Ages, numerous mines have been established in Europe in areas where metal ores were shallow, i.e., silver and lead, gold, arsenic and gold, copper, tin and iron [38]. Nevertheless, their extraction and processing contribute to strong local contamination of the environment, especially the soil [5,6]. Particularly high concentrations of metals are associated with waste resulting from the historical processing of sulfide metal ores [5]. As mentioned previously, nowadays, metals have application in numerous industries and the volume of emissions resulting from their processing strongly varies. Currently, the dominant source of atmospheric emissions of most heavy metals is the stationary combustion of solid and liquid fuels in the power industry, accounting for more than a half of total emissions from anthropogenic sources [5,38,39].
In Europe, there are approximately 2.5 million sites potentially contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants [40]. For the US, between 235 000 and 355 000 sites require remediation [11]. Estimating the total degraded area globally is not easy. It is reported to range from less than 1 to more than 6 billion hectares, with widespread disagreement on spatial distribution [3].
In some cases, regulations on the permissible amounts of heavy metals in soil vary from country to country. For example: the highest permissible amount of Pb in soil in Romania is 50 mg kg−1, while in the Netherlands it is 140 mg kg−1. In contrast, for Cr, the maximum amount allowed in soil for both countries is the same: 100 mg kg−1 [2]. Results from the literature indicate that in many countries, the amounts of some heavy metals present in soil far exceed the permissible amounts. For example, in Iran, the amount of Pb in some contaminated soils has been measured at 57 mg kg−1, while the maximum allowed amount is 25 mg kg−1 [41]. In China, amounts of Ni in soils have been measured in the range of 40⎼200 mg kg−1, which was higher (up to three times) than the permissible amount of 60 mg kg−1 [42]. Similarly high levels can be observed in many other countries [43,44,45,46].

3. Impacts of Heavy Metal Pollution on Environment and Human Health

A major problem with heavy metal contamination is that their ions are not biodegradable, which causes them to circulate in the environment. Hence, they may persist in the environment in a toxic form for at least 200 years [1,3,4,5,6,14,15]. These soil-polluting compounds can inhibit the growth of soil microorganisms. They also lead to the disruption of the physiological functions of microorganisms, as well as disrupting processes related to the decomposition and transformation of the organic matter [47]. Disruption of the decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms can lead to an increase in the pool of bioavailable forms of metals in the soil. Importantly, the forms of heavy metals occurring in soil are one of the factors determining their mobility and toxicity in the environment [6,16,47].
In biological systems, heavy metals contribute to the interference of enzymatic processes, disruption of the function of subcellular structures and can cause damage through free radical processes, through physicochemical properties similar to metals that are physiologically active [5,45,48]. For instance, in the cell cytoplasm, metal ions readily bind to functional groups such as -SH, -OH, and -NH, which causes the protein molecule deformation and leads to a complete decrease in the biological activity of proteins, and consequently cell death [15,49].
The greatest risk of heavy metals results directly from their transport along the food chain and the phenomenon of bioaccumulation: the largest amounts of a substance are delivered to the last link, which is human (Figure 1) [6,8,48,49]. The primary source of human health exposure to heavy metals is food, mainly of plant origin [6,7,49]. Therefore, the accumulation of heavy metals in crops for animal feed and direct human consumption should be limited [6,49].
In the human body, heavy metals can cause acute poisoning and chronic conditions. Most of the symptoms of heavy metal poisoning do not become apparent immediately after onset, but after many months or even years have passed [5,50,51]. The spectrum of the toxicity of heavy metals in the human body is very wide [5]. Despite a similar mechanism of toxicity, individual heavy metals often tend to affect different tissues and organs [5,49]. Lead accumulates primarily in bone tissue, cadmium in renal cortical tissue and liver, while mercury accumulates in the form of methylmercury compounds in brain tissue, which can lead to severe neurological changes [5,6,7,49,50]. Moreover, some heavy metals and their compounds are classified as confirmed or probable carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [5,6,51]. In terms of the environmental risk, two elements have ranked first for years: Cd and Pb. They are followed by As, Cr, Hg, and Zn [1]. According to the IARC study, Cd is classified in Group 1, which includes substances that are carcinogenic to humans, while inorganic Pb compounds are classified in Group 2A, which includes substances that are probably carcinogenic to humans [6,51,52].

4. Heavy Metal Bioremediation Strategies Detected in Bacillus

Microorganisms can use several strategies to remove heavy metals present in the environment (Figure 2) [8,20,53,54]. Biosorption, bioaccumulation, and bioprecipitation are the most common heavy metal removal strategies of the genus Bacillus [8,55].

4.1. Biosorption

Biosorption is a physicochemical, metabolism-independent heavy metal uptake process based on cell membranes. It functions through compounds with a negative charge that are present in the cell membranes. Importantly, the biomass used for biosorption is usually non-living biomass, as this way, the process proceeds more efficiently than with living microorganisms. The efficiency of this strategy mainly depends on several parameters, including surface properties, e.g., functional groups present on the cell membrane, pH, temperature, or electrostatic interactions [12,57,58]. Understanding the biosorption mechanisms that enable the removal of heavy metals is crucial to optimizing the process. To date, several mechanisms occurring during the sorption process have been discovered, and different mechanisms can proceed at the same time at different rates. Among the biosorption mechanisms, the following mechanisms can be identified: (i) ion change, a reversible chemical reaction involving the exchange of ions for other ions of the same charge; (ii) complexation, heavy metal ions bind to functional groups present in cell membranes; (iii) physical adsorption caused by intermolecular interactions, including Van der Waals forces (Figure 2) [57,59].
To date, several papers on biosorption with Bacillus spp. have been published [21,60,61,62]. Some strains of the Bacillus spp. may also have the ability to bio-sorb a few different heavy metals. B. thuringiensis OSM29, isolated from the rhizosphere of cauliflower grown in soil irrigated with industrial effluent, was capable of remediating Cd, Cu, Cr, Ni, and Pb [63]. The biosorption capacity of B. thuringiensis OSM29 was highest for Ni (94%), while the lowest biosorption by the bacterial biomass was noted for Cd (87,0%). The researchers also observed that the biosorption efficiency was dependent on a few physicochemical parameters, such as pH, initial metal concentration, and contact time. For example, the optimum pH values for copper and lead biosorption efficiency was 6.0, while for Ni and Cr, it was 7.0. Additionally, using FTIR, the authors identified the following chemical functional groups in the studied strain: amino, carboxyl, hydroxyl, and carbonyl groups, involved in the sorption of heavy metals [63]. Nevertheless, most studies concern the biosorption of single heavy metals. Strains of the genus Bacillus are capable of Hg biosorption. For instance, Sinha et al. [64] analyzed a biosorption potential of immobilized B. cereus cells for bioremediation of mercury from synthetic effluent. Importantly, the experiment was conducted under various conditions. The maximum adsorption capacity of B. cereus (immobilized cells) was 104.1 mg g−1 (Hg2+), and was noted for a pH of 7.0 at 30 °C, for a pH of 7.0 after 72 h from contact, and biomass concentration of 0.02 g L−1. Moreover, the average free energy value calculated using the Dubinin–Radushkevich (D–R) model was 15.8 kJ mol−1, indicating that this process was chemically more favorable than the physical adsorption process [64]. Chen et al. [65] conducted a study on Pb(II) biosorption, using the strain B. thuringiensis 016 through batch and microscopic experiments. The authors noted that the highest biosorption potential of Pb for B. thuringiensis 016 was approximately 165 mg g−1 (dry weight). Interestingly, this study showed that pH, amide, carboxyl, and phosphate functional groups of the studied strain (studied by fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyses and selective passivation experiments) greatly affected the Pb biosorption. Furthermore, the observation by scanning electron microscopy proved that Pb precipitates had accumulated on the surfaces of the bacteria cells [65].
Moreover, Bacillus spp. strains are also capable of biosorption of less toxic metals than those above. For instance, B. cereus AUMC B52 was capable of Zn biosorbing. The maximum adsorption capacity of B. cereus AUMC B52 calculated from the Langmuir adsorption isotherm was 66.6 mg g−1. In addition, the presence of amine, hydroxyl, carboxyl, and carbonyl groups, which are probably responsible for Zn(II) biosorption, was detected in the bacterial biomass using FTIR [66]. There are also examples of As biosorption by B. cereus, which is more often found in the environment in the form of anions. Giri et al. [67] detected an adsorption capacity of approximately 32 mg g−1 for arsenite at pH 7.5, at a biomass dose of 6 g L−1. The ability to bioabsorb arsenic was also noted in B. thuringiensis WS3. The maximum As(III) adsorption capacity was approximately 11 mg g−1, in the optimum As(III) removal conditions: 6 ppm As(III) concentration, pH 7, temperature 37 °C, and biomass dose of 0.50 mg ml−1 [68].

4.2. Bioremediation by Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPS)

Another important mechanism for bioremediation of heavy metals that many metal-tolerant bacteria possess is the uptake of metals through the secretion of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) (Figure 2) [58,69]. The EPS include compounds such as nucleic acids, humic acids, proteins, and polysaccharides, that bind cationic metals with varying degrees of specificity and affinity [58,70]. Their importance in the bioremediation process is based on their participation in the flocculation and the binding of metal ions from solutions [71]. Microorganisms that secrete exopolysaccharides are the most significant in the bioremediation of heavy metals [69]. Factors modulating the removal of metals by EPS include initial metal concentrations and pH [58].
To date, the ability to secrete EPS has been detected in several strains belonging to the genus Bacillus. For instance, multi-metal resistance (Pb, Cd, Cu, and Zn) strain, B. cereus KMS3-1, was able to produce EPS (optimum conditions: pH 7.0, 120 h incubation time, sucrose concentration 5 g L−1, and 10 g L−1 yeast extract) [72]. Furthermore, optimization of EPS production, using a central composite design, revealed that the optimal sucrose and yeast extract concentrations for enhanced EPS production (8.9 g L−1), were 5 g L−1 and 30 g L−1, respectively. In addition, using FTIR, thin layer chromatography (TLC), and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) techniques, the researchers determined studied EPS as heteropolysaccharide, which consisted of glucose, mannose, xylose, and rhamnose [72]. However, there are also studies focusing on bioremediation using EPS against a single heavy metal contamination. Kalpan et al. [73] isolated an exopolysaccharide-producing bacteria, B. cereus VK1. Subsequently, EPS was purified, estimated, and further characterized by FTIR, gas chromatography, mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and thermo gravimetric analysis (TGA). Interestingly, using statistical modeling (response surface methodology, RSM), the researchers carried out media optimization to increase EPS production. The study results showed that B. cereus VK1 cultured in LB was capable of adsorbing up to 80.22 μg Hg2+ in 20 min, while the strain grown in RSM-optimized medium adsorbed up to 295.53 μg Hg2+ [73]. Moreover, the ability to produce EPS has also been detected in a species related to Bacillus spp., Paenibacillus jamilae. EPS showed a notable affinity for Pb in comparison to the other five metals. The bioremediation of lead (303.03 mg g−1) was as much as ten times higher than the removal of the other metals. Alongside that, studied EPS consisted of glucose (the most abundant sugar), rhamnose, galactose, fucose, and mannose [74].

4.3. Bioaccumulation

In contrast to the biosorption described above, bioaccumulation is a cellular energy-dependent process conducted by active metabolic microorganisms (Figure 2) [75]. Therefore, compared to biosorption, heavy metal uptake takes longer because it depends on the biochemical features, microbial internal structure, genetic and physiological ability, and environmental conditions affected by bioaccumulation activity [53,76]. Moreover, the bioaccumulation process was also found to be influenced by cell surface properties, including changes in charge. In addition, temperature also affects the bioaccumulation process: a higher temperature may significantly disrupt the metabolic activity of a bacterial cell [53,77]. The best-known mechanism of bioaccumulation is likely based on heavy metal binding using metallothioneins. Metallothioneins are cysteine-rich proteins (low molecular weight molecules, can be encoded by the bmtA gene that facilitates the bioaccumulation of heavy metals (e.g., Pb, Hg, Ni, Cd)) inside the cell [78]. Bacterial cells usually produce metallothioneins in reaction to enhanced exposure to metals [79,80]. This mechanism may be transferred by plasmids, facilitating its dispersion from one bacterial cell to another [81]. However, there are other bioaccumulation mechanisms that are often not universal for the bioremediation of all heavy metals. For instance, bioremediation of As in bacteria of the genus Bacillus is mediated by the ars operon through the use of the following genes: arsA, arsB, arsC, arsD, and arsR, where, e.g., the arsA and arsB genes have ATPase activity and arsC encodes an arsenate reductase that converts As(III) to As(V) (less toxic form) [82]. In contrast, Pb bioaccumulation in Bacillus spp. Is based on the pbrD gene [83], while the mechanisms leading to Cu accumulation by bacterial cells are encoded in the cusF gene, which contributes to the binding of copper in the periplasmic space [84]. In the case of mercury, bioaccumulation is related to the merC gene expression [85].
There are many studies confirming the ability of Bacillus spp. and related bacteria to bioaccumulate heavy metals [18]. For instance, metallothionein production has been detected in Bacillus spp., for example B. cereus and B. megaterium [86]. Importantly, bacteria of the genus Bacillus are capable of bioaccumulating various heavy metals. B. cereus RC-1, growing under various pH values and initial metal concentration, was able to remove a few heavy metals, such as Cu2+ (16.7% maximum removal efficiency), Zn2+ (38.3%), Cd2+ (81.4%), and Pb2+ (40.3%), with initial concentrations of 10 mg L−1, at pH 7.0 [87]. Interestingly, the bio-removal of the two crucial metals—Cd2+ and Pb2+—was paralleled by cellular uptake of Na+ and Mg2+ from the medium, respectively [87]. Alongside that, B. coagulans tolerated up to 512 ppm Cr(VI) concentration and had an MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) of 128 ppm for Pb(II). Moreover, after 72 h, this strain had reduced 32 ppm Cr(VI) by 93%, and 64 ppm Pb(II) by 89.0% [88]. In addition, B. cereus BPS-9 has shown great potential of Pb accumulation (79.3%) [53]. The authors also found that, despite a reduction in the growth rate, the superoxide dismutase activity of B. cereus BPS-9 increased with increasing lead concentration, manifested by an increase in nitro blue tetrazolium (NBT) reduction from approximately 4% to 78% [53]. Moreover, bacteria of the genus Bacillus have been shown to have the ability to bioaccumulate the highly toxic arsenic for humans as well. For example, Singh et al. [89] detected the ability to bioaccumulate and volatilize As(V) in cultures of B. aryabhattai. The possibility of bioaccumulation of slightly less toxic Ni has also been recorded in bacteria of the species B. cereus. Naskar et al. [90] found that growing B. cereus M161 cells, depending on the growth phase of the culture, accumulated Ni(II) from the aqueous solution up to 80%, with surface binding (approximately 60%) dominating over intracellular accumulation (approximately 20%). On the other hand, the highest Ni(II) accumulation was recorded at 6.5, 32.5 °C, 2.5% inoculum volume, and 50 mL medium volume. However, no growth of the studied strain was observed at Ni ion concentrations beyond 50 mg L−1 [90].

4.4. Bioprecipitation

Bioprecipitation is another bioremediation strategy that has been found in bacteria. This strategy involves converting the concentration of free metals to insoluble complexes, thereby reducing their bioavailability and toxicity. Microorganisms can facilitate precipitation via catalyzing oxidative and reductive processes, leading to the precipitation of contaminants including Pb, Cd, Cr, Fe, and U. In some microorganisms, it has also been discovered that they can release phosphates and increase the precipitation of metal phosphates, while other bacteria are capable of precipitating hydroxides or carbonates by forming alkanes (Figure 2) [91]. There are not a lot of studies about precipitation carried out by the Bacillus spp. Nevertheless, bacteria of the genus Bacillus can bio-precipitate the most toxic heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. For instance, the lead-resistant strains—B. iodinium GP13 and B. pumilus S3—were found to facilitate the precipitation of lead in the form of lead sulphide (PbS) [92]. Moreover, bacteria capable of precipitating lead into lead phosphate (Pb3(PO4)2) also include B. thuringiensis 016 [65]. Another example of bioprecipitation by the Bacillus spp. is the study by Li et al. [93]: using analyses of energy dispersive spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and select area electron diffraction, the authors showed that B. cereus Cd01 was capable of Cd bioprecipitation into polycrystalline and/or amorphous cadmium phosphate and cadmium sulfide. Furthermore, Molokwane et al. [94] observed Cr(VI) reduction by precipitation after the application was enriched by a mixed culture of bacteria consisting of bacteria of the genus Bacillus, including B. cereus, B. thuringiensis, and related genera, such as Paenibacillus and Oceanobacillus. The highest reduction of Cr(VI) in aerobic cultures was obtained at a high concentration of 200 mg L−1, after incubation for 65 h [94]. To our knowledge, there have been no studies to date describing the possibility of bioprecipitation of other heavy metals (important from the point of view of pollution) by bacteria of the genus Bacillus.
To summarize these subsections, it is worth adding that biologically enhanced precipitation may be used to remove metals and metalloids from a range of wastewaters, for example, acid mine drainage, electroplating, and tannery effluents [91].

4.5. Biological Removal of Heavy Metals Using Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria

There are still not a lot of studies on the bioremediation by Bacillus spp. in terms of application perspective; most studies focus on bioremediation mechanisms and study bioremediation efficiency in aqueous solutions with heavy metals [65,90,94]. Furthermore, only a few studies present results on the bioremediation activity of Bacillus spp. without the involvement of plants. For instance, for the bioremediation of cadmium, a combination of the bacteria B. megaterium with earthworms (Eisenia fetida) was used. According to the experiment with Cd-contaminated soil (Cd at approximately 2.5 mg kg−1), this combination was more effective than bioremediation using only earthworms [95]. On the other hand, the vast majority of studies on the application of Bacillus spp. as bioremediation agents are also related to phytoremediation [96], indicating that the bioremediation action of Bacillus spp. is not limited to playing a role in the geochemical cycle of heavy metals in soil [97,98]. Moreover, heavy-metal-accumulating plants supported by bacteria of this genus may be used to produce biogas, and the digestate meeting the criteria for heavy metal content can be used as fertilizer. Thus, this type of approach appears to be the most appropriate in the context of bioremediation involving this microbial group [99,100].
Metal-accumulating plants can be enhanced by metal-resistant plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB), which can increase the efficiency of bioremediation [56,101,102]. Therefore, the use of PGPB has recently been expanded to include the potential remediation of contaminated soils with crops, energy plants, and hyperaccumulators (plants capable of accumulating extremely large amounts of heavy metals in their aboveground parts, without suffering from phytotoxic effects) [100,103]. Therefore, the application of PGPB has recently been expanded to include remediation of contaminated soils in combination with plant hyperaccumulators, that is, plants capable of accumulating extremely large amounts of heavy metals in their aboveground parts, without suffering from phytotoxic effects. Plant stimulation by PGPB has been observed by many authors [11,101,104,105,106,107]. PGPB may enhance plant growth either directly or indirectly. Mechanisms of direct action include production of various biological substances, for instance, indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), gibberellins, cytokinins, and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase, and atmospheric nitrogen fixation (nitrogenase production), or phosphorus solubilization [56,108,109,110,111,112]. On the other hand, indirect mechanisms include the production of antibiotics (for example, cyclic lipopeptides), enzymes such as chitinases, cellulases, and glucanases, and siderophore production [105,113,114,115,116].
The abilities that promote PGPB in phytoremediation processes include alleviating harmful effects caused by heavy metal pollution (e.g., reduced chlorophyll level and oxidative stress), boosting heavy metal tolerance of plants, and enhancing the accumulation of heavy metals in plant tissues [11,117,118,119,120,121]. Thus, bacteria can facilitate heavy metal remediation through several mechanisms. For instance, phytohormones, such as IAA, causing root elongation and surface area (enhancing nutrients uptake), lead to an increase in the plants biomass, which results in a larger phytoremediation surface area of plants [99,122,123]. In addition, beneficial microorganisms may help reduce ethylene stress in plants growing in metal-contaminated soil through the deaminase ACC activity, which breaks down the ethylene precursor, ACC. It results in the development of longer roots, thus enabling the phytoremediation process to proceed more efficiently [56,94,124,125]. Plant stress due to the presence of heavy metals can also be alleviated by the secretion of antioxidant enzymes by PGPB [96]. Additionally, PGPB releases siderophores, iron-chelating compounds that enhance iron uptake by plant roots in hostile, metal-contaminated environments [104,126,127,128]. Siderophores can also mobilize heavy metals, increasing metal accumulation by resistant bacteria (Figure 2) [56,129,130,131]. In turn, plant endophytes (e.g., root endosphere endophytes) can also enhance the phytoremediation through bioaccumulation mechanisms [122].
So far, several studies have been reported describing the support of plant phytoremediation by plant growth-promoting bacteria of Bacillus spp. [11,132,133,134]. Most of the research on this topic concerns experiments conducted under controlled conditions. For instance, a study conducted under gnotobiotic conditions showed the possibility of phytoextraction of cadmium- and lead-contaminated soils with bacteria of the genus Bacillus [135]. A heavy-metal-resistant, tomato growth-promoting strain Bacillus sp. RJ16 (Table 1) (which synthesized IAA, siderophores, and ACC deaminase to stimulate tomato root growth) led to an increase in Cd and Pb content in aboveground tissues from 92% to 113% and from 73% to 79%, respectively, in inoculated plants growing in heavy-metal-contaminated soil, compared to the control without inoculation [135]. Similarly, B. subtilis and B. pumilus were also able to facilitate the accumulation of various heavy metals, such as Cu, Cr, Pb, and Zn in tissues of Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor (greenhouse illuminated with natural light; total concentrations of heavy metals in soil: Cu 22,800, Cr 16,865, Pb 1900, Zn 32,500 mg kg−1 dry soil) [136]. Different patterns were noted by Saran et al. [137], who showed that after 2 months, sunflower (Helianthus annuus) seedlings grown on contaminated soil (Cd 0.42, Cu 1.02, Pb 5.48, Zn 12 mg kg−1) and inoculated with a plant growth-promoting strain B. proteolyticus ST89 (Table 1) achieved a 40% higher biomass production than uninoculated control plants, and accumulated 20% less Pb and 40% less Cd in aboveground plant parts, which indicates a reduction in phytotoxicity (controlled conditions, greenhouse) [137]. Interestingly, B. paramycoides ST9 (Table 1) increased the bioaccumulation factor of Pb three times and Cd six times, without suppressing plant growth [137]. However, most studies on this issue regarded the Cd bioremediation only. For instance, the application of rhizobacteria B. subtilis contributed to the reduction of the Cd bioavailability by approximately 39% in soil planted with ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum L.), and enhanced Cd accumulation in ryegrass by nearly 28%. Moreover, the inoculation of this strain increased plant antioxidant enzymes and enhanced biomass by nearly 21% [96]. Additionally, using 16S rRNA sequencing, the researchers also assessed the change in the native microbiota following the introduction of PGPB. The study found that the application of B. subtilis in the rhizosphere microbiota caused significant changes, e.g., enrichment of the population of phylum Proteobacteria [96], which includes bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas. An increase in the abundance of this genus could also enhance bioremediation efficiency [138]. Furthermore, for Cd bioremediation, bacteria of the Bacillus genus could also be used with other bacteria. For instance, application of B. mycoides and Micrococcus roseus strains in Cd-contaminated soil (100 and 200 mg Cd kg−1) planted with maize (greenhouse experiment) contributed to increased Cd uptake in shoots and roots compared to the control [139]. Another example of consortium with Bacillus sp. application was the study by Pinter et al. [140]: the authors used a consortium that consisted of B. licheniformis, Micrococcus luteus, and Pseudomonas fluorescens, which increased the concentration of As(III) in the leaves, and increased the plant defense mechanisms which helped reduce the toxic effects of As(III). There are also cases of bioremediation of Bacillus spp. strains with plants of less toxic metals than those mentioned above. For instance, He et al. [141] documented that strains B. subtilis and B. cereus significantly enhanced the accumulation of Zn and the shoot and root biomass compared to non-inoculated plants in experiments conducted on Orychophragmus violaceus (greenhouse under controlled climatic conditions). In addition, it has also been shown that members of the genus Bacillus can assist in the phytoremediation of nickel and promote plant growth in nickel-contaminated soils. The inoculation of B. juncea by rhizobacteria B. cereus SRA10 (Table 1) also contributed to a notably enhanced growth of root and shoot Ni accumulation (greenhouse conditions) [142]. A slightly different pattern was noted by Rajkumar et al. [143] in a study conducted on B. juncea, which showed that Bacillus sp. Ba32 (Table 1), capable of producing siderophores and solubilizing phosphate, could stimulate the growth of this plant under Cr contamination, but did not affect the amount of chromium Cr accumulated in the roots and shoots (growth chamber conditions) [143].
Regarding the above, the majority of bioremediation experiments involving Bacillus spp. have been carried out under simple or controlled conditions, including growth chamber and greenhouse studies. However, studies on the effectiveness of Bacillus spp. in bioremediation have also been conducted under outdoor conditions. Sheng et al. [144] carried out an outdoor pot experiment, which demonstrated that soil inoculation with biosurfactant-producing Bacillus sp. J119 (Table 1) significantly increased tomato plant biomass and Cd uptake in plant tissues, thereby increasing the phytoextraction potential in soil contaminated with the aforementioned metal [144]. Moreover, Zaidi et al. [132] showed that the strain B. subtilis SJ-101 (Table 1) exhibited a protective activity against Ni phytotoxicity in Brassica juncea grown in soil treated with NiCl2, at concentrations ranging from 250 to 1750 mg kg−1 (pot experiments in open-field conditions). In addition, the study showed that the studied strain also had the ability to produce indoleacetic acid (IAA) and dissolve inorganic phosphate, which promotes the growth of the studied plant. Furthermore, the study indicated the possibility of using B. subtlis SJ-101 as a bacteria-assisted phytoaccumulation of this toxic heavy metal from polluted sites [132].
Importantly, by conducting research on the PGPB application for bioremediation of heavy metals under controlled conditions, researchers are reducing the number of factors affecting their effectiveness. As is well known, the effectiveness of PGPB is influenced by soil properties (including chemical and microbiological properties), which are modulated by a range of factors including meteorological conditions [116]. Thereby, there is still a great need for research conducted under field conditions, which will provide a broader view of the interactions between bacteria, plants, and soil, thus leading to an essential step in the transition from laboratory experiments to practical applications. Unfortunately, field trials using PGPB in phytoremediation are rarely reported [100,122]. An instance of such a study using Bacillus spp. is the experiment conducted by Wu et al. [122]. The authors revealed that B. megaterium BM18-2 (mutant) (Table 1) was able to increase Cd accumulation in the above-part of plants (hybrid Pennisetum) by nearly 29% (572 μg plant−1) compared to the control (pollutant concentration of cadmium was 0.50 mg kg−1).

5. Conclusions

Biological removal of toxic metals, using bacteria of the genus Bacillus, has now gained much interest in the context of bioremediation studies. Methods based on microorganisms including Bacillus spp. have several advantages over conventional physical and chemical techniques, including higher specificity, the possibility of using in situ, and ability of enhancing phytoremediation. In addition, the good adaptation of bacteria of this genus to unfavorable conditions and the fact that they produce spores provide a notable advantage over most bioremediation techniques. Importantly, the bioremediation efficiency using Bacillus spp. is constantly increasing. This phenomenon is generated by the use of statistical models to optimize bioremediation (in terms of conditions), the development of molecular techniques that will make it possible to use bacteria that show enhanced resistance to heavy metals in the future, and also application of PGPB as a phytoremediation-supporting agent, thereby increasing their potential in the bioremediation process. However, such solutions are still rarely translated into soil bioremediation, including the use of PGPB. Moreover, soil studies describing the possibility of using Bacillus spp. phytoremediation are generally conducted under controlled conditions. Changing the research approach by using bioremediation PGPB of the genus Bacillus more frequently in field conditions could contribute to the development of the research area, and consequently improve the application possibilities. Finally, it should also be mentioned that the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS), allowing more detailed insight into the crucial biodegradation pathways of these bacteria, provides an additional opportunity to enhance bioremediation by Bacillus spp. NGS techniques can also contribute to increasing the knowledge of the relationship between bacteria exhibiting bioremediation traits and the native microbial communities of contaminated environments. Such knowledge may lead to associations that will result in a synergistic cooperation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.D.; methodology, J.D., M.W. and W.Ś.; resources, J.D., M.W. and W.Ś.; writing—original draft preparation, J.D., M.W., W.Ś., P.K. and K.K; writing—review and editing—J.D., M.W. and W.Ś.; visualization, M.W., W.Ś.; supervision, J.D.; project administration, P.K, K.K.; funding acquisition, K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This review was supported by grants from the Medical University of Bialystok no.: B.SUB.23.359, SUB1/NN/22/001/2201 and the National Science Center, Poland project OPUS 2021/43/B/NZ7/01903.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cegiełkowska, W.; Michalska-Kacymirow, M.; Wierzbicka, M. Heavy metals in the environment. In Ecotoxicology. Plants, Soils, Metals [Ekotoksykologia. Rośliny, Gleby, Metale], 1st ed.; Wierzbicka, M., Ed.; Warsaw University Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2015; pp. 22–23, 31–36. ISBN 978-83-235-1854-9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gholizadeh, M.; Hu, X. Removal of heavy metals from soil with biochar composite: A critical review of the mechanism. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kacprzak, M.; Fijałkowski, K. Trace elements and heavy metals. Occurrence, toxicity. In Potential of Plants to Clean Up the Environment [Fitoremediacja. Potencjał Roślin do Oczyszczania Środowiska], 1st ed.; Charitonow, E., Ed.; Scientific Publishers PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2020; pp. 6–11. ISBN 978-830-121-170-7. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ociepa-Kubicka, A.; Ociepa, E. Toxic effects of heavy metals on plants, animals and humans. Inż. Ochr. Śr. 2012, 15, 169–180. Available online: https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-LODD-0002-0015/tab/summary (accessed on 11 March 2015).
  5. Rostański, A.; Cabala, J.; Slota, M. Environmental exposure to heavy metals. In Ecotoxicology. Plants, Soils, Metals [Ekotoksykologia. Rośliny, Gleby, Metale], 1st ed.; Wierzbicka, M., Ed.; Warsaw University Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2015; pp. 522–541. ISBN 978-83-235-1854-9. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kumar, A.; Kumar, A.; Cabral-Pinto, M.; Chaturvedi, A.K.; Shabnam, A.A.; Subrahmanyam, G.; Mondal, R.; Gupta, D.K.; Malyan, S.K.; Kumar, S.S.; et al. Lead toxicity: Health hazards, influence on food chain, and sustainable remediation approaches. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Liu, X.; Shunbin, G.; Shiyan, Y.; Jinsong, D. Heavy metals in soil-vegetable system around E-waste site and the health risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 779, 146438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pham, V.H.T.; Kim, J.; Chang, S.; Chung, W. Bacterial biosorbents, an efficient heavy metals green clean-up strategy: Prospects, challenges, and opportunities. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dell’Anno, F.; Brunet, C.; van Zyl, L.J.; Trindade, M.; Golyshin, P.N.; Dell’Anno, A.; Ianora, A.; Sansone, C. Degradation of hydrocarbons and heavy metal reduction by marine bacteria in highly contaminated sediments. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. United Nations Home Page. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 25 September 2015).
  11. Wang, L.; Rinklebe, J.; Tack, F.M.; Hou, D. A review of green remediation strategies for heavy metal contaminated soil. Soil Use Manag. 2021, 37, 936–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shamim, S. Biosorption of Heavy Metals; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Das, A.; Osborne, J.W. Bioremediation of heavy metals. In Nanotechnology, Food Security and Water Treatment. Environmental Chemistry for a Sustainable World, 1st ed.; Gothandam, K.M., Ranjan, S., Dasgupta, N., Ramalingam, C., Lichtfouse, E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 9, pp. 277–311. ISBN 978-331-970-165-3. [Google Scholar]
  14. Guo, H.; Hanjun, S.; Chen, L.; Xiao, X.; Xi, Q.; Wei, W.; Zeng, G.; Liu, C.; Wan, Y.; Chen, J.; et al. Bioremediation of heavy metals by growing hyperaccumulator endophytic bacterium Bacillus sp. L14. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8599–8605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sadowska, A.; Obidoska, G.; Rumowska, M. Heavy metals. In Ecotoxicology. Toxic Environmental Agents and Methods of Their Detection [Ekotoksykologia. Toksyczne Czynniki Środowiskowe i Metody ich Wykrywania]; SGGW Publishing: Warsaw, Poland, 2000; pp. 54–57. ISBN 837-244-171-5. [Google Scholar]
  16. Niklińska, M.; Stefanowicz, A.M. Soil microorganisms in metal-bearing areas. In Ecotoxicology. Plants, Soils, Metals [Ekotoksykologia. Rośliny, Gleby, Metale], 1st ed.; Wierzbicka, M., Ed.; Warsaw University Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2015; p. 210. ISBN 978-83-235-1854-9. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dadrasnia, A.; Chuan Wei, K.S.; Shahsavari, N.; Azirun, M.S.; Ismail, S. Biosorption potential of Bacillus salmalaya strain 139SI for removal of Cr (VI) from aqueous solution. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2015, 12, 15321–15338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ontañon, O.M.; Fernandez, M.; Agostini, E.; González, P.S. Identification of the main mechanisms involved in the tolerance and bioremediation of Cr (VI) by Bacillus sp. SFC 500-1E. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 16111–16120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Heidari, P.; Panico, A. Sorption mechanism and optimization study for the bioremediation of Pb (II) and Cd (II) contamination by two novel isolated strains Q3 and Q5 of Bacillus sp. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alotaibi, B.S.; Khan, M.; Shamim, S. Unraveling the underlying heavy metal detoxification mechanisms of Bacillus species. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Babar, Z.; Khan, M.; Chotana, G.A.; Murtaza, G.; Shamim, S. Evaluation of the potential role of Bacillus altitudinis MT422188 in nickel bioremediation from contaminated industrial effluents. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alou, M.T.; Rathored, J.; Khelaifia, S.; Michelle, C.; Brah, S.; Diallo, B.A.; Raoult, D.; Lagier, J.-C. Bacillus rubiinfantis sp. nov. strain mt2T, a new bacterial species isolated from human gut. New Microbes New Infect. 2015, 8, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Kotb, E. Purification and partial characterization of serine fibrinolytic enzyme from Bacillus megaterium KSK-07 isolated from kishk, a traditional Egyptian fermented food. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2015, 51, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mingmongkolchai, S.; Panbangred, W. Bacillus probiotics: An alternative to antibiotics for livestock production. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 124, 1334–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qin, Y.; Angelini, L.L.; Chai, Y. Bacillus subtilis cell differentiation, biofilm formation and environmental prevalence. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zocca, V.F.B.; Corrêa, G.G.; Lins, M.R.D.C.R.; de Jesus, V.N.; Tavares, L.F.; Amorim, L.A.D.S.; Kundlatsch, G.E.; Pedrolli, D.B. The CRISPR toolbox for the gram-positive model bacterium Bacillus subtilis. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2022, 42, 813–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ikram, M.; Naeem, M.; Zahoor, M.; Hanafiah, M.M.; Oyekanmi, A.A.; Islam, N.U.; Ullah, M.; Mahnashi, M.H.; Ali, A.A.; Jalal, N.A.; et al. Bacillus subtilis: As an efficient bacterial strain for the reclamation of water loaded with textile azo dye, orange II. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 10637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Elshaghabee, F.M.F.; Rokana, N.; Gulhane, R.D.; Sharma, C.; Panwar, H. Bacillus as potential probiotics: Status, concerns, and future perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Shafi, J.; Tian, H.; Ji, M. Bacillus species as versatile weapons for plant pathogens: A review. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2017, 31, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Fira, D.; Dimkić, I.; Berić, T.; Lozo, J.; Stanković, S. Biological control of plant pathogens by Bacillus species. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 285, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kuebutornye, F.K.; Abarike, E.D.; Lu, Y. A review on the application of Bacillus as probiotics in aquaculture. Fish. Shellfish. Immunol. 2019, 87, 820–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miljaković, D.; Marinković, J.; Balešević-Tubić, S. The significance of Bacillus spp. in disease suppression and growth promotion of field and vegetable crops. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ngalimat, M.S.; Yahaya, R.S.R.; Baharudin, M.M.A.-A.; Yaminudin, S.M.; Karim, M.; Ahmad, S.A.; Sabri, S. A review on the biotechnological applications of the operational group Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tsotetsi, T.; Nephali, L.; Malebe, M.; Tugizimana, F. Bacillus for plant growth promotion and stress resilience: What have we learned? Plants 2022, 11, 2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tran, C.; Cock, I.E.; Chen, X.; Feng, Y. Antimicrobial Bacillus: Metabolites and their mode of action. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tirloni, E.; Stella, S.; Celandroni, F.; Mazzantini, D.; Bernardi, C.; Ghelardi, E. Bacillus cereus in dairy products and production plants. Foods 2022, 11, 2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Qi, X.; Gao, H.; Wang, M.; Guan, H.; Yu, B. Metabolic engineering of Bacillus subtilis for riboflavin production: A review. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hodgson, E. Introduction to toxicology. In A Textbook of Modern Toxicology, 4th ed.; Hodgson, E., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 3–14. ISBN 978-0-470-46206-5. [Google Scholar]
  39. European Environment Agency Home Page. Heavy Metal Emissions in Europe. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/eea32-heavy-metal-hm-emissions-1/assessment-10 (accessed on 4 September 2019).
  40. European Environment Agency Home Page. Industrial Pollutant Releases to Air in Europe. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/industrial-pollution-in-europe-3/assessment (accessed on 13 September 2019).
  41. Mohammadi, A.A.; Zarei, A.; Esmaeilzadeh, M.; Taghavi, M.; Yousefi, M.; Yousefi, Z.; Sedighi, F.; Javan, S. Assessment of heavy metal pollution and human health risks assessment in soils around an industrial zone in Neyshabur, Iran. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2020, 195, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sun, Y.; Li, H.; Guo, G.; Semple, K.T.; Jones, K.C. Soil contamination in China: Current priorities, defining background levels and standards for heavy metals. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barsova, N.; Yakimenko, O.; Tolpeshta, I.; Motuzova, G. Current state and dynamics of heavy metal soil pollution in Russian Federation–A review. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 249, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ramon, F.; Lull, C. Legal measures to prevent and manage soil contamination and to increase food safety for consumer health: The case of Spain. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 250, 883–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Diarra, I.; Prasad, S. The current state of heavy metal pollution in Pacific Island Countries: A review. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 2020, 56, 27–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Solademi, F.; Thompson, S. Spatial analysis of heavy metal emissions in residential, commercial and industrial areas adjacent to a scrap metal shredder in Winnipeg, Canada. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2020, 8, 359–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kabata-Pendias, A.; Pendias, H. Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements [Biogeochemia Pierwiastków Śladowych], 2nd ed.; Rajpert, M., Ed.; Scientific Publishers PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 1999; ISBN 83-01128-23-2. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sher, S.; Abdul, R. Use of heavy metals resistant bacteria-a strategy for arsenic bioremediation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 6007–6021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wierzbicka, M. Plant defense against heavy metals. In Ecotoxicology. Plants, Soils, Metals [Ekotoksykologia. Rośliny, Gleby, Metale], 1st ed.; Wierzbicka, M., Ed.; Warsaw University Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2015; p. 83. ISBN 978-83-235-1854-9. [Google Scholar]
  50. Seńczuk, W. Modern Toxicology [Toksykologia Współczesna], 2nd ed.; Seńczuk, W., Ed.; PZWL: Warsaw, Poland, 2012; ISBN 978-83-200-6099-7. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kozłowska, A.; Mikołajczyk, A.; Boroń, M.; Kasperczyk, S.; Pawlas, N. Effects of lead exposure on the concentration of cadmium, selenium and values of morphology in the blood. Environ. Med. 2015, 18, 17–25. [Google Scholar]
  52. International Agency for Research on Cancer Home Page. Available online: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications (accessed on 7 September 2022).
  53. Sharma, B.; Shukla, P. Lead bioaccumulation mediated by Bacillus cereus BPS-9 from an industrial waste contaminated site encoding heavy metal resistant genes and their transporters. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 401, 123285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Pande, V.; Pandey, S.C.; Sati, D.; Bhatt, P.; Samant, M. Microbial interventions in bioremediation of heavy metal contaminants in agroecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 824084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Shao, W.; Li, M.; Teng, Z.; Qiu, B.; Huo, Y.; Zhang, K. Effects of Pb (II) and Cr (VI) stress on phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (Bacillus sp. strain MRP-3): Oxidative stress and bioaccumulation potential. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16, 2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Ahemad, M. Remediation of metalliferous soils through the heavy metal resistant plant growth promoting bacteria: Paradigms and prospects. Arab. J. Chem. 2019, 12, 1365–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Zabochnicka-Świątek, M.; Krzywonos, M. Potentials of biosorption and bioaccumulation processes for heavy metal removal. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 23, 551–561. [Google Scholar]
  58. Tiquia-Arashiro, S.M. Lead absorption mechanisms in bacteria as strategies for lead bioremediation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 5437–5444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Babák, L.; Šupinova, P.; Zichova, M.; Burdychova, R.; Vitova, E. Biosorption of Cu, Zn and Pb by thermophilic bacteria–effect of biomass concentration on biosorption capacity. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2012, 60, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Das, P.; Sinha, S.; Mukherjee, S.K. Nickel bioremediation potential of Bacillus thuringiensis KUNi1 and some environmental factors in nickel removal. Bioremediat. J. 2014, 18, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Khan, M.; Ijaz, M.; Chotana, G.A.; Murtaza, G.; Malik, A.; Shamim, S. Bacillus altitudinis MT422188: A potential agent for zinc bioremediation. Bioremediat. J. 2022, 26, 228–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chen, X.; Lin, H.; Dong, Y.; Li, B.; Liu, C.; Yin, T. Mechanisms underlying enhanced bioremediation of sulfamethoxazole and zinc (II) by Bacillus sp. SDB4 immobilized on biochar. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 370, 133483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Oves, M.; Khanm, M.S.; Zaidim, A.; Ahmadm, E. Soil contamination, nutritive value and human health risk assessment of heavy metals: An overview. In Toxicity of Heavy Metals to Legumes and Bioremediation, 1st ed.; Zaidi, A., Wani, P., Khan, M., Eds.; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2012; pp. 1–27. ISBN 978-3-7091-0729-4. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sinha, A.; Pant, K.K.; Khare, S.K. Studies on mercury bioremediation by alginate immobilized mercury tolerant Bacillus cereus cells. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2012, 2071, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chen, Z.; Pan, X.; Chen, H.; Lin, Z.; Guan, X. Investigation of lead (II) uptake by Bacillus thuringiensis 016. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 1729–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Joo, J.H.; Hassan, S.H.; Oh, S.E. Comparative study of biosorption of Zn2+ by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus cereus. Int. Biodeter. Biodegrad. 2010, 64, 734–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Giri, A.; Patel, R.K.; Mahapatra, S.S.; Mishra, P.C. Biosorption of arsenic (III) from aqueous solution by living cells of Bacillus cereus. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 1281–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Altowayti, W.A.H.; Algaifi, H.A.; Bakar, S.A.; Shahir, S. The adsorptive removal of As (III) using biomass of arsenic resistant Bacillus thuringiensis strain WS3: Characteristics and modelling studies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 172, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kumawat, T.K.; Kumawat, V.; Sharma, S.; Kandwani, N.; Biyani, M. Applications of EPS in environmental bioremediations. In Microbial Exopolysaccharides as Novel and Significant Biomaterials, 1st ed.; Nadda, A.K., Sajna, K.V., Sharma, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 285–302. ISBN 978-3-030-75288-0. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pal, A.; Paul, A.K. Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: Central elements in heavy metal bioremediation. Indian J. Microbiol. 2008, 48, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Salehizadeh, H.; Shojaosadati, S.A. Removal of metal ions from aqueous solution by polysaccharide produced from Bacillus firmus. Water Res. 2003, 37, 4231–4235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Krishnamurthy, M.; Uthaya, C.J.; Thangavel, M.; Annadurai, V.; Rajendran, R.; Gurusamy, A. Optimization, compositional analysis, and characterization of exopolysaccharides produced by multi-metal resistant Bacillus cereus KMS3-1. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 227, 115369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kalpana, R.; Angelaalincy, M.J.; Kamatchirajan, B.V.; Vasantha, V.S.; Ashokkumar, B.; Ganesh, V.; Varalakshmi, P. Exopolysaccharide from Bacillus cereus VK1: Enhancement, characterization and its potential application in heavy metal removal. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2018, 171, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Morillo Pérez, J.A.; García-Ribera, R.; Quesada, T.; Aguilera, M.; Ramos-Cormenzana, A.; Monteoliva-Sánchez, M. Biosorption of heavy metals by the exopolysaccharide produced by Paenibacillus jamilae. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 2699–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Issazadeh, K.; Jahanpour, N.; Pourghorbanali, F.; Raeisi, G.; Faekhondeh, J. Heavy metals resistance by bacterial strains. Ann. Biol. Res. 2013, 4, 60–63. [Google Scholar]
  76. Vijayaraghavan, K.; Yun, Y.S. Bacterial biosorbents and biosorption. Biotechnol. Adv. 2008, 26, 266–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Srinath, T.; Verma, T.; Ramteke, P.W.; Garg, S.K. Chromium (VI) biosorption and bioaccumulation by chromate resistant bacteria. Chemosphere 2002, 48, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hamer, D.H. Metallothioneins. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1986, 55, 913–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Blindauer, C.A.; Harrison, M.D.; Robinson, A.K.; Parkinson, J.A.; Bowness, P.W.; Sadler, P.J.; Robinson, N.J. Multiple bacteria encode metallothione in sand SmtA-like fingers. Mol. Microbiol. 2002, 45, 1421–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Liu, T.; Nakashima, S.; Hirose, K.; Uemura, Y.; Shibasaka, M.; Katsuhara, M.; Kasamo, K. A metallothionein and CPx-ATPase handle heavy-metal tolerance in the filamentous cyanobacteria Oscillatoria brevis. FEBS Lett. 2003, 542, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Das, S.; Dash, H.R.; Chakraborty, J. Genetic basis and importance of metal resistant genes in bacteria for bioremediation of contaminated environments with toxic metal pollutants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 2967–2984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yang, H.C.; Fu, H.L.; Lin, Y.F.; Rosen, B.P. Pathways of arsenic uptake and efflux. Curr. Top. Membr. 2012, 69, 325–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Borremans, B.; Hobman, J.L.; Provoost, A.; Brown, N.L.; van Der Lelie, D. Cloning and functional analysis of the pbr lead resistance determinant of Ralstonia metallidurans CH34. J. Bacteriol. 2001, 183, 5651–5658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Yu, P.; Yuan, J.; Deng, X.; Ma, M.; Zhang, H. Subcellular targeting of bacterial CusF enhances Cu accumulation and alters root to shoot Cu translocation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014, 55, 1568–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Kiyono, M.; Oka, Y.; Sone, Y.; Nakamura, R.; Sato, M.H.; Sakabe, K.; Pan-Hou, H. Bacterial heavy metal transporter MerC increases mercury accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Biochem. Eng. J. 2013, 71, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Murthy, S.; Geetha, B.; Sarangi, S.K. Effect of lead on metallothionein concentration in lead-resistant bacteria Bacillus cereus isolated from industrial effluent. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 15966–15972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Huang, F.; Wang, Z.H.; Cai, Y.X.; Chen, S.H.; Tian, J.H.; Cai, K.Z. Heavy metal bioaccumulation and cation release by growing Bacillus cereus RC-1 under culture conditions. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 157, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Belapurkar, P.; Goyal, P.; Kar, A. In vitro evaluation of bioremediation capacity of a commercial probiotic, Bacillus coagulans, for chromium (VI) and lead (II) toxicity. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2016, 8, 272–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Singh, N.; Gupta, S.; Marwa, N.; Pandey, V.; Verma, P.C.; Rathaur, S.; Singh, N. Arsenic mediated modifications in Bacillus aryabhattai and their biotechnological application for arsenic bioremediation. Chemosphere 2016, 164, 524–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Naskar, A.; Majumder, R.; Goswami, M. Bioaccumulation of Ni (II) on growing cells of Bacillus sp.: Response surface modeling and mechanistic insight. nviron. Technol. Innov. 2020, 20, 101057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kaksonen, A.H.; Puhakka, J.A. Sulfate reduction-based bioprocesses for the treatment of acid mine drainage and the recovery of metals. Eng. Life Sci. 2007, 7, 541–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. De, J.; Ramaiah, N.; Vardanyan, L. Detoxification of toxic heavy metals by marine bacteria highly resistant to mercury. Mar. Biotechnol. 2008, 10, 471–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Li, F.; Wang, W.; Li, C.; Zhu, R.; Ge, F.; Zheng, Y.; Tang, Y. Self-mediated pH changes in culture medium affecting biosorption and biomineralization of Cd(2+) by Bacillus cereus Cd01. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 358, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Molokwane, P.E.; Meli, C.K.; Chirwa, E.M. Chromium (VI) reduction in activated sludge bacteria exposed to high chromium loading: Brits culture (South Africa). Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 58, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Xiao, R.; Liu, X.; Ali, A.; Chen, A.; Zhang, M.; Li, R.; Chang, H.; Zhang, Z. Bioremediation of Cd-spiked soil using earthworms (Eisenia fetida): Enhancement with biochar and bacillus megatherium application. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Li, Q.; Xing, Y.; Huang, B.; Chen, X.; Ji, L.; Fu, X.; Li, T.; Wang, J.; Chen, G.; Zhang, Q. Rhizospheric mechanisms of Bacillus subtilis bioaugmentation-assisted phytostabilization of cadmium-contaminated soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 825, 154136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Chen, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Ding, C.; Ren, X.; Yuan, J.; Sun, F.; Li, Y. Integrated metagenomics and molecular ecological network analysis of bacterial community composition during the phytoremediation of cadmium-contaminated soils by bioenergy crops. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 145, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Jing, R.; Kjellerup, B.V. Biogeochemical cycling of metals impacting by microbial mobilization and immobilization. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 66, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ashraf, M.A.; Hussain, I.; Rasheed, R.; Iqbal, M.; Riaz, M.; Arif, M.S. Advances in microbe-assisted reclamation of heavy metal contaminated soils over the last decade: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 198, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ren, X.-M.; Guo, S.-J.; Tian, W.; Chen, Y.; Han, H.; Chen, E.; Li, B.-L.; Li, Y.-Y.; Chen, Z.-J. Effects of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) inoculation on the growth, antioxidant activity, Cu uptake, and bacterial community structure of rape (Brassica napus L.) grown in Cu-contaminated agricultural soil. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Pandey, S.; Ghosh, P.K.; Ghosh, S.; De, T.K.; Maiti, T.K. Role of heavy metal resistant Ochrobactrum sp. and Bacillus spp. strains in bioremediation of a rice cultivar and their PGPR like activities. J. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Pishchik, V.N.; Filippova, P.S.; Mirskaya, G.V.; Khomyakov, Y.V.; Vertebny, V.E.; Dubovitskaya, V.I.; Ostankova, Y.V.; Semenov, A.V.; Chakrabarty, D.; Zuev, E.V.; et al. Epiphytic PGPB Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 improve wheat growth and antioxidant status under Ni Stress. Plants 2021, 10, 2334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Luo, S.L.; Chen, L.; Chen, J.L.; Xiao, X.; Xu, T.Y.; Wan, Y.; Rao, C.; Liu, C.B.; Liu, Y.T.; Lai, C.; et al. Analysis and characterization of cultivable heavy metal-resistant bacterial endophytes isolated from Cd-hyperaccumulator Solanum nigrum L. and their potential use for phytoremediation. Chemosphere 2011, 85, 1130–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Schwartz, A.R.; Ortiz, I.; Maymon, M.; Herbold, C.W.; Fujishige, N.A.; Vijanderan, J.A.; Villella, W.; Hanamoto, K.; Diener, A.; Sanders, E.R.; et al. Bacillus simplex—A little known PGPB with anti-fungal activity—Alters pea legume root architecture and nodule morphology when coinoculated with Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae. Agronomy 2013, 3, 595–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Hiller, J.; Napora, A.; Grobelak, A. Growth promotion by PGBP bacteria. In Innovations in Technological Processes [Innowacje w Procesach Technologicznych], 1st ed.; Bajdur, W.M., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Wydziału Zarządzania Politechniki Częstochowskiej: Częstochowa, Poland, 2016; pp. 74–83. ISBN 978-83-65179-72-2. [Google Scholar]
  106. Hong, S.; Kim, T.Y.; Won, S.-J.; Moon, J.-H.; Ajuna, H.B.; Kim, K.Y.; Ahn, Y.S. Control of fungal diseases and fruit yield improvement of strawberry using Bacillus velezensis CE 100. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mirskaya, G.V.; Khomyakov, Y.V.; Rushina, N.A.; Vertebny, V.E.; Chizhevskaya, E.P.; Chebotar, V.K.; Chesnokov, Y.V.; Pishchik, V.N. Plant development of early-maturing spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under inoculation with Bacillus sp. V2026. Plants 2022, 11, 1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Mukhtar, T.; Rehman, S.U.; Smith, D.; Sultan, T.; Seleiman, M.F.; Alsadon, A.A.; Amna; Ali, S.; Chaudhary, H.J.; Solieman, T.H.I.; et al. Mitigation of heat stress in Solanum lycopersicum L. by ACC-deaminase and exopolysaccharide producing Bacillus cereus: Effects on biochemical profiling. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Mahdi, I.; Fahsi, N.; Hafidi, M.; Allaoui, A.; Biskri, L. Plant growth enhancement using rhizospheric halotolerant phosphate solubilizing bacterium Bacillus licheniformis QA1 and Enterobacter asburiae QF11 isolated from Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Nithyapriya, S.; Lalitha, S.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Reddy, M.S.; Dailin, D.J.; El Enshasy, H.A.; Luh Suriani, N.; Herlambang, S. Production, purification, and characterization of bacillibactin siderophore of Bacillus subtilis and its application for improvement in plant growth and oil content in sesame. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Dobrzyński, J.; Wierzchowski, P.S.; Stępień, W.; Górska, E.B. The reaction of cellulolytic and potentially cellulolytic spore-forming bacteria to various types of crop management and farmyard manure fertilization in bulk soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dobrzyński, J.; Jakubowska, Z.; Dybek, B. Potential of Bacillus pumilus to directly promote plant growth. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1069053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Khan, N.; Maymon, M.; Hirsch, A.M. Combating Fusarium infection using Bacillus-based antimicrobials. Microorganisms 2017, 5, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Sibponkrung, S.; Kondo, T.; Tanaka, K.; Tittabutr, P.; Boonkerd, N.; Yoshida, K.-I.; Teaumroong, N. Co-inoculation of Bacillus velezensis strain S141 and Bradyrhizobium strains promotes nodule growth and nitrogen fixation. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kwon, J.-H.; Won, S.-J.; Moon, J.-H.; Lee, U.; Park, Y.-S.; Maung, C.E.H.; Ajuna, H.B.; Ahn, Y.S. Bacillus licheniformis PR2 controls fungal diseases and increases production of jujube fruit under field conditions. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dobrzyński, J.; Wróbel, B.; Górska, E.B. Cellulolytic properties of a potentially lignocellulose-degrading Bacillus sp. 8E1A strain isolated from bulk soil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Chiboub, M.; Jebara, S.H.; Saadani, O.; Fatnassi, I.C.; Abdelkerim, S.; Jebara, M. Physiological responses and antioxidant enzyme changes in Sulla coronaria inoculated by cadmium resistant bacteria. J. Plant Res. 2018, 131, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Rizvi, A.; Khan, M.S. Heavy metal-induced oxidative damage and root morphology alterations of maize (Zea mays L.) plants and stress mitigation by metal tolerant nitrogen-fixing Azotobacter chroococcum. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 157, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Alka, S.; Shahir, S.; Ibrahim, N.; Chai, T.T.; Mohd Bahari, Z.; Abd Manan, F. The role of plant growth promoting bacteria on arsenic removal: A review of existing perspectives. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 17, 100602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Antoniadis, V.; Levizou, E.; Shaheen, S.M.; Ok, Y.S.; Sebastian, A.; Baum, C.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Wenzel, W.W.; Rinklebe, J. Trace elements in the soil-plant interface: Phytoavailability, translocation, and phytoremediation–A review. Earth Sci. Rev. 2017, 171, 621–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Kong, Z.; Glick, B.R. The role of plant growth-promoting bacteria in metal phytoremediation. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 2017, 71, 97–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Wu, J.; Kamal, N.; Hao, H.; Qian, C.; Liu, Z.; Shao, Y.; Zhong, X.; Xu, B. Endophytic Bacillus megaterium BM18-2 mutated for cadmium accumulation and improving plant growth in Hybrid Pennisetum. Biotechnol. Rep. 2019, 24, e00374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Yan, A.; Wang, Y.; Tan, S.N.; Mohd Yusof, M.L.; Ghosh, S.; Chen, Z. Phytoremediation: A promising approach for revegetation of heavy metal-polluted land. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Burd, G.I.; Dixon, D.G.; Glick, B.R. A plant growth promoting bacterium that decreases nickel toxicity in seedlings. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 3663–3668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Glick, B.R.; Penrose, D.M.; Li, J. A model for lowering of plant ethylene concentrations by plant-growth-promoting bacteria. J. Theor. Biol. 1998, 190, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hussein, K.A.; Joo, J.H. Potential of siderophore production by bacteria isolated from heavy metal: Polluted and rhizosphere soils. Curr. Microbiol. 2014, 68, 717–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Huo, Y.; Kang, J.P.; Ahn, J.C.; Kim, Y.J.; Piao, C.H.; Yang, D.U.; Yang, D.C. Siderophore-producing rhizobacteria reduce heavy metal-induced oxidative stress in Panax ginseng Meyer. J. Ginseng Res. 2021, 45, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Caracciolo, A.B.; Terenzi, V. Rhizosphere microbial communities and heavy metals. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rajkumar, M.; Ae, N.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Freitas, H. Potential of siderophore-producing bacteria for improving heavy metal phytoextraction. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Schalk, I.J.; Hannauer, M.; Braud, A. New roles for bacterial siderophores in metal transport and tolerance. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13, 2844–2854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Roskova, Z.; Skarohlid, R.; McGachy, L. Siderophores: An alternative bioremediation strategy? Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 819, 153144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zaidi, S.; Usmani, S.; Singh, B.R.; Musarrat, J. Significance of Bacillus subtilis strain SJ-101 as a bioinoculant for concurrent plant growth promotion and nickel accumulation in Brassica juncea. Chemosphere 2006, 64, 991–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Glick, B.R. Using soil bacteria to facilitate phytoremediation. Biotechnol. Adv. 2010, 28, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Sessitsch, A.; Kuffner, M.; Kidd, P.; Vangronsveld, J.; Wenzel, W.W.; Fallmann, K.; Puschenreiter, M. The role of plant-associated bacteria in the mobilization and phytoextraction of trace elements in contaminated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 60, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. He, L.Y.; Chen, Z.J.; Ren, G.D.; Zhang, Y.F.; Qian, M.; Sheng, X.F. Increased cadmium and lead uptake of a cadmium hyperaccumulator tomato by cadmium-resistant bacteria. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2009, 72, 1343–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Abou-Shanab, R.A.; Ghanem, K.; Ghanem, N.; Al-Kolaibe, A. The role of bacteria on heavy-metal extraction and uptake by plants growing on multi-metal-contaminated soils. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Saran, A.; Imperato, V.; Fernandez, L.; Gkorezis, P.; D′Haen, J.; Merini, L.J.; Vangronsveld, J.; Thijs, S. Phytostabilization of polluted military soil supported by bioaugmentation with PGP-trace element tolerant bacteria isolated from Helianthus petiolaris. Agronomy 2020, 10, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Esmail, G.A.; Mohammed Ghilan, A.-K.; Valan Arasu, M. Optimizing the management of cadmium bioremediation capacity of metal-resistant Pseudomonas sp. strain Al-Dhabi-126 isolated from the industrial city of Saudi Arabian Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Malekzadeh, E.; Alikhani, H.A.; Savaghebi-Firoozabadi, G.R.; Zarei, M. Bioremediation of cadmium-contaminated soil through cultivation of maize inoculated with plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria. Bioremed. J. 2012, 16, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Pinter, M.I.F.; Salomon, M.V.; Berli, F.; Gil, R.; Bottini, R.; Piccoli, P. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria alleviate stress by AsIII in grapevine. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 267, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. He, C.Q.; Tan, G.; Liang, X.; Du, W.; Chen, Y.; Zhi, G.; Zhu, Y. Effect of Zn-tolerant bacterial strains on growth and Zn accumulation in Orychophragmus violaceus. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 44, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ma, Y.; Rajkumar, M.; Freitas, H. Improvement of plant growth and nickel uptake by nickel resistant-plant-growth promoting bacteria. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 66, 1154–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Rajkumar, M.; Nagendran, R.; Lee, K.J.; Lee, W.H.; Kim, S.Z. Influence of plant growth promoting bacteria and Cr6+ on the growth of Indian mustard. Chemosphere 2006, 62, 741–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Sheng, X.; He, L.; Wang, Q.; Ye, H.; Jiang, C. Effects of inoculation of biosurfactant-producing Bacillus sp. J119 on plant growth and cadmium uptake in a cadmium-amended soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 155, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Diagram of environmental exposure and accumulation of metals in the human body, using lead as an example (according to Seńczuk [50]; modified).
Figure 1. Diagram of environmental exposure and accumulation of metals in the human body, using lead as an example (according to Seńczuk [50]; modified).
Ijerph 20 04964 g001
Figure 2. Various types of bacterial interactions with heavy metals accumulated in soils (according to Ahemad [56]; modified).
Figure 2. Various types of bacterial interactions with heavy metals accumulated in soils (according to Ahemad [56]; modified).
Ijerph 20 04964 g002
Table 1. Phytoremediation supporting bacteria of the genus Bacillus, and their effects.
Table 1. Phytoremediation supporting bacteria of the genus Bacillus, and their effects.
StrainsPlantBioremediated MetalPGP TraitsPGP EffectsReferences
Bacillus sp. RJ16Solanum lycopersicumCd and PbIAA, siderophores and ACC deaminaseStimulatation of tomato root growthHe et al. [135]
Bacillus cereus SRA10Brassica junceaNiIAA, siderophoresOverall plant growth promotionMa et al. [142]
Bacillus sp. Ba32Brassica junceaCrSiderophoresIncrease in root and shoot lengthRajkumar et al. [143]
Bacillus proteolyticus ST89Helianthus annuusCd and PbIAAIncrease in biomass productionSaran et al. [137]
Bacillusparamycoides ST9Helianthus annuusCd and PbIncrease in shoot biomass productionSaran, et al. [137]
Bacillus sp. J119Brassica napus Huiyou-50,
Zea mays Denhai-11, Sorghum bicolor × Sorghum sudanense, Lycopersicon esculentum Shanghai-906
Cd, Pb, Zn and CuIAAIncrease in stem lengthSheng et al. [144]
Bacillus subtilis SJ-101Brassica junceaNiIAAIncrease in growth of above-ground tissue and rootZaidi et al. [132]
Bacillus megaterium BM18-2Pennisetum americanum × Pennisetum purpureum SchumachCdIAAIncrease in shoot and root lengthWu et al. [122]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wróbel, M.; Śliwakowski, W.; Kowalczyk, P.; Kramkowski, K.; Dobrzyński, J. Bioremediation of Heavy Metals by the Genus Bacillus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4964. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064964

AMA Style

Wróbel M, Śliwakowski W, Kowalczyk P, Kramkowski K, Dobrzyński J. Bioremediation of Heavy Metals by the Genus Bacillus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(6):4964. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064964

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wróbel, Monika, Wojciech Śliwakowski, Paweł Kowalczyk, Karol Kramkowski, and Jakub Dobrzyński. 2023. "Bioremediation of Heavy Metals by the Genus Bacillus" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 6: 4964. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064964

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop