Next Article in Journal
Assessing Woodland Change in Tanzania’s Eastern Arc Mountains Using Landsat Thematic Mapper Mixed Approaches
Previous Article in Journal
Green Public Procurement and Its Influence on Urban Carbon Emission Intensity: Spatial Spillovers Across 285 Prefectural Cities in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/land14081547
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Immobilization of Cadmium, Lead, and Copper in Soil Using Bacteria: A Literature Review

by
Saulius Vasarevičius
* and
Vaida Paliulienė
Department of Environment Protection and Water Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(8), 1547; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081547
Submission received: 18 June 2025 / Revised: 23 July 2025 / Accepted: 25 July 2025 / Published: 28 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Land Use, Impact Assessment and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The heavy metal contamination of soils is a global environmental challenge threatening water quality, food safety, and human health. Using a systematic literature review approach, this study aimed to assess the potential of bacterial strains to immobilize cadmium (Cd2+), lead (Pb2+), and copper (Cu2+) in contaminated soils. A total of 45 articles were analyzed, focusing on studies that reported heavy metal concentrations before and after bacterial treatment. The analysis revealed that bacterial genera such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, and Enterobacter were most commonly used for the immobilization of these metals. Immobilization efficiencies ranged from 25% to over 98%, with higher efficiencies generally observed when microbial consortia or amendments (e.g., phosphate compounds and biochar) were applied. The main immobilization mechanisms included biosorption, bioprecipitation (such as carbonate-induced precipitation), bioaccumulation, and biomineralization, which convert mobile metal ions into more stable, less bioavailable forms. These findings highlight the promising role of microbial-assisted immobilization in mitigating heavy metal pollution and reducing ecological risks. Further laboratory and field studies are needed to optimize the use of these microbial strains under site-specific conditions to ensure effective and sustainable soil remediation practices.

1. Introduction

More than 20 million hectares of land worldwide are contaminated with heavy metals [1]. The remediation of contaminated soil requires substantial investments, and complete soil recovery may take between 200 and 1000 years [2]. Heavy metals are biologically non-degradable, making them difficult to remove from soil and leading to their accumulation in living organisms [3]. Globally, these metals are of serious concern due to their persistence and stability in the environment [4]. Heavy metal contamination has increased due to various industrial activities, growing amounts of waste, and modernized agricultural practices [5]. The scientific literature reports that cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and copper (Cu) are among the primary toxic metals that contaminate soil [6,7]. The concentrations of these metals in soils vary: lead, from 1.5 to 663 mg kg−1; cadmium, from 3.6 to 300 mg kg−1; and copper, from 1.8 to 32 mg kg−1 [8].
Soil pollution poses a significant risk to water quality and food safety, as heavy metals can contaminate crops and enter the human body through the food chain [9]. Long-term exposure to heavy metals negatively affects human health and can lead to various cancers, nervous system disorders, insomnia, and other illnesses [9]. The toxic effects of these metals on living organisms even occur at low concentrations, underscoring the need for their removal to immobilize them from the environment [6]. The use of microorganisms to mitigate heavy metal contamination is a promising strategy. However, it remains essential to clarify what bacteria alter their chemical forms to reduce toxicity and mobility.
Biological remediation methods can be effective and provide long-term results, as they use living systems that can adapt to different soil conditions [10]. The use of microorganisms to remove heavy metals is a promising strategy to address the consequences of soil contamination caused by human activities [3]. The concentration of heavy metals in soil significantly influences microorganism activity, survival, and remediation potential, often inhibiting key microbial processes. Immobilization is an effective method for the large-scale restoration of heavy-metal-contaminated soils [11]. The effectiveness of microorganisms can depend on the soil type and its chemical composition and environmental conditions, including pH, temperature, and moisture. Depending on the microorganism, it may be effective at immobilizing certain heavy metals but not others [12]. Traditional remediation methods are often costly and environmentally invasive. Therefore, there is growing interest in eco-friendly and cost-effective alternatives such as microbial-assisted immobilization. Understanding how microorganisms behave under different contamination levels and environmental conditions is crucial for optimizing their application in real-world scenarios [5].
Several processes performed by microorganisms contribute to heavy metal immobilization. Biodegradation involves the immobilization of heavy metals by microorganisms. Biosorption occurs when heavy metals are adsorbed onto the cell walls of microorganisms. Biological precipitation refers to the formation of insoluble metal compounds. Biotransformation involves the chemical transformation of metal compounds through reduction or oxidation reactions. Bioaccumulation occurs when microorganisms accumulate heavy metals in their cells, making this applicable in bioremediation processes. One of the main mechanisms by which microorganisms remove metals is bioremediation, a process where environmental contaminants are broken down or transformed into less hazardous compounds. Bioaugmentation, a bioremediation strategy, involves introducing effective microorganisms into the environment to facilitate the breakdown or transformation of pollutants [13].
Bacillus species are gram-positive, spore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria that are either aerobic or facultative anaerobes. Bacillus species are capable of forming spores under extreme conditions. Due to their specific structure, the spores can resist high temperatures, drought, moisture, radiation, and the effects of heavy metals [14]. Pseudomonas species are gram-negative, rod-shaped, motile bacteria that are strictly aerobic but metabolically versatile. They are known for their high adaptability to various environments, including contaminated soils, and for producing siderophores and biosurfactants that contribute to heavy metal chelation and immobilization. Pseudomonas spp. exhibit resistance to toxic metals and are frequently used in bioremediation due to their efficient metal transformation capabilities [15]. Enterobacter species are gram-negative, facultative anaerobic, rod-shaped bacteria commonly found in soil and water. They can tolerate heavy metal stress and contribute to metal immobilization through biosorption, precipitation, and enzyme-mediated redox transformations. Enterobacter spp. are also capable of forming biofilms, which enhance their survival and remediation potential in contaminated environments [16]. Immobilization through ion exchange reactions alters the adsorption, complexation, and precipitation of heavy metals from active to stable phases, thereby reducing their bioavailability in soil [17]. However, it is essential to identify, based on the scientific literature, which microorganisms can effectively immobilize all three of the aforementioned heavy metals.

2. Materials and Methods

This study applied a scientific literature review methodology to examine the role of soil microorganisms in the immobilization of heavy metals, specifically cadmium (Cd2+), lead (Pb2+), and copper (Cu2+). The aim was to evaluate how many recent scientific studies on this topic could be identified using an open-access tool, and this approach ensured the inclusion of freely accessible publications. The literature review covered 45 scientific articles published between 2006 to 2025. The inclusion criteria for the analysis were the following:
  • Scientific articles investigating the use of bacteria for the immobilization of cadmium, lead, and copper in contaminated soils.
  • Articles that presented data on the concentrations of these heavy metals before and after treatment with bacteria.
  • Studies describing the bacterial strains or consortia used for heavy metal immobilization.
Articles not meeting the criteria or not directly related to heavy metal immobilization by bacteria in soil were excluded from the analysis. The following data were extracted from the included studies: concentrations of cadmium, lead, and copper before and after bacterial treatment; bacterial strains used for immobilization; the reported percentage reduction in heavy metal concentrations; and conditions and duration of the experiments, where available.
This review aims to systematically summarize the efficiency of bacterial strains in immobilizing cadmium, lead, and copper in soil, while also evaluating the limitations posed by varying environmental conditions and discussing practical applications. This integrated approach provides new insights into microbial-assisted remediation beyond laboratory conditions.
Using the systematic literature review method, a search and an analysis of literature sources were conducted to systematize and describe the possibilities for immobilizing heavy metals in soil using bacteria. In this work, we searched for peer-reviewed, open-access, full-text scientific articles in English that presented studies on the immobilization of heavy metals in soil. The systematic literature review included full-text articles found in two scientific databases, PubMed and ScienceDirect, that investigated soil contamination and the potential for heavy metal immobilization using bacteria.
The literature search was performed from 10 March 2025, to 24 March 2025. The main English keywords used in the search in these scientific databases were heavy metals, immobilization, bacteria, and soil. The search initially used the keyword combination [“heavy metals in soil” and “heavy metal immobilization from soil”]. Later, the search was further refined by adding the keyword “using bacteria” to the combination. Using these combinations in the two scientific databases identified 715 publications.
Initially, the titles of the articles were screened, followed by the abstracts, and finally the full texts. During the title screening phase, it was assessed whether the publications addressed the potential of bacteria for immobilizing heavy metals in soils. While various microbial-based remediation strategies exist, this review focuses on immobilization because it offers stable, long-term, continuous bacterial activity or reapplication. Publications that did not match the topic were excluded from further consideration (Figure 1).
The collected data are summarized and presented in tables, displaying the concentrations of heavy metals in soil before and after immobilization, the bacterial strains used for immobilization, and the immobilization efficiency as a percentage reduction in heavy metal concentrations. As this research is based solely on a literature analysis and did not involve new laboratory experiments, animal or human subjects, or interventionary studies, no ethical approval was required. No new data sets were generated, and all information used in this work is publicly available from the materials or information reported in the review.
However, it is important to note that the results were obtained under differing environmental conditions, including variations in pH, temperature, and soil composition. Therefore, comparisons between bacterial strains should be interpreted cautiously, as efficiency may not be solely attributable to the strain itself but also to the experimental setup.
Nonetheless, these efficiencies were reported under varied experimental conditions. As such, while comparisons provide insights into potential effectiveness, they may not fully reflect performance under standardized conditions. Additional research under controlled, uniform setups is required for direct comparative assessment.
Different environmental conditions and experimental designs were used in these studies, which limits the comparability of bacterial efficiency data across the reviewed literature. Although trends can be identified, direct efficiency comparisons should be made with caution unless environmental parameters are standardized.
In most of the reviewed studies, heavy metal concentrations were determined using standard instrumental techniques, primarily inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) and, in some cases, ICP-MS.
This work aims to facilitate further laboratory studies related to the immobilization of heavy metals in soil using bacteria.

3. Results

With the advancement of modern microbial technologies, significant progress has been made in adapting microorganisms to tolerate heavy metals and in isolating specific genes that can enhance the specificity and efficiency of heavy metal removal [18]. Microorganisms can adapt to a variety of environmental conditions, making them widely applicable for the reduction in heavy metal contamination in soils. These characteristics include a broad source base, rapid growth, high tolerance, and high efficiency [19]. For this reason, scientific articles on this topic were analyzed to identify which bacteria are capable of immobilizing cadmium, lead, and copper, as well as to determine which bacteria are most commonly used by researchers and their respective effectiveness.
Figure 2 (Table S1) presents studies on the application of various microorganisms, assessing their ability to immobilize Cd2+ in contaminated soils or other environments. It includes details such as sampling locations, contamination levels, achieved immobilization efficiencies, and the bioremediation methods applied.
Figure 2 illustrates the frequency of microbial genera used in various scientific studies that analyzed their effectiveness in reducing cadmium mobility or bioavailability in soil. The most frequently used genus was Bacillus spp. (13 studies), known for its high resistance to heavy metal stress and its ability to form spores, which enables survival under unfavorable conditions. Pseudomonas spp. ranked second (10 studies), with representatives well known for their metabolic versatility and ability to synthesize biosurfactants. Enterobacter spp. was mentioned in seven studies, while mixed microbial consortia were used in four. The remaining genera, such as Serratia, Cupriavidus, Providencia, and others, were used only in individual studies (once each), indicating their less frequent application or lower research prevalence in this field.
Figure 3 presents cadmium concentrations in various soil types collected from different locations.
In most agricultural soils, cadmium concentrations ranged from 2.3 to 3.8 mg/kg. Similar levels were found in soils near a smelter and a factory (3.4 and 3.3 mg/kg, respectively). Significantly higher cadmium concentrations were recorded near one agricultural area (25.0 mg/kg) and in a paddy field (20.0 mg/kg), which may indicate a local source of pollution or the intensive use of agrochemicals. The highest cadmium concentrations were found in mine tailings and in one of the agricultural soil samples—reaching as high as 100.0 mg/kg. These values significantly exceed typical background levels, indicating severe contamination and posing a potential risk to human health and ecosystems.
Figure 4 illustrates the cadmium immobilization efficiency of different Bacillus species, expressed as percentages.
The highest efficiency was observed for Bacillus licheniformis (98.1% and 98.3%) and Bacillus safensis (83.5%), which significantly outperformed the other tested species. This suggests that these microorganisms have exceptional potential for application in the bioremediation of contaminated soils. In contrast, Bacillus pasteurii (43.4%) and Bacillus aryabhattai B10 (51.0%) demonstrated lower immobilization efficiency. Other species, such as Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus cereus JB-022, and Bacillus thuringiensis DM55, exhibited moderate efficiency, ranging from 58.8% to 79.0%.
The duration of cadmium immobilization by Bacillus species varied between studies, ranging from a few days to several weeks. However, long-term stability depends on environmental conditions and whether bacteria remained viable or entered spore form.
Figure 5 presents the cadmium immobilization efficiency, expressed as percentages, using different Pseudomonas species.
The highest efficiency was observed for Pseudomonas aeruginosa (87.0% and 85.0%) and Pseudomonas fluorescens (83.0%), suggesting that these microorganisms possess strong potential for cadmium bioremediation applications. In contrast, Pseudomonas koreensis (48.5%), Pseudomonas plecoglossicida (G1), and Pseudomonas taiwanensis (P4) (both 51.0%) exhibited lower immobilization efficiency, which may be attributed to reduced resistance to heavy metal stress or lower biosorption capacity.
The highest efficiency was observed for Bacillus licheniformis; however, it is important to note that the experimental conditions (e.g. pH, soil type, initial Cd concentration) varied across studies. Thus, direct comparisons should be interpreted with caution. The same applies to Pseudomonas species evaluations.
Figure 6 illustrates the cadmium immobilization efficiency of bacteria belonging to the Enterobacter genus, with values expressed as percentages.
The highest efficiency was observed for Enterobacter bugandensis (82.5%) and its strain TJ6 (78.5%), as well as Enterobacter asburiae G3 (76.8%), indicating strong potential for the application of this genus in bioremediation. Slightly lower efficiency was recorded for Enterobacter tabaci I12 (62.6%), while the lowest was observed for an unspecified Enterobacter species (56.1%).
The results of the literature analysis demonstrate that various microorganisms, such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, and Providencia species, have been successfully applied for cadmium immobilization in different contaminated sites, including mining wastes, agricultural soils, and landfills. The immobilization efficiency ranges from approximately 25% to as high as 98%, depending on the microbial strains used, environmental conditions, and the presence of additional amendments (e.g., biochar, phosphate compounds, and carbonates). These findings indicate that microbially driven bioremediation is a promising approach that can be tailored for application in various cadmium-contaminated environments.
Figure 7 (Table S2) presents studies on the application of various microorganisms, assessing their ability to immobilize Pb2+ in contaminated soils or other environments.
Enterobacter spp. was mentioned in five studies, while Burkholderia spp. and Pantoea spp. were each reported in three studies, reflecting a moderate level of research intensity. The use of mixed microbial cultures (Mix), as well as Serratia spp., appeared in two studies. Less commonly used genera, such as Kocuria sp., Kluyvera sp., and Klebsiella sp., were each reported only once, which may indicate their lower application prevalence or insufficient investigation in the context of lead immobilization.
Figure 8 presents the lead concentrations in soil samples collected from various locations, including agricultural areas and sites near factories.
In most agricultural soil samples, lead concentrations ranged from 25.0 to 100.0 mg/kg, which may be associated with atmospheric deposition, pesticide use, or former industrial activities. A concentration as high as 224.0 mg/kg was detected in soil near a factory, indicating the significant accumulation of contaminants due to industrial processes. An exceptionally high concentration—928.0 mg/kg—was found in one of the agricultural soil samples, raising serious concerns about potential heavy metal contamination.
Given that environmental parameters such as pH, temperature, and soil composition differed among studies, direct comparison of lead immobilization efficiency between bacterial species must account for these variables.
Figure 9 illustrates the lead immobilization efficiency, expressed as percentages, using various Bacillus species.
The highest efficiencies were observed for Bacillus intermedia (100.0% and 90.0%), Bacillus AS2 (99.5%), and Bacillus pumilus (96.0%), indicating strong potential for lead retention in soil. These results suggest that certain Bacillus strains may be particularly effective in bioremediation processes related to lead contamination. In contrast, Bacillus S1 (53.0%) and Bacillus SS19 (57.0%) exhibited lower immobilization efficiency, which may be related to reduced biosorption capacity or greater sensitivity to heavy metal stress.
Figure 10 illustrates the lead immobilization efficiency, expressed as percentages, using various Pseudomonas species.
The highest efficiency was observed for Pseudomonas aeruginosa (98.5%), indicating the exceptional potential of this microorganism in bioremediation processes. High efficiency was also demonstrated by Pseudomonas sp. (83.0%) and Pseudomonas koreensis (73.7%). In contrast, Pseudomonas taiwanensis P4 and Pseudomonas plecoglossicida G1 showed significantly lower efficiency (both 57.0%), which may be related to lower resistance to lead stress or weaker biosorption mechanisms.
The results of the literature analysis demonstrate that Bacillus and Pseudomonas genera were the most frequently applied microorganisms for lead (Pb) immobilization, achieving exceptionally high efficiencies in some cases (>90%). Both individual microbial strains and microbial consortia were employed, with the latter enhancing the immobilization efficiency. In some instances, additional materials or strategies (e.g., phosphate compounds or carbonate precipitation) were utilized, which significantly improved the immobilization performance. Various experimental conditions are indicated (e.g., lead concentration ranges, soil types), allowing for the comparative evaluation of the bioremediation efficiency across different environmental settings.
Several studies included additional amendments that may enhance immobilization. Therefore, comparing bacterial efficiency across studies must consider whether such additives were present.
Figure 11 (Table S3) presents comprehensive data on the use of various microorganisms for copper (Cu2+) immobilization in contaminated soils and other environments.
A range of bacterial species, including Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Spingomonas, Sporosarcina, Serratia, Kocuria, and Enterobacter, were examined for their potential to immobilize copper through different mechanisms such as biosorption, bioprecipitation, and bioaccumulation.
Tables S1–S3 include detailed information on experimental conditions such as contamination levels, bacterial strains, and immobilization mechanisms. These differences were taken into account during the analysis but the variability remains a limiting factor in direct efficiency comparisons.
Figure 12 illustrates the copper immobilization efficiency, expressed as percentages, using various Bacillus species.
The reported copper immobilization efficiencies varied substantially, from as low as 27.3% to as high as 91.8% depending on the microbial strain, contamination level, and remediation conditions. Notably, strains such as Bacillus thuringiensis OSM29 and Bacillus subtilis D215 demonstrated remarkable immobilization efficiencies (>90% and 67%, respectively), highlighting their potential for practical bioremediation applications.
Experimental conditions varied widely, with soil contamination levels ranging from 5 mg/L to 434 mg/kg of copper, and in some cases, no specific contamination level was reported. Additionally, the role of microbial consortia was emphasized in several studies, where enhanced copper immobilization was observed when multiple strains were used in synergy.
Table S3 also demonstrates the frequent use of bioprecipitation (e.g., via microbially induced carbonate precipitation, MICP), which in some cases resulted in removal efficiencies above 75%. Other studies leveraged the inherent stress tolerance of certain bacterial strains, such as Kocuria rhizophila, to maintain copper immobilization performance in challenging environments.
Moreover, some entries highlight not only copper immobilization but also the accompanying removal of other heavy metals, reflecting the complex and multifaceted nature of real-world contaminated sites. The studies cited in the table provide valuable insights into the adaptability and effectiveness of microbial communities in different environmental contexts.
The addition of amendments like biochar enhances immobilization efficiency by increasing soil pH, surface area, and nutrient availability, which in turn improves microbial habitat and stimulates native microbial activity. These effects create more favorable conditions for microbial metal binding and transformation.
Figure 13 presents a Venn diagram illustrating the ability of microorganisms to immobilize three major heavy metals: cadmium, lead, and copper.
Figure 13 demonstrates how various bacterial species specialize in or share capabilities for immobilizing the heavy metals cadmium, lead, and copper. Each circle represents the immobilization domain of a single metal, while the overlapping regions indicate bacterial species capable of acting on multiple metals. In the central region, universal bacteria that can immobilize all three metals simultaneously are shown, highlighting their potential versatility and high efficacy in bioremediation processes. Bacillus sp. is most commonly used to immobilize all three metals.
In conclusion, the data underscore the versatility of microbial remediation strategies for cadmium, lead, and copper immobilization. These findings support the application of tailored microbial consortia or specific strains to address copper contamination in soils, with implications for sustainable and effective bioremediation practices.

4. Discussion

The data presented in Tables S1–S3 illustrate the considerable potential of various bacterial strains for immobilizing cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and copper (Cu) in contaminated soils and other environmental matrices. Microbial genera such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Serratia, and Providencia were frequently studied, with some strains demonstrating exceptional immobilization efficiencies (>90%) under optimal conditions. Despite their high efficiency in laboratory settings, the introduced strains often face reduced survival and competitiveness in natural soils due to competition with native microbial communities. Therefore, site-specific selection, adaptation, and even pre-acclimation of strains are necessary for successful field application.
To reduce heavy metal pollution, specific microorganisms that can adsorb, precipitate, or biotransform heavy metals (e.g., Pseudomonas bacteria) may be introduced into contaminated soils. The use of microorganisms in remediation can improve the biochemical conditions, create synergistic effects, and ensure the uniform distribution of remediation activity across the soil. When introduced synergistically with indigenous soil microorganisms, these added microbes can enhance overall remediation efficiency. Their addition ensures that the entire treatment process is uniformly distributed throughout the contaminated site [14].
Studies have shown that bacteria can bind to heavy metal ions on their cell walls, thereby preventing these metals from being taken up by plants. Consequently, this reduces the toxic impact of heavy metals on plants, slows down premature leaf senescence, and promotes increased leaf area and pigment content, thereby enhancing photosynthesis [3]. Microbial applications represent a form of treating contaminated environments by modifying the environmental conditions to stimulate microbial growth and promote the removal of specific pollutants. Microorganisms can reduce the bioavailability of heavy metals by converting them into inactive forms, thereby preventing their uptake by plants [2].
Scientific authors discussed three metal-resistant bacteria: Bacillus subtilis, Paeni-bacillus jamilae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Among them, Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most effective in mitigating Pb2+ toxicity, while Paenibacillus jamilae was the most efficient bioremediator for Cd2+ or combined Pb2+ + Cd2+ contamination. This effectiveness was attributed to a noticeable decrease in the uptake of Cd2+ and/or Pb2+ through plant roots and the reduced translocation of these metals to above-ground plant tissues, leading to improved plant performance, growth, and biomass under heavy metal toxicity [20]. For cadmium, the microbial immobilization efficiencies ranged from approximately 25% to 98%, with Bacillus and Pseudomonas genera often showing the highest performance. For bacteria-induced carbonate precipitation to be effective, a near-neutral to alkaline pH is typically required to promote carbonate formation and heavy metal precipitation. Many studies also noted that microbial consortia outperformed individual strains, indicating synergistic interactions among different species, while the presence of amendments, such as phosphate compounds and biochar, further enhanced immobilization efficiency. The mechanisms involved in cadmium immobilization included biosorption, bioaccumulation, bioprecipitation, and biomineralization. Lead immobilization followed a similar pattern. Several bacterial strains, including Bacillus cereus, Enterobacter asburiae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, achieved immobilization efficiencies exceeding 90%. The formation of insoluble metal phosphates and carbonate-induced precipitation (MICP) were key mechanisms in reducing Pb bioavailability and uptake by plants. These findings underscore the capacity of bacteria not only to adsorb Pb on cell walls but also to precipitate it as stable mineral forms.
Another prominent group is Bacillus species, which are gram-positive, spore-forming, rod-shaped aerobes or facultative anaerobes [21]. Bacillus species can form spores under extreme conditions. Due to their specific structure, these spores are resistant to high temperatures, drought, humidity, radiation, and the toxic effects of heavy metals such as lead, copper, and cadmium. Microbial technologies can thus be a viable alternative to conventional heavy metal removal methods, particularly for the preservation of agricultural soils [20].
The primary mechanisms of Pb removal include biosorption, bioaccumulation, biological precipitation, and biomineralization, which transform toxic lead ions into insoluble forms to reduce ecological toxicity. These bacteria have demonstrated success in immobilizing heavy metals such as Cu, Cr, and Pb in soil and mining wastes, achieving removal rates exceeding 50% [22]. The copper immobilization data revealed a broad range of efficiencies, from 27.3% to 91.8%, depending on bacterial strain and the experimental conditions. Bacillus thuringiensis OSM29 and Bacillus subtilis D215 showed particularly high removal efficiencies (>90%). Microbial mechanisms such as biosorption and efflux systems, supported by specific cellular adaptations (e.g., stress tolerance and biofilm formation), were prominent in copper immobilization. The data also suggest that MICP and other mineralization processes play a crucial role in reducing copper mobility in soils.
Various bacterial species, such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Flavobacterium, Geobacter, and Micrococcus, have been studied for their ability to participate in biosorption processes for removing heavy metal ions from contaminated environments. These studies analyzed bacterial cell surface to volume ratios and other specific features that strengthen the interactions between bacterial functional groups and heavy metal ions [23]. Bacillus species are considered among the most effective bacteria for removing lead, cadmium, and copper [24]. Bacterial cell surfaces exhibit various features that prevent metal ions from entering the cell by adsorbing them onto the cell surface and acting as barriers [25]. The biofilms produced by microorganisms are composed of extracellular polymers that can accumulate metal ions, thus protecting the cells within them from toxic effects [26]. Microbial resistance to metal ions is also supported by enzymes that biologically transform or chemically modify metal ions from highly toxic forms into less toxic states. Metal ion toxicity can be effectively mitigated by altering their redox states through reduction or oxidation reactions [27]. This process is supported by detoxification enzymes whose activity is regulated by microbial resistance genes.
The microbial cell membrane contains various proteins and metabolic products capable of forming complex structures with metal ions. Extracellular sequestration can be defined as a process by which organisms (fungi and bacteria) remove heavy metals by binding them to external cell components [28]. Iron- and sulfur-reducing bacteria such as Desulfu-romonas and Geobacter species can reduce dangerous metals to less hazardous or non-toxic forms. In intracellular sequestration, metal ions are complexed with various compounds in the cytoplasm. The interaction of metal ions with surface ligands and their gradual transformation into the cell can result in significant metal accumulation within microbial cells. This ability of bacterial cells to sequester metals intracellularly is utilized in various applications, especially in waste treatment processes [3].
Future research should focus on strategies to enhance the remediation efficiency of microorganisms, including the development of genetically modified strains, the optimization of consortia for synergistic action, and the application of organic additives that stimulate microbial metabolism. These approaches may improve the persistence and functionality of microbial inoculants in contaminated soils.
Overall, the data support the hypothesis that microbial-assisted immobilization can significantly reduce the bioavailability and ecological risk of heavy metals in contaminated soils. The variability in efficiencies highlights the importance of considering site-specific conditions, microbial adaptability, and potential synergistic effects when designing bioremediation strategies.

5. Conclusions

This literature-based analysis confirms the promising potential of microbial-based bioremediation for the immobilization of cadmium, lead, and copper in contaminated soils. Among the analyzed bacterial strains, Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. were consistently reported as highly effective for immobilizing cadmium and lead, while Enterobacter and Burkholderia showed strong potential for copper immobilization. However, their performance remains dependent on the environmental conditions.
Microorganisms such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, and Enterobacter exhibit high immobilization efficiencies through biosorption, bioprecipitation, bioaccumulation, and biomineralization processes. The effectiveness of these microorganisms is influenced by the environmental conditions, contamination levels, and use of microbial consortia or amendments.
These findings highlight the need for site-specific optimization of microbial treatments to achieve sustainable and effective heavy metal immobilization. Immobilization through microbial pathways—particularly when enhanced with organic amendments—offers a stable, eco-friendly method for reducing metal mobility. However, successful application depends on strain selection, soil compatibility, and environmental adaptation, which highlights the importance of localized optimization.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/land14081547/s1, Table S1: Efficiency of microorganisms in cadmium immobilization in contaminated soil [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,65,66,67]; Table S2: Efficiency of microorganisms in lead immobilization in contaminated soil [6,29,30,33,40,44,45,46,47,48,51,53,55,56,58,59,60,61,66,68,69,70,71,72]; Table S3: Efficiency of microorganisms in copper immobilization in contaminated soil [33,43,44,49,54,55,56,57,61,62,63,64,72,73,74,75].

Author Contributions

V.P.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, visualization. S.V.: writing—review and editing, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by the authors.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

GenAI has been used for purposes such as generating figures and for text translation. All individuals acknowledged in this section have provided their consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MICPMicrobially induced carbonate precipitation
Spp.Species (plural)
Sp.Species (singular)

References

  1. Kim, J.J.; Kim, Y.S.; Kumar, V. Heavy metal toxicity: An update of chelating therapeutic strategies. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2019, 54, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yang, G.Y.; Wu, H.S.; Ma, X.L.; Tang, Y.J.; Li, J.; Chai, Y.; Wang, C.M.; Yang, H.C. Review on the Effects of Combined Pollution of Lead and Chromium on Soil Microorganisms and Treatment Methods. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2020, 8, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jiang, M.; He, L.; Niazi, K.N.; Wang, H.; Gustave, W.; Vithanage, M.; Geng, K.; Shang, H.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z. Nanobiochar for the remediation of contaminated soil and water: Challenges and opportunities. Biochar 2023, 5, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ayangbenro, A.S.; Babalola, O.O. Metal(loid) bioremediation: Strategies employed by microbial polymers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dotaniya, M.L.; Kumar, K.; Dotaniya, C.K.; Doutaniya, R.K. Type of Soil Pollutant and Their Degradation: Methods and Challenges. In Handbook of Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites for Energy and Environmental Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shan, B.; Hao, R.; Zhang, J.; Li, J.; Ye, Y.; Lu, A. Microbial remediation mechanisms and applications for lead-contaminated environments. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2023, 39, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Singh, S.; Kumar, V.; Singh, S.; Dhanjal, S.D.; Datta, S.; Sharma, D.; Singh, N.K.; Singh, R. Biosurfactant-based bioremediation. In Bioremediation of Pollutants; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khalid, S.; Sahid, M.; AlOthman, Z.A.; Al-Kahtani, A.; Muztaza, B.; Dumat, C. Predicting chemical speciation of metals in soil using Visual Minteq. Soil Ecol. Lett. 2023, 5, 220162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kou, B.; He, Y.; Wang, Y.; Qu, C.; Tang, J.; Wu, Y.; Tan, W.; Yuan, Y.; Yu, T. The relationships between heavy metals and bacterial communities in a coal gangue site. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 322, 121136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Münzel, T.; Hahad, O.; Daiber, A.; Landrigan, P.J. Soil and water pollution and human health: What should cardiologists worry about? Cardiovasc. Res. 2023, 119, 440–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. 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]
  12. Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Pan, Y.; Wang, F.; Sun, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, Z.; Wu, A.; Zhang, Y. Efficient removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater and fixation of heavy metals in soil by manganese dioxide nanosorbents with tailored hollow mesoporous structure. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 459, 141583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ghandali, M.V.; Safarzadeh, S.; Ghasemi-Fasaei, R.; Zeinali, S. Heavy metals immobilization and bioavailability in multimetal contaminated soil under ryegrass cultivation as affected by ZnO and MnO2 nanoparticle-modified biochar. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 10684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sodhi, K.K.; Kumar, M.; Singh, D.K. Multimetal resistance and potential of Alcaligenes sp. MMA for the removal of heavy metals. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nath, S.; Deb, B.; Sharma, I.; Pandey, P. Role of Cadmium and Lead Tolerant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Seedling Germination of Rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Environ. Anal. Toxicol. 2014, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, Y.; Liu, T.; Liu, J.; Xiao, X.; Wan, Y.; An, H.; Luo, X.; Luo, S. Exceptional anti-toxic growth of water spinach in arsenic and cadmium co-contaminated soil remediated using biochar loaded with Bacillus aryabhattai. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 469, 133966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pratush, A.; Kumar, A.; Hu, Z. Adverse effect of heavy metals (As, Pb, Hg, and Cr) on health and their bioremediation strategies: A review. Int. Microbiol. 2018, 21, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Meng, Z.; Huang, S.; Xu, T.; Lin, Z.; Wu, J. Competitive adsorption, immobilization, and desorption risks of Cd, Ni, and Cu in saturated-unsaturated soils by biochar under combined aging. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 434, 128903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Parmar, P.; Shukla, A.; Goswami, D.; Gaur, S.; Patel, B.; Saraf, M. Comprehensive depiction of novel heavy metal tolerant and EPS producing bioluminescent Vibrio alginolyticus PBR1 and V. rotiferianus PBL1 confined from marine organisms. Microbiol. Rec. 2020, 238, 126526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Karmakar, D.; Magotra, S.; Negi, R.; Kumar, S. Bacillus species for sustainable management of heavy metals in soil: Current research and future challenges. J. Appl. Biol. Biotechnol. 2023, 202, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Desoky, E.M.; Merwadb, A.R.M.; Semidac, W.M.; Ibrahima, S.A.; El-Saadonyd, M.T.; Rady, M.M. Heavy metals-resistant bacteria (HM-RB): Potential bioremediators of heavy metals-stressed Spinacia oleracea plant. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 198, 110685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. 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]
  23. Abioye, O.P.; Oyewole, O.A.; Oyeleke, S.B.; Adeyemi, M.O.; Orukotan, A.A. Biosorption of lead, chromium and cadmium in tannery effluent using indigenous microorganisms. Braz. J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 5, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kapahi, M.; Sachdeva, S. Bioremediation options for heavy metal pollution. J. Health Pollut. 2019, 9, 191203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tarekegn, M.M.; Salilih, F.Z.; Ishetu, A.I. Microbes used as a tool for bioremediation of heavy metal from the environment. Cog. Food Agric. 2020, 6, 1783174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Zeng, G.; Wu, X.; Wu, B.; Li, X.; Xu, H. Characteristics and in situ remediation effects of heavy metal immobilizing bacteria on cadmium and nickel co-contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 192, 110294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Soto, D.F.; Recalde, A.; Orell, A.; Albers, S.-V.; Paradela, A.; Navarro, C.A. Global effect of the lack of inorganic polyphosphate in the extremophilic archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus: A proteomic approach. J. Proteom. 2019, 191, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, T.; Li, F.; Jin, Z.; Yang, Y. Acidic leaching of potentially toxic metals cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc from two Zn smelting slag materials incubated in an acidic soil. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 238, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Han, H.; Cai, H.; Wang, X.; Hu, X.; Chen, Z.; Yao, L. Heavy metal immobilizing bacteria increase the biomass and reduce the Cd and Pb uptake by pakchoi (Brassica chinensis L.) in heavy metal-contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 195, 110375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, X.; Cai, D.; Ji, M.; Chen, Z.; Yao, L.; Han, H. Isolation of heavy metal immobilizing and plant growth-promoting bacteria and their potential in reducing Cd and Pb uptake in water spinach. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 819, 153242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wei, T.; Gao, H.; An, F.; Ma, X.; Hua, L.; Guo, J. Performance of heavy metal-immobilizing bacteria combined with biochar on remediation of cadmium and lead co-contaminated soil. Environ. Geochem. Health 2023, 45, 6009–6026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, Y.; Pang, H.D.; He, L.Y.; Wang, Q.; Sheng, X.F. Cd immobilization and reduced tissue Cd accumulation of rice (Oryza sativa wuyun-23) in the presence of heavy metal-resistant bacteria. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 138, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Qiao, S.; Zeng, G.; Wang, X.; Dai, C.; Sheng, M.; Chen, Q.; Xu, F.; Xu, H. Multiple heavy metals immobilization based on microbially induced carbonate precipitation by ureolytic bacteria and the precipitation patterns exploration. Chemosphere 2021, 274, 129661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Han, H.; Wu, X.; Yao, L.; Chen, Z. Heavy metal-immobilizing bacteria combined with calcium polypeptides reduced the uptake of Cd in wheat and shifted the rhizosphere bacterial communities. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zeng, X.; Xu, H.; Lu, J.; Chen, Q.J.; Li, W.; Wu, L.; Tang, J.; Ma, L. The Immobilization of Soil Cadmium by the Combined Amendment of Bacteria and Hydroxyapatite. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. He, J.; Zhang, Q.; Achal, V. Heavy Metals Immobilization in Soil with Plant-growthpromoting Precipitation in Support of Radish Growth. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Lett. 2020, 48, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Didi, Z.A.; Attia, E.; Ahmad, M.I.; Zouari, N. Immobilization of heavy metals by microbially induced carbonate precipitation using hydrocarbon-degrading ureolytic bacteria. Biotechnol. Rep. 2022, 35, e00747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qi, X.; Gou, J.; Chen, X.; Xiao, S.; Ali, I.; Shang, R.; Wang, D.; Wu, Y.; Han, M.; Luo, X. Application of mixed bacteria-loaded biochar to enhance uranium and cadmium immobilization in a co-contaminated soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 401, 123823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yaun, Z.; Yi, H.; Wang, T.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Yao, J. Application of phosphate solubilizing bacteria in immobilization of Pb and Cd in soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 21877–21884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Qin, S.; Zhang, H.; He, Y.; Chen, Z.; Yao, L.; Han, H. Improving radish phosphorus utilization efficiency and inhibiting Cd and Pb uptake by using heavy metal-immobilizing and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 868, 161685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Peng, D.; Qiao, S.; Luo, Y.; Ma, H.; Zhang, L.; Hou, S.; Wu, B.; Xu, H. Performance of microbial induced carbonate precipitation for immobilizing Cd in water and soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 400, 123116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liu, F.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, Y.; Li, D.; Sun, X.; Lin, L.; Feng, H.; Huang, Q.; Zhu, Z. Screening of cadmium-chromium-tolerant strains and synergistic remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil using king grass combined with highly efficient microbial strains. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 168990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Heidari, P.; Sanaeizade, S.; Mazloomi, F. Removal of nickel, copper, lead and cad-mium by new strains of Sphingomonas melonis e8 and Entero-bacter hormaechei WW28. J. Appl. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 7, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wei, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, X.; Gao, X.; Zheng, Y.; Zuo, H.; Wei, Z. Roles of different humin and heavy-metal resistant bacteria from composting on heavy metal removal. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 296, 122375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ayangbenro, A.S.; Babalola, O.O.; Aremu, O.S. Bioflocculant production and heavy metal sorption by metal resistant bacterial isolates from gold mining soil. Chemosphere 2019, 231, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Atuchin, V.V.; Asyakina, L.K.; Serazetdinova, Y.R.; Frolova, A.S.; Velichkovich, S.N.; Prosekov, A.U. Microorganisms for Bioremediation of Soils Contaminated with Heavy Metals. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, L.; Wang, W.; Yue, C.; Si, Y. Biogenic calcium improved Cd2+ and Pb2+ immobilization in soil using the ureolytic bacteria Bacillus pasteurii. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 921, 171060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wu, Y.; Wang, S.; Xu, J.; Zang, F.; Ilga, D.; Wu, Y.; Wangas, Y.; Nan, Z. Simultaneous immobilization of multiple heavy metal(loid)s in contaminated water and alkaline soil inoculated Fe/Mn oxidizing bacterium. J. Environ. Sci. 2025, 147, 370–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alotaibi, B.S.; Khan, M.; Shamim, S. Unraveling the underlying heavy metal detoxi fication mechanisms of Bacillus species. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ghaima, K.K.; Mohamed, A.I.; Meshhdany, W.A.Y.; Abdulhassan, A.A. Resistance and bioadsorption of cadmium by Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from agricultural soil. IJAES 2017, 12, 1649–1660. [Google Scholar]
  51. Karimpour, M.; Ashrafi, S.D.; Taghavi, K.; Mojtahedi, A.; Roohbakhsh, E.; Naghipour, D. Adsorption of cadmium and lead onto live and dead cell mass of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A dataset. Data Brief 2018, 18, 1185–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Aka, R.J.N.; Babalola, O.O. Effect of bacterial inoculation of strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Alcaligenes feacalis and Bacillus subtilis on germination, growth and heavy metal (Cd, Cr, and Ni) uptake of Brassica juncea. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2016, 18, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tu, C.; Wei, J.; Guan, F.; Liu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Luo, Y. Biochar and bacteria inoculated biochar enhanced Cd and Cu immobilization and enzymatic activity in a polluted soil. Environ. Int. 2020, 137, 105576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhu, X.; Lv, B.; Shang, X.; Wang, J.; Li, M.; Yu, X. The immobilization effects on Pb, Cd and Cu by the inoculation of organic phosphorus-degrading bacteria (OPDB) with rapeseed dregs in acidic soil. Geoderma 2019, 350, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Afridi, M.S.; Hamme, J.V.; Bundschuh, J.B.; Khan, N.M.; Salam, A.; Waqar, M.; Munis, H.F.M.; Chaudhary, H.J. Biotechnological approaches in agriculture and environmental management—Bacterium Kocuria rhizophila 14ASP as heavy metal and salt- tolerant plant growth- promoting strain. Biologia 2021, 76, 3091–3105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hassan, S.; Kim, S.-J.; Jung, A.-J.; Joo, J.H. Biosorptive Capacity of Cd(II) and Cu(II) by Lyophilized Cells of Pseudomonas stutzeri. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 55, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Priyalaxmi, R.; Murugan, A.; Raja, P.; Raj, K.D. Bioremediation of cadmium by Bacillus safensis (JX126862), a marine bacteriumisolated from mangrove sediments. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 326–335. [Google Scholar]
  58. Basha, S.A.; Rajaganesh, K. Microbial bioremediation of heavy metals from textile industry dye effluents using isolated bacterialstrains. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 785–794. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim, S.Y.; Jin, M.R.; Chung, C.H.; Yun, Y.-S.; Jahng, K.Y.; Yu, K.-Y. Biosorption of cationic basic dye and cadmium by the novelbiosorbent Bacillus catenulatus JB-022 strain. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2015, 119, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Basitas, A.; Andleeb, S.; Liaqatas, I.; Ali, A.Š.; Naseer, A.; Nazir, A.; Kiyani, F. Characterization of heavy metal-associated bacteria from petroleum-contaminated soil and their resistogram and antibiogram analysis. Folia Microbiol. 2024, 69, 975–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fashola, M.O.; Ngole-Jeme, V.M.; Babalola, O.O. Heavy Metal Immobilization Potential of Indigenous Bacteria Isolated from Gold Mine Tailings. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2020, 14, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Park, J.H.; Bolan, N.; Megharaj, M.; Naidu, R. Isolation of phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their potential for lead immobilization in soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 829–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hu, X.; Yu, C.; Shi, J.; He, B.; Wang, X.; Ma, Z. Biomineralization mechanism and remediation of Cu, Pb and Zn by indigenous ureolytic bacteria B. intermedia TSBOI. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 436, 140508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wu, P.; Rane, R.N.; Xing, C.; Patil, M.S.; Roh, H.S.; Jeon, B.H.; Li, X. Integrative chemical and omics analyses reveal copper biosorption and tolerance mechanisms of Bacillus cereus strain T6. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 435, 129002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sahoo, S.; Goli, D. Bioremediation of lead by a halophilic bacteria Bacillus pumilus isolated from the mangrove regions of Karnataka. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2020, 9, 1337–1343. [Google Scholar]
  66. Qiao, W.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, H.; Luo, Y.; Liu, S.; Wang, S.; Wang, W. Bioimmobilization of lead by Bacillus subtilis X3 biomass isolatedfrom lead mine soil under promotion of multiple adsorption mechanisms. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2019, 6, 181701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pan, J.-H.; Liu, R.-X.; Tang, H.-X. Surface reaction of Bacillus cereus biomass and its biosorption for lead and copper ions. J. Environ. Sci. 2007, 19, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Arifiyanto, A.; Apriyanti, F.D.; Purwaningsih, P.; Kalqutny, S.H.; Agustina, D.; Surtiningdih, T.; Shovitri, M.; Zulaika, E. Lead (Pb)bioaccumulation; genera Bacillus isolated S1 and SS19 as a case study. AIP Conf. Proc. 2017, 1854, 020003. [Google Scholar]
  69. Cephidian, A.; Makhdoumi, A.; Mashreghi, M.; Mahmudy Gharaie, M.H. Removal of anthropogenic lead pollutions by a potent Bacillus species AS2 isolated from geogenic contaminated site. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 2135–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Palanivel, T.M.; Sivakumar, N.; Al-Ansari, A.; Victor, R. Bioremediation of copper by active cells of Pseudomonas stutzeri LA3 isolated from an abandoned copper mine soil. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 253, 109706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chen, X.; Shi, J.; Chen, Y.; Xu, X.; Xu, S.; Wang, Y. Tolerance and biosorption of copper and zinc by Pseudomonas putida CZ1 isolated from metal-polluted soil. Can. J. Microbiol. 2006, 52, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rohini, B.; Jayalakshmi, S. Bioremediation potential of Bacillus cereus against copper and other heavy metals. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 2015, 2, 200–209. [Google Scholar]
  73. Karakagh, R.M.; Chorom, M.; Motamedi, H.; Kalkhajeh, Y.K.Y.; Oustan, S. Biosorption of Cd and Ni by inactivated bacteriaisolated from agricultural soil treated with sewage sludge. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2012, 12, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rodríguez-Tirado, V.; Green-Ruiz, C.; Gómez-Gil, B. Cu and Pb biosorption on Bacillus thioparans strain u3 in aqueous solution: Kinetic and equilibrium studies. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 181, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Oves, M.; Khan, M.S.; Zaidi, A. Biosorption of heavy metals by Bacillus thuringiensis strain OSM29 originating from industrial effluent contaminated north Indian soil. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2013, 20, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01547 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart of the screening process for systematic literature review.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the screening process for systematic literature review.
Land 14 01547 g001
Land 14 01547 g002
Figure 2. Number of studies using specific bacterial genera (e.g., Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, etc.) investigating cadmium immobilization in contaminated soils. The figure illustrates the number of peer-reviewed articles that employed each genus in experimental bioremediation settings.
Figure 2. Number of studies using specific bacterial genera (e.g., Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, etc.) investigating cadmium immobilization in contaminated soils. The figure illustrates the number of peer-reviewed articles that employed each genus in experimental bioremediation settings.
Land 14 01547 g002
Land 14 01547 g003
Figure 3. Cadmium concentrations in contaminated soils investigated in scientific studies, mg/kg.
Figure 3. Cadmium concentrations in contaminated soils investigated in scientific studies, mg/kg.
Land 14 01547 g003
Land 14 01547 g004
Figure 4. The efficiency of cadmium immobilization in soil using Bacillus species, %.
Figure 4. The efficiency of cadmium immobilization in soil using Bacillus species, %.
Land 14 01547 g004
Land 14 01547 g005
Figure 5. The efficiency of cadmium immobilization in soil using Pseudomonas species, %.
Figure 5. The efficiency of cadmium immobilization in soil using Pseudomonas species, %.
Land 14 01547 g005
Land 14 01547 g006
Figure 6. The efficiency of cadmium immobilization in soil using Enterobacter species, %.
Figure 6. The efficiency of cadmium immobilization in soil using Enterobacter species, %.
Land 14 01547 g006
Land 14 01547 g007
Figure 7. Number of studies using specific bacterial genera on lead immobilization. This figure summarizes how often each genus (e.g., Enterobacter, Burkholderia, Pantoea) appeared in published articles investigating Pb2+ immobilization, reflecting the extent of research focus on each.
Figure 7. Number of studies using specific bacterial genera on lead immobilization. This figure summarizes how often each genus (e.g., Enterobacter, Burkholderia, Pantoea) appeared in published articles investigating Pb2+ immobilization, reflecting the extent of research focus on each.
Land 14 01547 g007
Land 14 01547 g008
Figure 8. Lead concentrations in contaminated soils investigated in scientific studies, mg/kg.
Figure 8. Lead concentrations in contaminated soils investigated in scientific studies, mg/kg.
Land 14 01547 g008
Land 14 01547 g009
Figure 9. The efficiency of lead immobilization in soil using Bacillus species, %.
Figure 9. The efficiency of lead immobilization in soil using Bacillus species, %.
Land 14 01547 g009
Land 14 01547 g010
Figure 10. The efficiency of lead immobilization in soil using Pseudomonas species, %.
Figure 10. The efficiency of lead immobilization in soil using Pseudomonas species, %.
Land 14 01547 g010
Land 14 01547 g011
Figure 11. Number of studies using specific bacterial genera on copper immobilization. This figure summarizes how often each genus appeared in published articles investigating Cu2+ immobilization, reflecting the extent of research focus on each.
Figure 11. Number of studies using specific bacterial genera on copper immobilization. This figure summarizes how often each genus appeared in published articles investigating Cu2+ immobilization, reflecting the extent of research focus on each.
Land 14 01547 g011
Land 14 01547 g012
Figure 12. The efficiency of copper immobilization in soil using Bacillus species, %.
Figure 12. The efficiency of copper immobilization in soil using Bacillus species, %.
Land 14 01547 g012
Land 14 01547 g013
Figure 13. Venn diagram showing bacterial genera capable of immobilizing cadmium, lead, and copper. The overlap indicates genera that can immobilize multiple heavy metals, such as Bacillus spp., which is effective against all three. This highlights their versatility in multi-metal bioremediation applications. The efficiency of these bacteria may still vary depending on the metal and environmental conditions.
Figure 13. Venn diagram showing bacterial genera capable of immobilizing cadmium, lead, and copper. The overlap indicates genera that can immobilize multiple heavy metals, such as Bacillus spp., which is effective against all three. This highlights their versatility in multi-metal bioremediation applications. The efficiency of these bacteria may still vary depending on the metal and environmental conditions.
Land 14 01547 g013
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

Vasarevičius, S.; Paliulienė, V. Immobilization of Cadmium, Lead, and Copper in Soil Using Bacteria: A Literature Review. Land 2025, 14, 1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081547

AMA Style

Vasarevičius S, Paliulienė V. Immobilization of Cadmium, Lead, and Copper in Soil Using Bacteria: A Literature Review. Land. 2025; 14(8):1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081547

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vasarevičius, Saulius, and Vaida Paliulienė. 2025. "Immobilization of Cadmium, Lead, and Copper in Soil Using Bacteria: A Literature Review" Land 14, no. 8: 1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081547

APA Style

Vasarevičius, S., & Paliulienė, V. (2025). Immobilization of Cadmium, Lead, and Copper in Soil Using Bacteria: A Literature Review. Land, 14(8), 1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081547

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