Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Sandwich Composites Manufactured from Recycled Carbon Fibers, Flax Fibers/PP Skins, and Recycled PET Core
Next Article in Special Issue
Synthesis and Optimization of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes–Ferrihydrite Hybrid Composite
Previous Article in Journal
Synthetic Polymeric Materials for Bone Replacement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Polarization Parameters and Scaling Matter—How Processing Environment and Shape Factor Influence Electroactive Nanocomposite Characteristics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Compos. Sci.
Volume 5
Issue 1
10.3390/jcs5010001
jcs-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

Cyanobacterial Extracellular Polymeric Substances for Heavy Metal Removal: A Mini Review

by
Ajit Pratap Singh Yadav
1,
Vinay Dwivedi
2,*,
Satyendra Kumar
3,
Anamika Kushwaha
4,
Lalit Goswami
5 and
Bezawada Sridhar Reddy
6
1
Department of Biotechnology, Rama Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 209217, India
2
Department of Biotechnology, Naraina Vidhyapeeth Engineering and Management Institute, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208020, India
3
Department of Botany, B. N. M. V. College, B. N. M. University, Madhepura, Bihar 852113, India
4
Department of Biotechnology, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh 211004, India
5
Center for the Environment, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam 781039, India
6
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Petroleum and Energy, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530003, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5010001
Submission received: 5 November 2020 / Revised: 15 December 2020 / Accepted: 17 December 2020 / Published: 23 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Composite Nanostructures for Energy and Environment Applications)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Heavy metals from various natural and anthropogenic sources are becoming a chief threat to the aquatic system owing to their toxic and lethal effect. The treatment of such contaminated wastewater is one of the prime concerns in this field. For decades, a huge array of innovative biosorbents is used for heavy metal removal. Though extensive microbes and their biomolecules have been experimented and have showed great potential but most of them have failed to have the substantial breakthrough for the practical application. The present review emphasis on the potential utilization of the cyanobacteria for the heavy metal removal along with the toxic effect imposed by the pollutant. Furthermore, the effect of significant parameters, plausible mechanistic insights of the heavy metal toxicity imposed onto the cyanobacteria is also discussed in detail. The role of extrapolymeric substances and metallothionein secreted by the microbes are also elaborated. The review was evident that the cyanobacterial species have a huge potential towards the heavy metal removal from the aqueous system ranging from very low to very high concentrations.

1. Introduction

The increase in the world’s population has led to the exploitation of bioresources to overcome the demand for water, land, food, and energy, resulting in cascading the effects on both environment and human health [1]. The continuous human growth and their requirement have led to the boom of industries, which resulted in the manufacture of various toxic chemical compounds. Their inapt dumping in the environment has caused contamination of soil and water [2]. The increased industrialization also resulted in an imbalance for both flora and fauna [3]. Various pollutants such as heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, halogenated aromatic compounds, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX) compounds, etc., are continuously being released from petrochemicals, oil refineries, pharmaceutical, agrochemical industries, etc. [4]. The accrual of these compounds in the environment has adversely affected the yield and fecundity of soil, water, and air, thus, imposing severe health issues to living biota. Owing to these compounds’ persistence and non-biodegradable nature, they continue in the ecosystem for longer duration and cause toxic effects on both soil microbial diversity and plant growth. Besides, the accumulation of these compounds in different parts of the plants has led to their transport in the food chain [5,6]. Owing to the carcinogenic and mutagenic nature of these compounds its accumulation in human bodies with time can result in serious illness. Thus, there is an imperative prerequisite to regulating the discharge of these compounds into the environment.
Regardless of the various regulatory steps being undertaken to limit the discharge of toxic pollutants into the environment, pollution levels are still hazardous. Numerous methods have been implied to remove these harmful compounds, viz. physical, chemical, and biological. Physical and chemical methods such as chemical precipitation, ion exchange, adsorption, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, coagulation, flocculation, floatation, etc., are effective, but they are not economic and release secondary pollutants, causing the obliteration of soil properties and fertility. Therefore, a cost-effective and ecofriendly method should be developed for the removal of these toxic pollutants. Biological treatment is currently in fashion for metal remediation from the environment [7,8]. Bioremediation is a unique survival method by microorganisms or plants under stress conditions that they gain the ability to break down and utilize complex toxic compounds such as metals, polyhydroxybutyrate (PHA) into a non-toxic form. The use of photosynthetic bacteria for bioremediation of contaminant is an ecofriendly and cost-effective technique [9].
Cyanobacteria can mineralize or remove toxic contaminants occurring naturally or xenobiotically. They are well-capable in adapting in the adverse environment, ranging from halophilic to cryophilic [9]. The outer layer comprised of extrapolymeric substance (a polysaccharide) possessing several binding sites for environmental remediation. It is also capable to synthesize the metal-binding proteins (metallothioneins) that are capable to bind with the inorganic pollutants such as heavy metals via cysteinyl thiolate bridges to cysteine ligands [9]. They can easily be cultivated in different types of wastewaters such as freshwater, brackish water, and industrial wastewater as a potential medium for growth. It can also be very clear from the scientific search engine data such as Figure 1 represents the annual number of publications with the phrase “cyanobacteria for Heavy Metal Removal” over the past five years (2016–2020). It shows a clear rising trend towards the potential application of cyanobacteria in the present time for the environmental remediation. Therefore, the present review discusses the heavy pollution and its toxic effect on surface water, groundwater, humans, and onto the environment. Further, aiming at a potential of cyanobacterial-derived composite polysaccharides based biomaterial (i.e., extrapolymeric substances) for heavy metal removal from waste and polluted sites.

2. Heavy Metals as Pollutants

Heavy metal (HM) is the term generally utilized for metals and metalloids having an atomic density of 5 g/cm3 that includes arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), selenium (Se), lead (Pb), palladium (Pd), mercury (Hg), cobalt (Co), zinc (Zn), etc. [10,11,12]. With the rapid industrialization and large-scale mining activities, HM comprising wastewater is directly or indirectly discarded into the ecosystem leading to ecological imbalance. This further imposes deleterious health issues to all the flora and fauna that pertain to the deterioration of the environmental quality due to the high toxicity of the heavy metals [13]. They are non-degradable and can accumulate in the living organisms and their food chain. European Economic Community (EEC) have positioned Cd, Hg and their substances in most hazardously lethal substances (black list), and other HMs, Co, Cu, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr, etc., and their substances are placed in less hazardous substances (grey list). According to EPA these HMs and their compounds have been identified as “priority contaminants” based on their toxicity. However, some HMs viz. Se, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Co in trace amounts are indispensable for living beings since they play a vital role during metabolism as they are an essential part of various enzymes and metalloproteins. HMs viz. Pb, Cd, Hg, Ag, and As are not known for any biological functions, and therefore they are non-essential and toxic for living beings [14]. Though HMs occur naturally and are released in the environment during weathering and volcanic eruption, but due to the extensive anthropogenic activities such as tanning, mining, smelting, agricultural practices, and automobiles have intensified the HM pollution than those occur naturally [15].
In the terrestrial and aquatic environments, HMs are present as ionic species or interacts with organic and inorganic ligands and forms complex or associate with suspended matter or colloids. The concentration, speciation, bioavailability, and exposure duration of HM determines the toxicity towards living biota. Furthermore, soil and water pH are the significant factors influencing mobility, bioavailability, and toxicity. Other factors affecting the HM speciation include soil type, organic matter, particle size, various amendments, organic colloids, iron oxides, and cation exchange capacity (CEC). For instance, depending upon pH Cr (VI) can be found as chromate, chromite, and dichromate forms. Cr (III) exists in the hexa-coordinate form and has a prearrangement of octahedral ligands. Hexa-aqua-chromium is present in the strongly acidic pH condition as the main Cr species in a solution of inorganic Cr (III) salts. In surface water, Cr (III) exist as both mono and oligomeric compounds. Drinking water generally has neutral pH and barely contains organic matter, which eventually limits dissolved Cr (III) because of low solubility. If the aqueous solution contains high organic matter Cr (III) compounds exist in the monomeric form. Thus, the validation of Cr (III) insoluble nature at pH 7.0 is only applicable to those solutions that do not possess the ligands that compete with water. The detrimental effects of HMs on human health are well documented. The toxic impact of HM depends on their interaction with various biomolecules and cellular and biochemical processes for living organisms [16,17,18]. HM excessive accrual in the ecosystem has caused severe toxic effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
Further, the Earth’s surface is covered with 71% water, of which the accessible drinking water is only 0.3%. According to a report by the U.N. World Water Development Agency, this issue will be even grimmer in the upcoming future, and by 2025 half of the global population would be susceptible to water scarcity. Further, the condition is prophesied to be even more deteriorating because of the upsurge in the anthropogenic actions and direct disposal of environmental contaminants into the freshwater streamlines. The increased nutrient level in water bodies causes an increase in the growth of phytoplankton. This process is called eutrophication. It will lead to the depletion of carbon availability, leading to a decrease of aquatic diversity, decreased dissolved oxygen level, inappropriate odor and taste of water, and reduced water body aesthetic value [2]. Therefore, it is essential to restrict the release of HMs in water bodies to maintain the quality of water.

Toxicity of Heavy Metals on Human Health

Humans are exposed to HMs via contaminated foods and drinking water consumption, inhalation of HM polluted air, or working in HM contaminated environment. The contamination to HMs follows a cyclic chain, i.e., from industries to the air, water, soil, plants and foods, and humans and animals. The entry of HM in the human body follows a route such as Pb, Cd, Mn, and As enters the human body via the gastrointestinal route. In contrast, other HMs enters via inhalation of contaminated air. HM causes various health toxicity to the human body. These include damage to the functionality of the brain, lungs, kidney, and liver, neurotoxicity, cancer, coma, and even lead to death. The health toxicity caused by various HMs is listed below.
The exposure to Cd leads to Cu, Zn, and Mg imbalance in the body and urine [19]. Enhanced Cd level in the body causes anosmia, renal failure, neurological disorders, problems in the male reproductive system, osteal disorders, and cancer. The exposure to Cd has similar nephrotoxic effects on both men and women but women and kids are more susceptible to cadmium exposure because of the lesser iron storage and upregulation of Fe channels in women and kids, which leads high Cd uptake since both Cd and Fe has analogous uptake mechanisms [20]. Workers working in Cd rich environment suffer from urolithiasis (kidney stones), and with the progression glomerular and renal failure occur [21]. The exposure of liver to Cd causes swelling in hepatocyte and damage to lysosomes (membrane bound) thereby induces hepatotoxicity. Further, Cd exposure also causes impairment to mitochondrial cristae, infiltration in inflammatory cells, hypertrophy of Kupffer cells [22]. Cd damages the renal Ca, PO4 transport, metabolism of vitamin D, and parathyroid hormone. When exposed to Cd > 5 mg/m3, it damages lung epithelial cells; long-term Cd exposure destroys nasal epithelium and olfactory function [23]. Cd causes inflammation in the lungs influencing the synthesis and release of various signaling molecules such as cytokines, adhesion molecules, and leukotrienes/prostaglandins [24]. Initial reports showed the Cd effect on the nervous system, including vertigo, headache, and sleep disturbance. At the cellular level Cd causes oxidative stress and DNA damage. Cd causes atherosclerosis, which results in cardiovascular diseases and enhanced progression [25].
The toxic effect of Cr on humans is primarily due to easy absorption of Cr (VI) in the gastrointestinal tract, lung, and certain levels over the skin. When the cell exposed directly or near to the Cr (VI), then the cell adapt mechanism for detoxification such as reduction, while reduction of Cr (VI) assist in stimulating Cr toxicity if it occurs inside or adjacent to the cells of an organ [26]. If reduction of Cr (VI) to Cr (III) extracellularly, this is not quickly transported to the cell, and hence toxicity is not observed over the cells. The amount and rate of Cr (VI), which enters into the cell and produces its toxic effect, ultimately depends upon the equilibrium between Cr (VI) extracellular and Cr (III) intracellular [27]. Cr (VI) within the cell can undergo any physiological changes and can be reduced by H2O2, glutathione reductase, ascorbic acid, and produces reactive intermediate Cr species like (V), (IV), finally (III), and thiyl or hydroxyl radicals. DNA, protein, and membrane lipids can be attacked by any of these Cr species, disrupting the cellular integrity and its functions [27].
Arsenic poisoning causes acute and chronic effects. Acute poisoning includes the obliteration of gastrointestinal tissues, blood vessels, and affects brain and heart. Chronic poisoning causes skin keratosis and pigmentation [28]. The exposure to the low concentration of As causes nausea, vomiting, decreased erythrocytes and leukocytes production, blood vessels damage, and abnormal heart rate. Long-term contact causes skin lesions, neurological disorder, peripheral vascular and pulmonary disease, hypertension, cardiovascular ailment, cancer, and even leads to death [29]. Pb poisoning often causes gastrointestinal tract infections and damage to the central nervous system [14]. Acute conditions include appetite loss, headache, fatigue, insomnia, abdominal pain, vertigo, renal failure, arthritis, and hypertension. Chronic conditions lead to mental disorders, congenital disabilities, psychosis, autism, weight loss, paralysis, dyslexia, brain and kidney damage, coma, and death [15].

3. Cyanobacteria: An Outlook for Environmental Remediation

Cyanobacteria are well-known microbes that are found in almost every habitat viz. aquatic, terrestrial (forests, grasslands, and deserts), and extreme environments [30]. They are unicellular and photosynthetic in nature and have been found 2.5–3.5 Ga years ago on the Earth [31]. Mostly, these are genetically diverse and are classified as the class single phylum cyanobacteria (Oxyphotobacteria) in the Gram-positive bacteria, division eubacterial (Gracilicutes), and class Cyanophyceae/Myxophyceae in the algal division Cyanophyta. Cyanobacteria are sometimes considered in algae as per the rule of ICBN (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) but are true bacteria. They are significant organisms both ecologically and economically with prospective implementation in different field viz. aquaculture, agriculture, bioenergy and biofuels, pharmaceuticals, human nutrition, and pollution control depend on applications [32]. They have enormous adaptability to varying environmental conditions like desiccation, salinity, UV radiation, HMs, high light intensity, oxidative, extreme conditions, and form algal blooms. Figure 2 represents the network visualization of terms associated with cyanobacteria and heavy metal with at least 10 occurrences of the associated keywords. It depicts the present trends in research and development regarding the application of printed circuit board in the Web of Science.
Cyanobacteria-mediated remediation of wastewater is economical, efficient, and ecofriendly as compared to other technologies. They are readily available in large amounts in the aquatic environment and many other habitats. They have a high affinity for metals/pollutants. Table 1 represents the literature review available on various cyanobacterial species utilized for the heavy metal removal process.

Effect of Heavy Metal on Cyanobacterial Physiological and Biochemical Processes

The usage of several chemicals has led to contamination of the environment by toxic chemicals and HMs, which has a detrimental effect on cyanobacterial growth [56,57,58]. Several metals such as Zn, Cu, and Fe are indispensable for the growth of cyanobacteria since they are a crucial portion of numerous enzymes that carry out an important part in metabolic processes. However, at high concentrations, they have a toxic effect on cyanobacteria’s growth [59]. HMs such as Pb, Cd, Cr, As, Hg, Ni, etc., have a toxic effect even at low concentration on the cyanobacteria. The various physiological processes, such as growth and development, pigment contents, and photosynthetic rate are affected by HMs in cyanobacteria. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation can have both positive and negative effects. ROS acts as a signaling molecule at low concentration and helps in development processes, whereas when present at high concentration, they have toxic effects. The effect of HMs on the cyanobacterial cell is represented in Figure 3.
HMs have a detrimental effect on cell growth and development. Several researchers reported a decrease in cyanobacterial biomass accumulation under HM stress [60,61]. The competition between HM and essential elements for the enzyme binding sites and transporters causes an imbalance in the cells’ functionality, thereby decreasing the growth and ultimately leading to cell death [62]. However, HM toxicity depends on various factors such as HM concentration, oxidation state, and duration of exposure. Studies showed that 1 mg/L Pb concentration displayed a negative effect on Cyanothece and Anabaena growth (Heng et al. 2004), whereas 0.2 mg/L exhibited a toxic impact on S. platensis-S5 growth [63]. Likewise, in the presence of Cu (II) Chroococcus sp. growth was repressed [64]. The reduced growth can be attributed to the decrease in nitrogen metabolism, photosynthesis, etc. The photosynthetic rate is directly associated with pigment contents and, thus, biomass accumulation. HM have a detrimental effect on light-harvesting systems (carotenoids, chlorophyll (chl), and PC), which unswervingly affects the photosynthetic processes and disrupt the chl structure [65]. The decreased pigments contents are due to ROS generation, which inhibits chl biosynthesis [66] (Figure 4). The chl a content of Nostoc was inhibited in the presence of Cr, which reformed the photosynthetic activity [67].
HM contamination adversely affects the vital constituents of the photosynthetic system. The primary is the water-splitting complex, which is affected by HM even at low concentration. Prasad et al. (1991) reported that at high HM doses, the toxicity intercedes further oxygen-evolving complex (OEC) and photosynthetic system II (PS II) [68]. Furthermore, Perreault et al. (2009) observed that HM also disturbs the proteins synthesis involved in light harvesting systems, PS I, and PS II, and downregulates the expression of genes involved in carbon fixation [69]. The biochemical photosynthesis originates from light absorption by antenna pigments and transported to the reaction centre (RC) for photochemical reactions. The energy transfers from one PS to another leads to ATP and NADPH generation, which is a source of energy during CO2 assimilation. The surplus energy absorbed by pigments is released as heat identified as fluorescence [70]. HM toxicity is assessed via fluorescence transient test, which delivers evidence about HM effect on energy flux and electron transport. HMs (Hg, Pb, As, Cr, etc.) affect the electron transport chain, so energy dissipation occurs.
The active RCs of Microcystis aeruginosa showed a decrease in number when treated with As (III) (1 mg/L) and to sustain the excess energy equilibrium between absorption and utilization, which leads to enhanced energy flux parameters [71]. Studies suggest that HMs have two major target sites, i.e., PS I and PS II [72]. The inhibition of D1 protein under HM stress decreases the activity of PS II [73]. Moreover, HM also affects phosphorylation processes (cyclic or noncyclic). Cox and Saito (2013) revealed that proteins associated with photosynthesis are affected under HM stress; some are downregulated, such as ferredoxin-NADP oxidoreductase, PsbU, and putative thylakoid lumen peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase [74]. In Chlamydomonas, the respiration rate was decreased when treated with 4 mM As (III) while 0.30 mM As (III), no decline was observed [75]. In the presence of As and Cr enhance respiration activity was observed in Chlamydomonas, which can be attributed to the energy management process and over a generation of ROS [67].

4. Heavy Metal Removal by Cyanobacteria

The removal of HMs from the environment by cyanobacteria is a novel and cost-effective approach. Cyanobacteria take up these pollutants (discharged from various industries into the environment) to enhance the metabolism and decrease/remove the contaminant from the environment. Cyanobacteria can be used as wild-type, mutant, or genetically modified forms for bioremediation of HMs [76]. The presence of diverse proteins and polysaccharides on the cyanobacterial surface helps bind with the HMs with enhanced efficiency [77]. Biosorption has various advantageous, including cost-effective, the selective expulsion of species, recovery plausibility, higher recuperation probability, no sludge production, desorption ease, and high adsorption rates. Cyanobacteria are the utmost diverse group of photosynthetic prokaryotes and can be present in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial. Cyanobacteria outer layer is composed of polysaccharide, i.e., extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) having an enormous number of binding sites for the adsorption of organic and inorganic pollutants.

Cyanobacterial EPS: Structure and Occurrence and Role of Metallothionein

Cyanobacteria can synthesize the metal-binding proteins, which is known as the metallothioneins (MTs). Small molecular weight proteins are rich in cysteinyl residue, which binds to the metal ion through cysteinyl thiolate bridges to cysteine ligands. MTs are usually found to be associated with Zn and Cu; however, they also bind with other toxic metals such as Cd, Hg, and Pb. Figure 5 represents the domain nature of metallothionein. The metal binding property of MTs is mainly due to cysteine residues and their characteristic arrangement viz., -Cys–Cys–Cys–X–Cys–or –Cys–X–X–Cys (X: amino acids). Studies show the elevation in synthesis of MTs in high HMs concentration [78].
The synthesis of MT-like proteins has been described in Anacytis nidulans, which was correlated with resistance towards Cd (II). In other cyanobacteria such as Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 and Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 ZN-MT-like sequence was present [79]. In Synechococcus sp. PCC 7942 shows the upregulation of metal-binding MT and heat-shock stress protein in the presence of Cd (II), Cu (II), and Zn (II) (1 µM). Cd showed a superior effect among all metals, and authors stated that to overcome the acute metal stress, heat-shock proteins were upregulated while the continued exposure upregulated the MTs [80]. El-Enany and Issa (2000) reported Nostoc linckia was tolerant for Cd and Zn due to the sequestration of these metals by metal-binding proteins [81]. Likewise, a metal-binding protein in Anabaena doliolum provides resistance against metal and other environmental stresses [82].
The high affinity of Apo-MT for Zn is due to the presence of sulfhydryl groups. Since sulfhydryl groups are reactive, Zn is transferred to another protein from MT due to the exchange reaction. Thus, the sulfhydryl affinity towards Zn makes MT an effective scavenger for metal ions. MTs have a regulatory role in the stimulation or deactivation of several molecular effectors. For example, Apo-MT scavenges Zn from transcription factor IIIA, thus deactivates TFIIIA.
The molecular weight of cyanobacterial EPS ranges from 10 kDa to 2 MDa with a complex structure due to branched monomers and regularly with different compounds [83]. Ostensibly, the cyanobacterial EPS portion is made of a minimal of six different kinds of building blockers. It is intriguing that the EPS composition delivered from microalgae or bacteria is chemically contrasting in relation to EPS of cyanobacteria. Hexoses, galactose, pentose, ribose, glucose, mannose, xylose, arabinose, acidic hexoses, deoxy hexose, rhamnose, methyl rhamnose, galacturonic corrosive, and so forth are the primary structure blockers typically seen in cyanobacterial EPS [84].
Moreover, Rossi and De Philippis (2016) reported various sorts of building blockers, for example, N-acetyl glucosamine, 2, 3-O-methyl rhamnose, 4-O-methyl rhamnose, 3-O-methyl glucose, and 3-O-methyl rhamnose [84]. Notwithstanding, glucose is often present in cyanobacterial EPS at an elevated amount. However, there are a few reports where different sugars, for example, fructose, arabinose, xylose, or galactose, were found to be present at a higher amount than glucose [85]. Rossi and De Philippis (2015) reported uronic acid as sole building blockers in EPS from Microcystis wesenbergii [83]. Thus, the presence of repeatable unit of building blockers in cyanobacterial EPS is a remarkable element for specific species. These unique units are framed through 5–8 monosaccharides, which is the reason for the complex behavior of cyanobacterial EPS.
There are few studies that reported the presence of non-sugar chemical structures in EPS like hexosamines, pyruvates, acetic acid derivations, uronic corrosive, and sulphate esters. In spite of the fact that the amount of non-sugar parts is extremely low in cyanobacterial EPS, nonetheless, they give significant qualities to the EPS because of their extraordinary association to sugar moieties. The EPS negative charge is due to the presence of pyruvates, uronic acid, and acyl bunches. The presence of such non sugar moieties in EPS bestows binding and adsorptive properties [86]. Gel like consistency of EPS is because of sulfates. There are a few metal particles like Ca2+ and Mg2+ that were present in EPS of cyanobacteria, which differentiate them from both bacterial and diatom sources. The divalent cations are cross-linkages between the EPS sugar particles, which is responsible for higher constancy and stability [87]. EPS from cyanobacteria are hetero-polymers, which are made of lipids, proteins, monosaccharides, and DNA. Generally, they are called lipopolysaccharides or glycoproteins. Owing to the presence of a different amount of uronic acids, proteins, pyruvic corrosive, and O-methyl, O-acetyl, and sulphate groups and their linkage in different situation in side sugar moieties, cyanobacterial EPS are a bit intricate to understand [87].

5. Strategy for Enhancing the EPS Production

Worldwide, the EPS production from cyanobacteria has gained substantial attention and has been applied in the biotechnology field. Cyanobacteria are cultivated in a controlled environment, basically in artificial cultivation units. Generally, bioreactors are constructed as closed and open. Moreover, depending on the usage, they can be divided as laboratory-scale and commercial. However, various factors such as land, nutrients, water or energy cost, cyanobacterial strains, methods undertaken for harvesting, climatic conditions, light source, and other axenic conditions affect the EPS production [88]. The EPS production from cyanobacteria can be carried out either using the wild or recombinant strain. Figure 6 represents the stepwise process strategy for enhancing the EPS production.

5.1. Wild Strain

A lot of studies have been undertaken for the production of EPS using cyanobacteria of wild type for their application in industries. However, proper isolation and identification of cyanobacteria are required for the desired product. Additionally, the microbe should have a suitable property for the synthesis of the desired product. During the EPS coproduction, the formation of toxic products is not desirable. The main challenges faced during pilot-scale production of EPS is to isolate the potential cyanobacterial strain, which is quite time consuming and tedious. The main advantage of the wild microbial strain is its robustness during industrial production conditions. However, the major demerit of using the wild strain is the low production of EPS. The nutritional requirement for each microbe is different; thus, organic compound consumption by microbial diversity under natural conditions should be adequately assessed. The isolation, screening, and characterization of novel strain is a highly tedious process. The identification of new strains is carried out via 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Various cyanobacteria strains have been isolated for production of high yield EPS, such as Synechocystis, Microcystis, Chamaesiphon, Cynotheca, Chroococcus, Cyanobium, Gloeocapsa, Gloeobacter, Gloeotheca, and Synechococcus. Several bacterial strains are also described as promising candidates for EPS production. Still, cyanobacteria are a potential candidate for the production of EPS commercially since it can yield EPS from CO2, light, and water. Additionally, they have a high tolerance towards a vast range of light intensity, temperature, and desiccation [89].

5.2. Isolation and Screening of EPS Producing Cyanobacteria

Numerous factors affect the EPS yield from cyanobacteria. Generally, from different places, mat samples are collected. The thickness of the mat considered is 5–10 cm [90]. The samples are subcultured under controlled salinity. The light–dark cycles are maintained depending on the researcher’s interest. After culturing, EPS is extracted, grounded, and compared based on the material dry weight.

5.3. Recombinant Cyanobacteria

The recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology is used to enhance the yield of EPS from engineered cyanobacteria. This technology comprises the identification, isolation, and insertion of a specific gene into a vector for the rDNA molecule construction. Further, DNA sequencing is used to confirm the microbial strain carrying recombinant plasmid [91]. The development of a recombinant microbial strain is a tedious process as the production of EPS in cyanobacteria is governed by numerous genes. Thus, extensive research is essential for the development of genetically engineered microorganisms for enhanced production of EPS. Several methods such as cloning, site-specific mutagenesis, random mutagenesis, and both have been employed to develop recombinant microbes, though iterative saturation mutagenesis is a directed evolution strategy for high EPS yield [91].

5.4. Mutagenesis for Enhanced EPS Production

The approaches such as random mutagenesis, site-specific, and site-saturation mutagenesis have been employed for engineering microbial strains for high EPS yield. Combinatorial beneficial mutagenesis (CBM™) and look-through mutagenesis (LTM™) have been used to study mutagenesis [91]. At a particular gene position in LTM, rapid screening of amino acids was done, leading to enhanced EPS production with selective properties. In CBM, individual mutations were identified. Studies proved that CBM™ and LTM™ are more advantageous than the conventional mutagenesis study [91].

5.5. Optimization of a Different Approach for Yield Enhancement

Generally, the biorefinery approach can be applied to reduce the cost of EPS production by cyanobacteria. The EPS production can be enhanced by metabolic engineering or improving the photobioreactor design, growth conditions, and harvesting method. The cyanobacterial growth depends on several factors such as temperature, nutrient content, pH, water, light source, gaseous exchange, and ion concentrations. These factors can vary depending on the cyanobacterial strain used for EPS production. Various strains survive at extreme conditions, i.e., the temperature below zero or temperature >70 °C [92]. Indeed, mostly cyanobacteria are mesophilic organisms but require different growth conditions when grown in the laboratory.
Yoshimura et al. [93] investigated NaCl’s effect (200 mM) on EPS production in Nostoc sp. HK-01 and Anabaena sp. PCC 7120. It was observed that Nostoc sp. released 65% of the dry weight capsular EPS while Anabaena sp. released 18% of the dry weight. They also observed that in the presence of NaCl, the ratios of sugars composition in Anabaena’s EPS barely changed when compared to control (without stress condition). However, in Nostoc sp., the composition of the sugar of EPS changed significantly under NaCl stress. The intensity of the light also affects the cyanobacterial growth, thereby influences the EPS production. As respiration and photosynthesis are significantly dependent on light intensity; thus, the EPS production is directly correlated with them [94]. Ge et al. (2014) observed that the light intensity significantly influenced the total EPS from Microcoleus vaginatus, and with the increase in light intensity EPS production was enhanced [95].

5.6. Application of EPS for Heavy Metal Removal

Microbes remove HMs from wastewater via the bioaccumulation or adsorption process. In the adsorption process, the charged macromolecules present in the cell envelope binds with HMs. Since EPS carries a negative charge; thus, cyanobacterial strains producing EPS can be considered as a potential candidate for removing positively charged HMs. In cyanobacteria, the peptidoglycan layer is much thicker and has high polysaccharidic crosslinking compared to Gram-negative bacteria. Thus, this inimitable property of cyanobacteria cell walls makes them a promising candidate for HM removal. Biosorption is a complex physicochemical process, while adsorption includes ion exchange, complexation, adsorption, precipitation, etc. Diengdoh et al. (2017) isolated Nostoc muscorum and studied its potential for Zn2+ removal from aqueous medium [96]. They observed that removal of Zn2+ followed the first-order adsorption isotherm, and the binding between EPS and Zn2+ was proved by energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) study. FTIR study revealed the presence of various negatively charged functional groups such as sulfhydryl, hydroxyl, carboxyl, carbonyl, amine, and alcohol on the EPS surface. Mota et al. (2016) investigated the removal of Pb2+, Cd2+, and Cu2+ by Cyanothece sp. CCY0110. Results showed that Cyanothece sp. has high removal efficiency for HMs [97].
The natural capability of cyanobacteria to produce a high yield of EPS has made them a promising candidate. Presently, the maximum percentage of commercially available EPS is from cyanobacteria. EPS derived from cyanobacteria is comprised of six or more different forms of building blocks. The cyanobacterial EPS molecular weight ranged from 10 kDa to 2 MDa. Cyanobacterial EPS contains a high quantity of the acyl group, uronic acid, and pyruvic acid, which helps bind and adsorb HMs. EPS’s high stability is mainly due to the crosslinking of sugar molecules that are imparted by divalent cations. The high conductivity of EPS is due to the presence of charged and polar amino acids. Since extensive research has been focused on the isolation of potential cyanobacterial strain for the production of EPS, further study is desirable to better understand the chemical structure of EPS for better application in various sectors.

6. Different Factors Assessment for the Wastewater Cultivated Cyanobacteria

In recent times, research and development at the interface of functional composite materials for renewable and sustainable technologies have resulted in ecofriendly, green, and sustainable materials to continue the transition from fossil fuel-based economy to waste-derived sustainable circular economy and industries [98,99]. This resulted in reduced carbon footprint arising from the waste-derived green carbonaceous materials [98,99,100,101,102].

6.1. Life-Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment Analyses for Industrial Application

Various literature has utilized the life-cycle assessment (LCA) and risk assessment analyses for illustrating the environmental and energy performance of wastewater-based cyanobacteria [103]. Bussa et al. [104] compared the LCA evaluation on the cyanobacteria with maize as the potential feedstock for the polylactic acid production. Cyanobacteria outperformed maize in several aspects viz. land utilization, non-toxic to marine, terrestrial and freshwater, etc. Recently, the cyanobacterial cultivated onto wastewater was compared for their biofuel application via comparing the lipid extraction, anaerobic digestion, and combustion techniques. It is also being recommended to work on the strategies for reducing the energy demand, carbon capturing, and media nutrients. Further, well-to-pump LCA, i.e., in general, a defining terminology utilized for the transportation fuel LCA, the results reported by Sander and Murthy [105] depicted that the total energy inputs for cyanobacterial and algal-derived biodiesel is lower in comparison to the petroleum diesel. The biofuels and biomaterials derived after the utilization of biomass (cyanobacterial/microalgae, etc.) cultivated using wastewater could be an inherent ecofriendly option for greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions [106]. Here, each step includes smart coproduct use, decarbonization of the electricity, and heat grids and indirect energy requirements for fertilizer, transport and building material, etc., that when taken into consideration will fully reduce/mitigate the heat cost and GHG emissions [107,108].

6.2. Limitations of Wastewater-Cultivated Cyanobacteria

Cyanobacteria are capable of forming thick mats with the available wastewater containing even little quantity of nutrients causing “the blooms” [109]. Owing to the additional nitrogen and phosphorus generated via the human activities, cyanobacterial blooms have accelerated over the decades with the globalization and industrialization. This thick bloom mat blocks out the light and oxygen needed by aquatic organisms further cursing their survival to the native environment. In addition, the summer and warm conditions results in the bloom die resulting in a foul smell of the water bodies [110,111]. Further, the cyanobacterial species may act as a carrier for transferring the radionuclides, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, toxic, carcinogenic, and mutagenic agents [110,112] both in the marine and atmospheric environment. The pollutants might be lethal to the microbes as well, further restricting its utilization in any kind of ingestion even to the cattle, and aquatic organisms.

7. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Owing to the different merits and edges, bioremediation has risen as an appealing option in contrast to the current traditional remediation techniques that has enormous application in ecological administration and contamination control.
⮚
In spite of the fact that the methods of poisonous metal biosorption and microbial biosorbents have been broadly examined in labs, the improvement of reasonable biosorption advances and their usage in different divisions delivering substantial metals have not increased as desired. Nonetheless, a predetermined number of organizations have created and popularized microorganism based bioremediation advances.
⮚
Assessment and improvement of biosorbent materials from microbial biomass is a quickly expanding thirst area in academia and in industries.
⮚
Cyanobacteria are a captivating and extraordinary class of microorganism with wonderful versatility, omnipresence, and assorted variety. In spite of the fact that the presence of cyanobacteria in the terrestrial and in the aquatic environment are easily available, screening and determination of the promising cyanobacterial species/strains (isolation and selection) with a high metal sorption limit is a demanding task.
The encouraging species/strains can be an appropriate possibility for the improvement of new and productive biosorbents, which can be packed in the biosorption column so as to completely use the capability of cyanobacteria in bioremediation of toxic metals, endeavors ought to be coordinated towards screening and determination of promising species/strains, advancement of more effective biosorption segments with better execution, minimal effort immobilization and mass culture procedures, and hereditary control of cyanobacteria for the upgrade of metal biosorption or uptake capacity and overexpression of genes encoding metal-binding and surface proteins. Henceforth, the waste-derived biomass for environmental remediation application resulted in advancement of the ecofriendly, green, and sustainable materials further contributing to the sustainable circular economy and industries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P.S.Y., V.D., L.G., and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P.S.Y., L.G., and A.K.; writing—review and editing, V.D., S.K. and B.S.R.; supervision, V.D. and S.K.; project administration, V.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Goswami, L.; Kumar, R.V.; Borah, S.N.; Manikandan, N.A.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. Membrane bioreactor and integrated membrane bioreactor systems for micropollutant removal from wastewater: A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2018, 26, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kushwaha, A.; Rani, R.; Kumar, S. Mechanism of soil-metal-microbe interactions and their implication on microbial bioremediation and phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kushwaha, A.; Rani, R.; Agarwal, V. Environmental Fate and Eco-toxicity of Engineered Nano-particles: Current Trends and Future Perspective. In Advanced Nanomaterials for Wastewater Remediation; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2016; pp. 387–404. [Google Scholar]
  4. Goswami, L.; Manikandan, N.A.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. Simultaneous heavy metal removal and anthracene biodegradation by the oleaginous bacteria Rhodococcus opacus. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Goswami, L.; Kumar, R.V.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. A novel integrated biodegradation—Microfiltration system for sustainable wastewater treatment and energy recovery. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 365, 707–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kushwaha, A.; Rani, R.; Kumar, S.; Thomas, T.; David, A.A.; Ahmed, M. A new insight to adsorption and accumulation of high lead concentration by exopolymer and whole cells of lead-resistant bacterium Acinetobacter junii L. Pb1 isolated from coal mine dump. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 10652–10661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Goswami, L.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. Biological treatment of biomass gasification wastewater using hydrocarbonoclastic bacterium Rhodococcus opacus in an up-flow packed bed bioreactor with a novel waste-derived nano-biochar based bio-support material. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kushwaha, A.; Rani, R.; Kumar, S.; Gautam, A. Heavy metal detoxification and tolerance mechanisms in plants: Implications for phytoremediation. Environ. Rev. 2015, 24, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bind, A.; Kushwaha, A.; Devi, G.; Goswami, S.; Sen, B.; Prakash, V. Biosorption valorization of floating and submerged macrophytes for heavy-metal removal in a multi-component system. Appl. Water Sci. 2019, 9, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sathe, S.S.; Goswami, L.; Mahanta, C.; Devi, L.M. Integrated factors controlling arsenic mobilization in an alluvial floodplain. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 17, 100525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dutta, M.; Kushwaha, A.; Kalita, S.; Devi, G.; Bhuyan, M. Assessment of bioaccumulation and detoxification of cadmium in soil-plant-insect food chain. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2019, 7, 100242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Goswami, L.; Manikandan, N.A.; Dolman, B.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. Biological treatment of wastewater containing a mixture of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using the oleaginous bacterium Rhodococcus opacus. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 1282–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bind, A.; Goswami, L.; Prakash, V. Comparative analysis of floating and submerged macrophytes for heavy metal (copper, chromium, arsenic and lead) removal: Sorbent preparation, characterization, regeneration and cost estimation. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 2018, 2, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Kushwaha, A.; Rani, R.; Patra, J.K. Adsorption kinetics and molecular interactions of lead [Pb(II)] with natural clay and humic acid. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 17, 1325–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singh, P.K.; Kushwaha, A.; Hans, N.; Gautam, A.; Rani, R. Evaluation of the cytotoxicity and interaction of lead with lead resistant bacterium Acinetobacter junii Pb1. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gupt, C.B.; Kushwaha, A.; Prakash, A.; Chandra, A.; Goswami, L.; Sekharan, S. Mitigation of Groundwater Pollution: Heavy Metal Retention Characteristics of Fly Ash Based Liner Materials, Fate and Transport of Subsurface Pollutants; Springer: Singapore, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gupta, P.K.; Kumar, A.; Goswami, L.; Yadav, B. Rhizospheric Treatment of Hydrocarbons Containing Wastewater. In Microbial Technology for Health and Environment; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 289–301. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kushwaha, A.; Goswami, S.; Hans, N.; Goswami, L.; Devi, G.; Deshavath, N.N.; Yadav, M.K.; Lall, A.M. An Insight into Biological and Chemical Technologies for Micropollutant Removal from Wastewater, Fate and Transport of Subsurface Pollutants; Springer: Singapore, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bulat, Z.P.; Đukić-Ćosić, D.; Đokić, M.; Bulat, P.; Matović, V. Blood and urine cadmium and bioelements profile in nickel-cadmium battery workers in Serbia. Toxicol. Ind. Health 2009, 25, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chaumont, A.; De Winter, F.; Dumont, X.; Haufroid, V.; Bernard, A. The threshold level of urinary cadmium associated with increased urinary excretion of retinol-binding protein and β2-microglobulin: A re-assessment in a large cohort of nickel-cadmium battery workers. Occup. Environ. Med. 2011, 68, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Liu, J.; Qu, W.; Kadiiska, M.B. Role of oxidative stress in cadmium toxicity and carcinogenesis. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2009, 238, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Thijssen, S.; Cuypers, A.; Maringwa, J.; Smeets, K.; Horemans, N.; Lambrichts, I.; Van Kerkhove, E. Low cadmium exposure triggers a biphasic oxidative stress response in mice kidneys. Toxicology 2007, 236, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Faroon, O.; Ashizawa, A.; Wright, S.; Tucker, P.; Jenkins, K.; Ingerman, L.; Rudisill, C. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US): Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Yang, Z.-Y.; He, C.; Shen, C.; Guo, J.; Mubeen, S.; Yuan, J.; Yang, Z.-Y. Toxicity of cadmium and its health risks from leafy vegetable consumption. Food Funct. 2017, 8, 1373–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Messner, B.; Bernhard, D. Cadmium and cardiovascular diseases: Cell biology, pathophysiology, and epidemiological relevance. BioMetals 2010, 23, 811–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dayan, A.D.; Paine, A.J. Mechanisms of chromium toxicity, carcinogenicity and allergenicity: Review of the literature from 1985 to 2000. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2001, 20, 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Chromium; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2000. Available online: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toprofiles/tp7.html (accessed on 20 October 2020).
  28. Martin, S.; Griswold, W. Human Health and effects of heavy metals. Environ. Sci. Technol. Briefs Citiz. 2009, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huy, T.B.; Tuyet-Hanh, T.T.; Johnston, R.B.; Nguyen-Viet, H. Assessing Health Risk due to Exposure to Arsenic in Drinking Water in Hanam Province, Vietnam. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 7575–7591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Panosyan, H. Thermophiles harbored in Armenian geothermal springs and their potential in biotechnology. In Proceedings of the Industrial Biotechnology Congress, Birmingham, UK, 10–11 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hedges, S.B.; Chen, H.; Kumar, S.; Wang, D.Y.; Thompson, A.S.; Watanabe, H. A genomic timescale for the origin of eukaryotes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2001, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gupta, A.; Bhagwat, S.G.; Sainis, J.K. Synechococcus elongatus PCC 7942 is more tolerant to chromate as compared to Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. BioMetals 2013, 26, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Katırcıoğlu, H.; Aslım, B.; Türker, A.R.; Atıcı, T.; Beyatlı, Y. Removal of cadmium (II) ion from aqueous system by dry biomass, immobilized live and heat-inactivated Oscillatoria sp. H1 isolated from freshwater (Mogan Lake). Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4185–4191. [Google Scholar]
  34. Al-Sherif, E.A.; Abd El-Hameed, M.S.; Mahmoud, M.A.; Ahmed, H.S. Use of cyanobacteria and organic fertilizer mixture as soil bioremediation. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2015, 15, 794–799. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ashworth, H.; Abrahamsen, L.G.; Bryan, N.; Foster, L.; Lloyd, J.; Kellet, S.; Heath, S.L.; Abrahamsen, L. Effect of humic acid & bacterial exudates on sorption–desorption interactions of 90Sr with brucite. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2018, 20, 956–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Duda-Chodak, A.; Wajda, Ł.; Tarko, T. The immobilization of Arthrospira platensis biomass in different matrices—A practical application for lead biosorption. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2013, 48, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Heidari, F.; Riahi, H.; Aghamiri, M.R.; Shariatmadari, Z.; Zakeri, F. Isolation of an efficient biosorbent of radionuclides (226Ra, 238U): Green algae from high-background radiation areas in Iran. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 2887–2898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, T.; Liu, L.-H.; Liu, J.-W.; Chen, M.-L.; Wang, J.-H. Cyanobacterium metallothionein decorated graphene oxide nanosheets for highly selective adsorption of ultra-trace cadmium. J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 21909–21916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yang, T.; Ma, L.-Y.; Chen, M.-L.; Wang, J.-H. Metallothionein isoforms for selective biosorption and preconcentration of cadmium at ultra-trace levels. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2015, 30, 929–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Warjri, S.M.; Syiem, M.B. Analysis of Biosorption Parameters, Equilibrium Isotherms and Thermodynamic Studies of Chromium (VI) Uptake by a Nostoc sp. Isolated from a Coal Mining Site in Meghalaya, India. Mine Water Environ. 2018, 37, 713–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, A.; Mehta, S.K.; Gaur, J.P. Removal of heavy metals from aqueous solution by common freshwater filamentous algae. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 23, 1115–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Prasad, B.B.; Banerjee, S.; Lakshmi, D. An AlgaSORB Column for the Quantitative Sorption of Arsenic (III) from Water Samples. Water Qual. Res. J. 2006, 41, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Miranda, J.; Krishnakumar, G.; Gonsalves, R. Lead sorption by living biomass of Chroococcus multicoloratus and Oscillatoria trichoides: Kinetics and equilibrium studies. Ann. Microbiol. 2013, 63, 591–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kiran, B.; Kaushik, A. Cyanobacterial biosorption of Cr(VI): Application of two parameter and Bohart Adams models for batch and column studies. Chem. Eng. J. 2008, 144, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Heidari, F.; Riahi, H.; Aghamiri, M.R.; Zakeri, F.; Shariatmadari, Z.; Hauer, T. 226Ra, 238U and Cd adsorption kinetics and binding capacity of two cyanobacterial strains isolated from highly radioactive springs and optimal conditions for maximal removal effects in contaminated water. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zinicovscaia, I.; Duca, G.; Rudic, V.; Cepoi, L.; Chiriac, T.; Frontasyeva, M.V.; Pavlov, S.; Gundorina, S.F. Spirulina platensis as biosorbent of zinc in water. In Proceedings of the International Conference Dedicated to the 55th Anniversary from the Foundation of the Institute of Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chişinău, Republic Moldova, 28–30 May 2014; pp. 191–192. [Google Scholar]
  47. Foster, L.; Muhamadali, H.; Boothman, C.; Sigee, D.; Pittman, J.K.; Goodacre, R.; Lloyd, J.R. Radiation Tolerance of Pseudanabaena catenata, a Cyanobacterium Relevant to the First Generation Magnox Storage Pond. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bishop, W.M.; Rodgers, J.H. Responses of Lyngbya wollei to Exposures of Copper-Based Algaecides: The Critical Burden Concept. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2012, 62, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cain, A.; Vannela, R.; Woo, L.K. Cyanobacteria as a biosorbent for mercuric ion. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 6578–6586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Carro, L.; Barriada, J.L.; Herrero, R.; De Vicente, M.S. Adsorptive behaviour of mercury on algal biomass: Competition with divalent cations and organic compounds. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 192, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Da Costa, A.C.A.; De França, F.P. Cadmium Interaction with Microalgal Cells, Cyanobacterial Cells, and Seaweeds; Toxicology and Biotechnological Potential for Wastewater Treatment. Mar. Biotechnol. 2003, 5, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Gupta, V.K.; Rastogi, A. Sorption and desorption studies of chromium(VI) from nonviable cyanobacterium Nostoc muscorum biomass. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 154, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kumar, D.; Pandey, L.K.; Gaur, J. Evaluation of various isotherm models, and metal sorption potential of cyanobacterial mats in single and multi-metal systems. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2010, 81, 476–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Liu, Y.; Alessi, D.; Owttrim, G.; Petrash, D.; Mloszewska, A.; LaLonde, S.; Martinez, R.; Zhou, Q.; Konhauser, K.O. Cell surface reactivity of Synechococcus sp. PCC 7002: Implications for metal sorption from seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2015, 169, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Micheletti, E.; Colica, G.; Viti, C.; Tamagnini, P.; De Philippis, R. Selectivity in the heavy metal removal by exopolysaccharide-producing cyanobacteria. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 105, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Joshi, R.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, S.; Hashmi, A.A. Structural and antimicrobial studies of potassium hydrotris(2-mercaptobenzathiazolyl)borate and its organotin(IV) derivatives. J. Coord. Chem. 2008, 61, 2437–2448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kumar, S.; Habib, K.; Fatma, T. Endosulfan induced biochemical changes in nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 403, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Patel, A.; Tiwari, S.; Prasad, S.M. Toxicity assessment of arsenate and arsenite on growth, chlorophyll a fluorescence and antioxidant machinery in Nostoc muscorum. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 157, 369–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eshanmugam, V.; Lo, J.-C.; Wu, C.-L.; Wang, S.-L.; Lai, C.-C.; Connolly, E.L.; Huang, J.-L.; Yeh, K.-C. Differential expression and regulation of iron-regulated metal transporters in Arabidopsis halleri and Arabidopsis thaliana—The role in zinc tolerance. New Phytol. 2011, 190, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Gupta, S.; Sharma, S.; Singh, S. Hexavalent chromium toxicity to cyanobacterium Spirulina platensis. Int. Res. J. Pharm. 2014, 5, 910–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mota, R.; Pereira, S.B.; Meazzini, M.; Fernandes, R.; Santos, A.; Evans, C.A.; De Philippis, R.; Wright, P.C.; Tamagnini, P. Differential proteomes of the cyanobacterium Cyanothece sp. CCY 0110 upon exposure to heavy metals. Data Brief 2015, 4, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Tottey, S.; Patterson, C.J.; Banci, L.; Bertini, I.; Felli, I.C.; Pavelkova, A.; Dainty, S.J.; Pernil, R.; Waldron, K.J.; Foster, A.W.; et al. Cyanobacterial metallochaperone inhibits deleterious side reactions of copper. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Choudhary, M.; Jetley, U.K.; Khan, M.A.; Zutshi, S.; Fatma, T. Effect of heavy metal stress on proline, malondialdehyde, and superoxide dismutase activity in the cyanobacterium Spirulina platensis-S5. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2007, 66, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Al-Mousawi, N.J.M. Growth response of Cyanobacterium: Chroococcus sp. To copper (Cu+ 2) and Nickel (Ni+ 2) ions, singly and in dual combination. Marsh Bull. 2010, 5, 141–152. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kaňa, R.; Prášil, O.; Mullineaux, C.W. Immobility of phycobilins in the thylakoid lumen of a cryptophyte suggests that protein diffusion in the lumen is very restricted. FEBS Lett. 2009, 583, 670–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Gill, S.S.; Khan, N.A.; Tuteja, N. Cadmium at high dose perturbs growth, photosynthesis and nitrogen metabolism while at low dose it up regulates sulfur assimilation and antioxidant machinery in garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.). Plant Sci. 2012, 182, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tiwari, S.; Patel, A.; Prasad, S.M. Kinetin alleviates chromium toxicity on growth and PS II photochemistry in Nostoc muscorum by regulating antioxidant system. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 161, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Prasad, S.M.; Singh, J.B.; Rai, L.C.; Kumar, H.D. Metal-induced inhibition of photosynthetic electron transport chain of the cyanobacterium Nostoc muscorum. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1991, 82, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Perreault, F.; Ali, N.A.; Saison, C.; Popovic, R.; Juneau, P. Dichromate effect on energy dissipation of photosystem II and photosystem I in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2009, 96, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Strasser, R.J.; Srivastava, A.; Tsimilli-Michael, M. The Fluorescence Transient as a Tool to Characterize and Screen Photosynthetic Samples. Probing Photosynthesis: Mechanisms, Regulation and Adaptation; Yunus, M., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2000; pp. 445–483. [Google Scholar]
  71. Wang, S.; Zhang, D.; Pan, X. Effects of arsenic on growth and photosystem II (PSII) activity of Microcystis aeruginosa. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012, 84, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Zhang, X.; Ma, F.; Zhu, X.; Zhu, J.; Rong, J.; Zhan, J.; Chen, H.; He, C.; Wang, Q. The Acceptor Side of Photosystem II Is the Initial Target of Nitrite Stress in Synechocystis sp. Strain PCC 6803. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Zsiros, O.; Allakhverdiev, S.I.; Higashi, S.; Watanabe, M.; Nishiyama, Y.; Murata, N. Very strong UV-A light temporally separates the photoinhibition of photosystem II into light-induced inactivation and repair. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Bioenerg. 2006, 1757, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Cox, A. Proteomic responses of oceanic Synechococcus WH8102 to phosphate and zinc scarcity and cadmium additions. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Vega, J.M.; Garbayo, I.; Domínguez, M.J.; Vigara, J. Effect of abiotic stress on photosynthesis and respiration in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii: Induction of oxidative stress. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2006, 40, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ananya, A.K.; Ahmad, I.Z. Cyanobacteria “the blue green algae” and its novel applications: A brief review. Int. J. Innov. Appl. Stud. 2014, 7, 251. [Google Scholar]
  77. Rath, B. Microalgal bioremediation: Current practices and perspectives. J. Biochem. Technol. 2012, 3, 299–304. [Google Scholar]
  78. Turner, J.S.; Robinson, N.J. Cyanobacterial metallothioneins: Biochemistry and molecular genetics. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1995, 14, 119–125. [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 metallothioneins and SmtA-like zinc fingers. Mol. Microbiol. 2002, 45, 1421–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ybarra, G.R.; Webb, R. Effects of divalent metal cations and resistance mechanisms of the cyanobacterium Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7942. J. Hazard. Subst. Res. 1999, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. El-Enany, A.; Issa, A. Cyanobacteria as a biosorbent of heavy metals in sewage water. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2000, 8, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mallick, N.; Rai, L. Characterization of Cd-induced low molecular weight protein in a N-fixing cyanobacterium Anabaena doliolum with special reference to co-/multiple tolerance. BioMetals 1998, 11, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rossi, F.; De Philippis, R. Role of Cyanobacterial Exopolysaccharides in Phototrophic Biofilms and in Complex Microbial Mats. Life 2015, 5, 1218–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Rossi, F.; De Philippis, R. Exocellular Polysaccharides in Microalgae and Cyanobacteria: Chemical Features, Role and Enzymes and Genes Involved in Their Biosynthesis. In The Physiology of Microalgae; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 565–590. [Google Scholar]
  85. Pereira, S.; Zille, A.; Micheletti, E.; Moradas-Ferreira, P.; De Philippis, R.; Tamagnini, P. Complexity of cyanobacterial exopolysaccharides: Composition, structures, inducing factors and putative genes involved in their biosynthesis and assembly. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2009, 33, 917–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gupta, P.; Diwan, B. Bacterial Exopolysaccharide mediated heavy metal removal: A Review on biosynthesis, mechanism and remediation strategies. Biotechnol. Rep. 2017, 13, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kehr, J.-C.; Dittmann, E. Biosynthesis and Function of Extracellular Glycans in Cyanobacteria. Life 2015, 5, 164–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Borowitzka, M.A. Algal biotechnology products and processes—Matching science and economics. J. Appl. Phycol. 1992, 4, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Strieth, D.; Schwing, J.; Kuhne, S.; Lakatos, M.; Muffler, K.; Ulber, R. A semi-continuous process based on an ePBR for the production of EPS using Trichocoleus sociatus. J. Biotechnol. 2017, 256, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wieland, A.; Zopfi, J.; Benthien, M.; Kühl, M. Biogeochemistry of an Iron-Rich Hypersaline Microbial Mat (Camargue, France). Microb. Ecol. 2005, 49, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bhunia, B.; Uday, U.S.P.; Oinam, G.; Mondal, A.; Bandyopadhyay, T.K.; Tiwari, O.N. Characterization, genetic regulation and production of cyanobacterial exopolysaccharides and its applicability for heavy metal removal. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018, 179, 228–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Algae and Cyanobacteria in Extreme Environments; Seckbach, J. (Ed.) Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 11. [Google Scholar]
  93. Yoshimura, H.; Kotake, T.; Aohara, T.; Tsumuraya, Y.; Ikeuchi, M.; Ohmori, M. The role of extracellular polysaccharides produced by the terrestrial cyanobacterium Nostoc sp. strain HK-01 in NaCl tolerance. J. Appl. Phycol. 2012, 24, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Trabelsi, L.; Ben Ouada, H.; Bacha, H.; Ghoul, M. Combined effect of temperature and light intensity on growth and extracellular polymeric substance production by the cyanobacterium Arthrospira platensis. J. Appl. Phycol. 2009, 21, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ge, H.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, X.; Xia, L.; Hu, C. Effects of light intensity on components and topographical structures of extracellular polymeric substances fromMicrocoleus vaginatus(Cyanophyceae). Phycologia 2014, 53, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Diengdoh, O.L.; Syiem, M.B.; Pakshirajan, K.; Rai, A.N. Zn2+ sequestration by Nostoc muscorum: Study of thermodynamics, equilibrium isotherms, and biosorption parameters for the metal. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mota, R.; Rossi, F.; Andrenelli, L.; Pereira, S.B.; De Philippis, R.; Tamagnini, P. Released polysaccharides (RPS) from Cyanothece sp. CCY 0110 as biosorbent for heavy metals bioremediation: Interactions between metals and RPS binding sites. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 7765–7775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Borah, S.N.; Sen, S.; Goswami, L.; Bora, A.; Pakshirajan, K.; Deka, S. Rice based distillers dried grains with solubles as a low cost substrate for the production of a novel rhamnolipid biosurfactant having anti-biofilm activity against Candida tropicalis. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2019, 182, 110358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sukumaran, N.P.; Gopi, S. Overview of biopolymers: Resources, demands, sustainability, and life cycle assessment modeling and simulation. In Biopolymers and Their Industrial Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  100. Kumar, R.V.; Moorthy, I.G.; Goswami, L.; Pugazhenthi, G.; Pakshirajan, K.; Silva, A.M.T.; Morales-Torres, S. Analytical Methods in Biodiesel Production. In Biomass Valorization to Bioenergy; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 197–219. [Google Scholar]
  101. Rizvi, S.; Goswami, L.; Gupta, S.K. A holistic approach for melanoidin removal via Fe-impregnated activated carbon prepared from Mangifera indica leaves biomass. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2020, 12, 100591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kumar, M.; Goswami, L.; Singh, A.K.; Sikandar, M. Valorization of coal fired-fly ash for potential heavy metal removal from the single and multi-contaminated system. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Mu, D.; Min, M.; Krohn, B.; Mullins, K.A.; Ruan, R.; Hill, J. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Wastewater-Based Algal Biofuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 11696–11704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Bussa, M.; Zollfrank, C.; Röder, H. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study on Cyanobacteria and Maize as Feedstock for Polylactic Acid. In Progress in Life Cycle Assessment 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 117–127. [Google Scholar]
  105. Sander, K.; Murthy, G.S. Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 704–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shirvani, T.; Yan, X.; Inderwildi, O.R.; Edwards, P.P.; King, D.A. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas analysis for algae-derived biodiesel. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bussa, M.; Zollfrank, C.; Röder, H. Life-cycle assessment and geospatial analysis of integrating microalgae cultivation into a regional economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Quiroz-Arita, C.; Sheehan, J.J.; Bradley, T.H. Life cycle net energy and greenhouse gas emissions of photosynthetic cyanobacterial biorefineries: Challenges for industrial production of biofuels. Algal Res. 2017, 26, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lewandowska, A.U.; Śliwińska-Wilczewska, S.; Woźniczka, D. Identification of cyanobacteria and microalgae in aerosols of various sizes in the air over the Southern Baltic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 125, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Thuy, H.T.T.; Loan, T.T.C.; Phuong, T.H. The potential accumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in phytoplankton and bivalves in Can Gio coastal wetland, Vietnam. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 17240–17249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wiśniewska, K.; Lewandowska, A.; Śliwińska-Wilczewska, S. The importance of cyanobacteria and microalgae present in aerosols to human health and the environment—Review study. Environ. Int. 2019, 131, 104964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zahra, Z.; Choo, D.H.; Lee, H.; Parveen, A. Cyanobacteria: Review of Current Potentials and Applications. Environments 2020, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Jcs 05 00001 g001 550
Figure 1. Annual number of publications with the phrase “cyanobacteria for Heavy Metal Removal” over the past five years (2016–2020) assessed on 15 December 2020.
Figure 1. Annual number of publications with the phrase “cyanobacteria for Heavy Metal Removal” over the past five years (2016–2020) assessed on 15 December 2020.
Jcs 05 00001 g001
Jcs 05 00001 g002 550
Figure 2. Network visualization of terms associated with cyanobacteria.
Figure 2. Network visualization of terms associated with cyanobacteria.
Jcs 05 00001 g002
Jcs 05 00001 g003 550
Figure 3. Sites of action of heavy metal and their toxicity in cyanobacteria.
Figure 3. Sites of action of heavy metal and their toxicity in cyanobacteria.
Jcs 05 00001 g003
Jcs 05 00001 g004 550
Figure 4. Mechanism of heavy metal toxicity at the cellular level.
Figure 4. Mechanism of heavy metal toxicity at the cellular level.
Jcs 05 00001 g004
Jcs 05 00001 g005 550
Figure 5. Domain nature of metallothionein (adapted from [78]).
Figure 5. Domain nature of metallothionein (adapted from [78]).
Jcs 05 00001 g005
Jcs 05 00001 g006 550
Figure 6. Stepwise process strategy for enhancing the extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) production.
Figure 6. Stepwise process strategy for enhancing the extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) production.
Jcs 05 00001 g006
Table
Table 1. Literature review on various cyanobacterial species utilized for the heavy metal removal process.
Table 1. Literature review on various cyanobacterial species utilized for the heavy metal removal process.
S. No.CyanobacteriaModified SupportAdsorbateAqueous Phase (pH)References
1.OscillatoriaImmobilized Ca-alginate beadsCd6[33]
2.Nostoc minutum and
Anabaena spiroides		-Pb, Cd, Ni-[34]
3.Pseudanabaena
catenata		-Sr10.5–11.5[35]
4.Arthrospira platensisImmobilization alginate, silica gel, or agarosePb4–5[36]
5.Graesiella emersonii-U, Ra4[37]
6.Cyanobacterium
Metallothionein		Immobilized with
graphene oxide and
SiO2		Cd8 and 6[38,39]
7.Nostoc sp.-Cr6[40]
8.Pithophora oedogonia
and Spirogyra neglecta		-Pb, Cu5[41]
9.ScytonemaDimethylformamide
slurry		As6.9[42]
10.Chroococcus
multicoloratus and
O. trichoides		-Pb5 and 5.14[43]
11.Lyngbya putealis HH-15Sodium alginate,
calcium chloride		Cr2[44]
12.Nostoc punctiforme A.
S/S4 and
Chroococcidiopsis
thermalis S.M/S9		-U, Cd, Ra
4, 2, and 7[45]
13.Spirulina platensis-Zn-[46]
14.Pseudanabaena
catenate		-Sr10.5, 11, or 11.5[47]
15.Lyngbya wollei-Cu-[48]
16.S. platensis and
Aphanothece
flocculosa		-Hg6[49]
17.S. muticum-Hg5[50]
18.Tetraselmis chuii and
Spirulina maxima		-Cd-[51]
19.Arthrospira platensisImmobilization in alginate, silica gel,
or agarose		Pb4–5.5[36]
20.N. muscorum-Cr3[52]
21.Oscillatoria sp.,
Phormidium sp.,
Lyngbya sp., Aulosira sp., and Scytonema sp		-Cu, Cd, Pb5[53]
22.Synechococcus sp.-Cd8[54]
23.Cyanothece-Cu, Cr, Ni5[55]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yadav, A.P.S.; Dwivedi, V.; Kumar, S.; Kushwaha, A.; Goswami, L.; Reddy, B.S. Cyanobacterial Extracellular Polymeric Substances for Heavy Metal Removal: A Mini Review. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5010001

AMA Style

Yadav APS, Dwivedi V, Kumar S, Kushwaha A, Goswami L, Reddy BS. Cyanobacterial Extracellular Polymeric Substances for Heavy Metal Removal: A Mini Review. Journal of Composites Science. 2021; 5(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yadav, Ajit Pratap Singh, Vinay Dwivedi, Satyendra Kumar, Anamika Kushwaha, Lalit Goswami, and Bezawada Sridhar Reddy. 2021. "Cyanobacterial Extracellular Polymeric Substances for Heavy Metal Removal: A Mini Review" Journal of Composites Science 5, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5010001

APA Style

Yadav, A. P. S., Dwivedi, V., Kumar, S., Kushwaha, A., Goswami, L., & Reddy, B. S. (2021). Cyanobacterial Extracellular Polymeric Substances for Heavy Metal Removal: A Mini Review. Journal of Composites Science, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5010001

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop