See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323827105

Identification of Acid and Aluminium Resistant Bacteria Isolated from

Aluminium Recycling Area

Article in International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology · February 2018

CITATIONS READS

22 843

4 authors:

Ipung F Purwanti Setyo Budi Kurniawan

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember The Czech Academy of Sciences
75 PUBLICATIONS 1,252 CITATIONS 143 PUBLICATIONS 3,105 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Harmin Sulistiyaning Titah Bieby Voijant Tangahu

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
94 PUBLICATIONS 779 CITATIONS 71 PUBLICATIONS 2,413 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Setyo Budi Kurniawan on 23 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 9, Issue 2, February 2018, pp. 945–954, Article ID: IJCIET_09_02_091
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

IDENTIFICATION OF ACID AND ALUMINIUM

RESISTANT BACTERIA ISOLATED FROM
ALUMINIUM RECYCLING AREA
Ipung Fitri Purwanti
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil,
Environmental and Geo Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember,
Kampus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia

Setyo Budi Kurniawan

Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil,
Environmental and Geo Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember,
Kampus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia

Harmin Sulistiyaning Titah

Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil,
Environmental and Geo Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember,
Kampus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia

Bieby Voijant Tangahu

Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil,
Environmental and Geo Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember,
Kampus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia

ABSTRACT
Aluminium recycling is a growing industry in Indonesia. Waste that produced as
by-product of aluminium production still not well processed. This waste contains
hazardous materials, primarily aluminium metal. Further treatment need to be carried
out to process the aluminium recycling waste, before entering the bodies of water.
Isolation and identification of indigenous bacteria will be useful in further aluminium
wastewater processing. Six isolated bacteria, turned out to have good ability in
resisting aluminium based on screening process. Acidity resistance test showed that
Moraxella urethralis and Brochothrix thermosphacta were resistant to acid up to pH
4. Vibrio alginolyticus, Brochothrix thermosphacta and Moraxella urethralis showed
aluminium resistant characteristic with MIC value up to 500mg/L.
Key words: Al, Brochothrix thermosphacta, MIC, Moraxella urethralis, MTC,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Vibrio alginolyticus

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 945 editor@iaeme.com

 Identification of Acid and Aluminium Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Aluminium Recycling Area

Cite this Article: Ipung Fitri Purwanti, Setyo Budi Kurniawan, Harmin Sulistiyaning
Titah and Bieby Voijant Tangahu, Identification of Acid and Aluminium Resistant
Bacteria Isolated from Aluminium Recycling Area, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 9(2), 2018, pp. 945–954.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=2

1. INTRODUCTION
Aluminium recycling is a series of process to obtain pure metal by refining aluminium waste
(Tsakiridis, 2012) [24]. Tsakiridis (2012) [24] stated that aluminum recycling consists of
sorting, burning, smelting, printing and cooling process. In the melting process, some fluxes
are added to bind aluminum. Pure aluminium and some impurities can be achieved from these
processes (Ingulstad, 2012) [11]. Some impurities cannot be used and need to be managed
properly because they can cause pollution. One of technologies that can be used to treat metal
pollution is bioremediation (Deepali, 2011) [6]. Several factors affecting the bioremediation
process include the types of microorganisms used and environmental factors such as the pH
and the concentrations of contaminants (Chau et al., 2014) [4]. Indigenous bacteria are widely
known to be used as metal processing agents. Nath et al. (2012) [19] stated that bacteria
isolated from metal contaminated waste can be more tolerant to metal exposure.
Bioremediation using indigenous bacteria isolated from contaminated environment also
considered to be more effective for treating metal pollution (Ahluwalia and Goyal, 2007) [2].
Mittal et al. (2003) [17] stated that Pseudomonas sp. and Bacillus circullans were tolerant
to aluminum. Hard et al. (2010) [8] also stated that Bacillus sp. was able to bind Al3+ into
their bacterial cell. At aluminum concentrations of 2071 μM and 3106 μM, Pseudomonas sp.
can still grow well (Mittal et al., 2003) [17]. Martins et al. (2012) [16] also stated that
Desulfovibrio desulfuricans can reduce aluminum by 85% with 0.9 mM of initial
concentration in 27 days. Differences in the use of bacterial culture may affect the efficiency
of aluminum removal from polluted environment. Environmental condition such as pH and
the concentration of pollutant may also affect the aluminium removal efficiency. This occurs
because of differences in complex enzymatic reactions for each type of bacteria used and the
effect of environmental condition in the bioremediation process (Deepali, 2011) [6]. The main
objectives of this study were to obtain aluminium and acidity resistant bacteria from isolation
process as the preliminary test of aluminium contaminated soil remediation.

2. MATERIAL AND METHOD

2.1. Isolation of Bacteria
Isolation of indigenous bacteria was carried out from soil and water sample taken from
aluminium recycling area. Soil sample was made by compositing 3 source of soil from
different location near aluminium recycling area. Water sample was made by compositing
groundwater, surface water and wastewater from aluminium recycling area. The isolation
process was carried out refers to Konishi et al. (1994) [14] and Chau et al. (2014) [4].
The dilutions of both composite samples were carried out to obtain as much bacteria as
possible. Sample dilution were conducted by 8.5% NaCl solution (Purwanti et al., 2017) [21].
Soil sample was diluted up to 107 times while water sample was diluted up to 103 times. The
diluted sample then transferred to nutrient agar medium (Merck, Germany) and incubated at
37oC for 24 hours. Each different colony that appeared after incubation then coded by
sequential numbering (Pranowo and Titah, 2016) [16]. The coded bacteria then streaked onto
the surface of sterile nutrient agar until a pure colony was obtained. Pure bacterial colony then

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 946 editor@iaeme.com

Ipung Fitri Purwanti, Setyo Budi Kurniawan, Harmin Sulistiyaning Titah and Bieby Voijant Tangahu

transferred onto slant nutrient agar inside a test tube for bacterial stock and to prevent
contamination.

2.2. Initial Aluminium Resistance Test

Initial aluminium resistance test was conducted to reduce the number of isolated bacteria to be
analyzed further. This test was carried out to make the next processes gone better with fewer
number of bacteria to be analyzed. This test also carried out to choose the potential bacteria
that could live in aluminium contaminated medium. Initial aluminium resistance test was
done by using disk diffusion method refers to Agostinho et al. (2012) [1].
One ml of each bacterial colony (OD600 = 0.5 A) was poured into nutrient agar medium
inside petri dish. Circular disks made from Wattman40 filter paper with 50 mm diameter were
placed onto the surface of solid nutrient agar medium that already been inoculated with
bacterial culture. The disk that placed onto the surface of nutrient agar already been soaked in
several aluminium concentration for 15minutes. The concentration of aluminium solution
ranged from 30 to 15000mg/L (Agostinho et al., 2012) [1]. Results of disk diffusion test were
bacterial clear zone. Six bacterial cultures were chosen to be analyzed further based on initial
aluminium resistance test.

2.3. Identification of Bacteria

Six potential bacterial cultures were analyzed by using macroscopic, microscopic and
physiological characteristic (Pranowo and Titah, 2016) [16]. Macroscopic analysis was
conducted by identifying bacterial morphology consist of form, elevation, margin,
appearance, optical properties, pigmentation and colony’s diameter. Microscopic analysis was
carried out by gram staining and bacterial shape analyzing. Physiological analysis was
conducted by Bio-Chemical Microbact 24-E Kit. Result of bio-chemical analysis were
identified by using Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Microbiology to get the bacterial
species.

2.4. Acidity Resistance Test

Acidity resistance test was conducted refers to Konishi et al., (2014) [14]. Acidity resistance
test was carried out to accommodate the solubility of aluminium in different pH. Aluminium
has amphoteric characteristic and has a good solubility in mainly acid pH. The biological
process of aluminium reduction also is much optimum in high solubility of aluminium. This
test was conducted in several pH which were 3, 4 and 5. Control medium (neutral pH = 8)
will be used in this stage to compare the growth of bacteria under normal and acid condition.
This test was conducted by inoculating 2% of bacterial culture (OD600 = 0.5 A) (Ibrahim et
al., 2010) [10] into pH adjusted nutrient broth medium (Merck, Germany). Adjustion of pH
was carried out by adding HCl (Merck, Germany) into the nutrient broth medium until the
desired pH achieved. The optical density of bacterial cultures then checked after 72hours of
150 rpm shaking (Purwanti et al., 2015) [22] by using Spectrophotometer (Innova2000,
Germany) with 600nm wavelength.

2.5. Aluminium Resistance Test

Aluminium resistance test was carried out to determine the ability of bacteria living inside
aluminium contaminated medium. Aluminium resistance test was carried out by determining
Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) by solid medium and Maximum Tolerable
Concentration (MTC) by liquid medium. MIC was determined by choosing the lowest
concentration of aluminium that inhibit 99% of bacterial growth (Heifets et al., 1986) [9].
MTC was determined by selecting the highest concentration of aluminium concentration that

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 947 editor@iaeme.com

 Identification of Acid and Aluminium Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Aluminium Recycling Area

did not cause the death of test organism or species (IUPAC, 1993) [12]. This test was
conducted refers to Mythili and Karthikeyan (2011) [18] and Ruangpan (2004) [23].
MIC in solid medium was carried out by streaking bacterial culture onto several
concentrations of aluminium contaminated nutrient agar surface. Aluminium contaminated
medium ranged from 0 to 1000mg/L. Aluminium contaminated medium was made by mixing
10ml of sterile nutrient agar and 10ml of sterile aluminium chloride (SAP, Indonesia) solution
inside sterile petri dish. This act was conducted due to the problem of aluminium
contaminated medium solidification after sterilization process. Streaked culture then
incubated in 37oC incubator (Memert+, Germany). The area of visual growth of 24 hours
incubated culture then calculated and compared with the control medium.
MTC analysis was conducted by inoculating 2% of bacterial culture (OD600 = 0.5 A)
(Ibrahim et al., 2010) [10] into several concentrations of sterile aluminium contaminated
nutrient broth medium. Aluminium contaminated medium ranged from 0 to 1000mg/L.
Aluminium contaminated medium was made by mixing aluminium chloride solution and
nutrient broth medium at certain ratio to achieve the desired concentration. Inoculated bacteria
in medium then 150 rpm shaken for 24 hours. The optical density of bacterial cultures then
checked by using Spectrophotometer using 600nm wavelength. MTC value was determined
by analyzing the measured optical density after 24 hours of shaken. MTC value was
determined by comparing OD measured with control reactor (0mg/L of aluminium). MTC
value was chosen in highest aluminium concentration reactor that OD value still ≥ OD in
control reactor (P≤0.05) (IUPAC, 1993) [12].

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Isolated Bacteria
Twelve different colonies were obtained from isolation process. Six colonies of water bacteria
and six colonies of soil bacteria obtained from the samples. Result of isolated bacterial
colonies showed in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Isolated Bacteria

3.2. Initial Aluminium Resistance Test

The wider the clear zone formed the more bacterial metabolism inhibited by aluminium
exposure. From the initial aluminium resistance test, 6 bacterial code which were S5, S6, W1,
W2, W4 and W5 turned out to have good ability in resisting aluminium (Table 1). These
results were obtained based on the formation of clear zone outside the soaked aluminium disk.
By making a ranking 6 bacteria that have good potential in resisting aluminium in order: W5,
W2, W1, S5, S6 and W4.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 948 editor@iaeme.com

Ipung Fitri Purwanti, Setyo Budi Kurniawan, Harmin Sulistiyaning Titah and Bieby Voijant Tangahu

Table 1 Clear Zone in Initial Aluminium Resistance Test

Aluminium Concentration (mg/L)
Bacterial
30 60 300 600 1500 3000 5000 7500 10000 15000
Code
Clear Zone Diameter (mm)
S1 - - - - - - 8 9,5 13 22
S2 - - - - - - 15 10 >30 >30
S3 - - - - - - 7,5 9 10 12
S4 - - - - - - 6 6 18 18
S5 - - - - - - 6 6 7 7
S6 - - - - - - 7 7 7 7
W1 - - - - - - - - 6 7,5
W2 - - - - - 6 6 6 6 7
W3 - - - - - 6 6 17 >30 >30
W4 - - - - - 6 6 7 7,5 11
W5 - - - - - - - - - -
W6 - - - - - - - - 10 11

3.3. Bacterial Identification

Bacterial identification consists of 3 steps which were macroscopic, microscopic and
physiological analysis. Macroscopic and microscopic analysis were carried out to 6 potential
bacterial cultures based on initial aluminium resistance test. Result of macroscopic analysis
showed on Table 2. Microscopic analysis was done to strengthen the result of macroscopic
analysis. Result of microscopic analysis showed on Table 3.

Table 2 Macroscopic Analysis of Potential Isolated Culture

Morphological Characterization
Bacteria Optical
l code Elevatio Appearanc Pigmentatio Diamete
Form Margin Propertie
n e n r (mm)
s
Irregula Undulat
S5 Convex Dull Opaque White 0.5
r e
Irregula Undulat
S6 Convex Dull Opaque Green 0.5
r e
W1 Circular Flat Entire Dull Opaque Cream 0.5
W2 Circular Raised Entire Dull Opaque White 0.1
Irregula Undulat
W4 Convex Shiny Opaque Green 0.5
r e
Irregula Undulat
W5 Convex Shiny Opaque Green 0.1
r e
Based on the result of macroscopic and microscopic analysis, bacterial coded W4, W5 and
S6 turned out to have same characteristics. All parameter tested for W4, W5 and S6 showed
green pigmented, gram negative, rod bacteria with the different only on bacterial colony
diameter. According to this result, S6 and W5 eliminated from the list of potential bacteria
because all three bacteria were predicted to have a same species. Through some
considerations, only one bacteria coded W5 was chosen to be analyzed further.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 949 editor@iaeme.com

 Identification of Acid and Aluminium Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Aluminium Recycling Area

Based on macroscopic and microscopic analysis, 4 potential bacteria which were S5, W1,
W2 and W5 analyzed further using Microbact 24E. Response obtained from bio-chemical
analysis for 4 potential bacteria showed on Table 3. All responses obtained from Microbact
24E then matched with Bergey’s Manual and the matching results which were bacterial
species showed on Table 4.

Table 3 Microscopic Analysis of Potential Isolated Bacteria

Bacterial Gram
Shape
Code staining
S5 - Rod
S6 - Rod
W1 + Rod
W2 - Rod
W4 - Rod
W5 - Rod

Table 4 Bio-chemical Analysis of Potential Isolated Bacteria

Result
No Parameter
S5 W1 W2 W5
1 Oxidase + + + +
2 Motility + - - +
3 Nitrate + + - +
4 Lysine - - - +
5 Ornithine - - - +
6 H2S - - - -
7 Glucose - + - +
8 Mannitol - + - +
9 Xylose - + - -
10 ONPG - + + -
11 Indole - - - -
12 Urease - - - +
13 VP + + + -
14 Citrate - + - +
15 TDA - + - -
16 Gelatin - - - +
17 Malonate - + - +
18 Inositol - - - -
19 Sorbitol - + - -
20 Rhamnose - - - -
21 Sucrose - + - -
22 Lactose - - - -
23 Arabinose - + - -
24 Adonitol - + - -
25 Raffinose - + - -
26 Salicin - + - -
27 Arginine - - - +

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 950 editor@iaeme.com

Ipung Fitri Purwanti, Setyo Budi Kurniawan, Harmin Sulistiyaning Titah and Bieby Voijant Tangahu

28 Gram Staining - + - -
29 Shape Rod Rod Rod Rod

3.4. Acidity Resistant Bacteria

Ciric et al. (2010) [5] stated that acidi resistant bacteria could be characterized by its growth
in acid medium with OD600 value was ≥ 0.2. OD600 ≥ 0.2 showed that bacterial metabolism
was not inhibited by acid condition. Based on the result of acidity resistant test (Figure 2), all
bacteria showed a very minimum visual growth on pH 3 indicating the inhibition of pH 3 to
all bacterial growth. The highest OD obtained by Moraxella urethralis with 3.228 A in pH 4
followed by Brochothrix thermosphacta with 1.856 A. The result obtained for Brochothrix
thermosphacta was in accordane with Leroi et al. (2012) [15] which stated that these bacteria
could grow up to pH 4.8. Moraxella urethralis also showed maximum growth on pH 4
compared to other pH. Vibrio alginolyticus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa can only survive up
to pH 5. Farid and Larsen (1981) [7] also Klein et al. (2009) [13] stated that Vibrio
alginolyticus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa can survive up to pH 5. Based on this result
Moraxella urethralis and Brochothrix thermosphacta showed to have good resistance in acid
condition.

Table 5 Result of Bacterial Species Determination

Bacterial
Bacterial Species
Code
S5 Vibrio alginolyticus
W1 Brochothrix thermosphacta
W2 Moraxella urethralis
W5 Pseudomonas aeruginosa

3.5
Optical Density 600nm (A)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
3 4 5 8
pH
Vibrio alginoliticus Brochothrix thermosphacta
Moraxella urethralis Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Figure 2 Bacterial Growth in Several pH After 72hours

3.5. Aluminium Resistant Bacteria

Based on Figure 3, Vibrio alginolyticus showed the highest resistance to aluminium exposure
followed by Brochothrix thermosphacta and Moraxella urethralis. Vibrio alginolyticus
showed 100% of visual growth until 250mg/L of aluminium exposure. The lowest resistance
showed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa which totally no visual growth on 250mg/L of
aluminium exposure. Based on observations, the value of MIC for Vibrio alginolyticus,

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 951 editor@iaeme.com

 Identification of Acid and Aluminium Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Aluminium Recycling Area

Brochothrix thermosphacta and Moraxella urethralis were 500mg/L while Pseudomonas

aeruginosa was 250mg/L.
Figure 4 showed the optical density of bacterial growth in aluminium contaminated liquid
medium. Based on OD calculation compared to control medium, Vibrio alginolyticus showed
the highest resistance to aluminium exposure in liquid medium followed by Moraxella
urethralis and Brochothrix thermosphacta. The growth of all bacteria tends to be higher than
control medium as the aluminium concentration increased up to 100mg/L. The growth of
Vibrio alginolyticus still higher compared to control medium up to 250mg/L of aluminium
exposure. All bacterial growth, decreased as the aluminium concentration increased from 250
up to 1000mg/L. Based on observations, the value of MTC for Vibrio alginolyticus was
250mg/L while Brochothrix thermosphacta, Moraxella urethralis and Pseudomonas
aeruginosa were 100mg/L.
120
Area of Visual Growth (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
Vibrio alginoliticus Brochothrix Moraxella Pseudomonas
thermosphacta urethralis aeruginosa

Aluminium Concentration (mg/L)

50 100 250 500 1000

Figure 3 Bacterial Growth in Solid Medium After 24hours

2.00
Optical Density 600nm (A)

1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Vibrio alginoliticus Brochothrix Moraxella Pseudomonas
thermosphacta urethralis aeruginosa

Aluminium Concentration (mg/L)

0 50 100 250 500 1000

Figure 4 Bacterial Growth in Liquid Medium After 24hours

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 952 editor@iaeme.com

Ipung Fitri Purwanti, Setyo Budi Kurniawan, Harmin Sulistiyaning Titah and Bieby Voijant Tangahu

4. CONCLUSION
Based on all observations in this research, Moraxella urethralis and Brochothrix
thermosphacta showed to have acid resistant characteristic up to pH 4. Vibrio alginolyticus,
Brochothrix thermosphacta and Moraxella urethralis showed aluminium resistant
characteristic with the value of MIC were 500mg/L. The MTC value for Vibrio alginolyticus
was 250mg/L while Brochothrix thermosphacta, Moraxella urethralis and Pseudomonas
aeruginosa were 100mg/L.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to thank Kemenristek DIKTI through the scheme of Penelitian Unggulan
Perguruan Tinggi / PUPT 2017 for funding this research

REFERENCES
[1] Agostinho A. de Lima e Silva, Márcia A. Ribeiro de Carvalho, Sérgio A. L de Souza,
Patrícia M. Teixeira Dias, Renato G. da Silva Filho, Carmen S. de Meirelles Saramago,
Cleonice A. de Melo Bento, and Ernesto Hofer. 2012. Heavy Metal Tolerance (Cr, Ag and
Hg) in Bacteria Isolated from Sewage. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 1(1): 1620-1631
[2] Ahluwalia, Sarabjeet Singh and Dinesh Goyal. 2007. Microbial and Plant Derived
Biomass for Removal of Heavy Metals from Wastewater. Journal of Bioresource
Technology, 98(2): 2243–2257
[3] Bergey, D.H., Buchanan R.E., Gibbons N.E., and American Society for Microbiology.
1974. Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. Baltimore: Williams and Wikkins
[4] Chau, Ngo Thi Tuong, Le Van Thien and Shinjiro Kanazawa. 2014. Identification and
Characterization of Acidity-Tolerant and Aluminium-Resistant Bacterium from Tea Soil.
African Journal of Biotechnology, 13(27): 2715-2726
[5] Ciric, L., Philp, J. C. and Whiteley, A. S. 2010. Hydrocarbon Utilization Within a Diesel
Degrading Bacterial Consortium. FEMS Microbiol, 303(1): 116-122
[6] Deepali. 2011. Bioremediation of Chromium (VI) from Textile Industry`s Effluent and
Contaminated Soil Using Pseudomonas putida. Journal of Energy & Environment, 2(1):
24-31
[7] Farid, A.F. and J.L.Larsen. 1981. Growth of Vibrio alginolyticus: Interacting Effects on
pH, Temperature, Salt Concentration, and Incubation Time. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie
Mikrobiologie und Hygiene: I. Abt. Originale C: Allgemeine, angewandte und
ökologische Mikrobiologie, 2(1): 68-75
[8] Hard, B. C., C. Walther, and W. Babel. 1999. Sorption of Aluminum by Sulfate-Reducing
Bacteria Isolated from Uranium Mine Tailings. Geomicrobiology Journal, 16(4): 267-275
[9] Heifets, L.B., M.D. Iseman and P.J. Lindholm-Levy. 1986. Ethambutol MICs and MBCs
for Mycobacterium avium complex and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Journal of
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemoterapy, 30(6): 927-932
[10] Ibrahim, Haytham M. M.. 2016. Biodegradation of Used Engine Oil by Novel Strains of
Orchrobactrum anthropic HM-1 and Citrobacter freundii HM-2 Isolated from Oil
Contaminated Soil. Journal of Biotech, 3(226): 1-13
[11] Ingulstad, Mats. 2012. We Want Aluminum, No Excuses: Business-Government Relations
in the American Aluminum Industry, 1917–1957. Tapir Academic Publishing, Oslo,
Norway
[12] IUPAC. 1993. Glossary for Chemists of Terms Used in Toxicology (IUPAC
Recommendations 1993). New York, USA

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 953 editor@iaeme.com

 Identification of Acid and Aluminium Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Aluminium Recycling Area

[13] Klein, Stefanie, Carlos Lorenzo, Sonja Hoffmann, Johannes M. Walther, Sonja Storbeck,
Tanja Piekarski, Bryan J. Tindall, Victor Wray, Manfred Nimtz and Jürgen Moser. 2009.
Adaptation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to Various Conditions Includes tRNA-Dependent
Formation of alanyl-phosphatidylglycerol. Journal of Molecular Microbiology, 71(3):
551–565
[14] Konishi, Shigeki, Ikuo Souta, Jun’ichi Takahashi, Miho Ohmoto and Seiichi Kaneko.
1994. Isolation and Characteristics of Acid- and Aluminum-Tolerant Bacterium.
Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, 58(11): 1960-1963
[15] Leroi, F, Fall PA, Pilet MF, Chevalier F, and Baron R. 2012. Influence of Temperature,
pH and NaCl Concentration on The Maximal Growth Rate of Brochothrix thermosphacta
and a Bioprotective Bacteria Lactococcus piscium CNCM I-4031. Journal of Food
Microbiol, 31(2):222-228
[16] Martins, Mo ´nica, Rita Taborda, Gonc ¸alo Silva, Ana Assunc ¸a ˜o, Anto ´nio Pedro
Matos and Maria Clara Costa. 2012. Aluminum and Sulphate Removal by a Highly Al-
Resistant Dissimilatory Sulphate-Reducing Bacteria Community. Journal of
Biodegradation, 23(1): 693–703
[17] Mittal, Shilpi, Jean-Marie Meyer and Reeta Goel. 2003. Isolation and Characterization of
Aluminium and Copper Resistant ‘P’ Solubilizing Alkalophilic Bacteria. Indian Journal of
Biotechnology, 2(1): 583-586
[18] Mythili, K. and B. Karthikeyan. 2011. Bioremediation of Cr (VI) from Tannery Effluent
using Bacillus spp and Staphylococcus spp. International Multidisciplinary Research
Journal, 1(6): 38-41
[19] Nath, Jayashree and Lalitagauri Ray. 2015. Biosorption of Malachite Green from Aqueous
Solution by Dry Cells of Bacillus cereus M1 16 (MTCC 5521). Journal of Environmental
Chemical Engineering, 3(1): 386–394
[20] Pranowo, Pratiwi Putri and Harmin Sulistyaning Titah. 2016. Isolation and Screening of
Diesel-Degrading Bacteria from the Diesel Contaminated Seawater at Kenjeran Beach,
Surabaya. Environment Asia, 9(2): 165 – 169
[21] Purwanti, Ipung Fitri, Setyo Budi Kurniawan, Bieby Voijant Tangahu and Nalurika Muji
Rahayu. 2017. Bioremediation of Trivalent Chromium in Soil Using Bacteria.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(20): 9346-9350
[22] Purwanti, Ipung Fitri, Siti Rozaimah Sheikh Abdullah, Ainon Hamzah, Musrifah Idris,
Hassan Basri, Muhammad Mukhlisin and Mohd Talib Latif. 2015. Biodegradation of
Diesel by Bacteria Isolated from Scirpus mucronatus Rhizosphere in Diesel-Contaminated
Sand. Journal of Advanced Science, (2)1: 140-143
[23] Ruangpan, L. 2004. Chapter 3. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Test and
Determination of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria. Laboratory Manual of Standardized
Method for Antimicrobial Sensitivity Test for Bacteria Isolated from Aquatic Animals and
Environment (31-55). Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines
[24] Tsakiridis, P.E. 2012. Aluminium Salt Slag Characterization and Utilization – A Review.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2(1): 1–10

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 954 editor@iaeme.com

View publication stats