Common effluent treatment plant (CETP) is employed for treatment of tannery effluent. However, the performance of CETP for reducing the genotoxic substances from the raw effluent is not known. In this study, phytotoxic and genotoxic effects of tannery effluents were investigated in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). For this purpose, untreated and treated tannery effluents were collected from CETP Unnao (UP), India. Seeds of mung bean were grown in soil irrigated with various concentrations of tannery effluents (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%) for 15 days. Inhibition of seed germination was 90% by 25% untreated effluent and 75% treated effluent, compared to the control. Plant growth was inhibited by 51% and 41% when irrigated with untreated and treated effluents at 25% concentration. RAPD technique was used to evaluate the genotoxic effect of tannery effluents (untreated and treated) irrigation on the mung bean. The RAPD profiles obtained showed that both untreated and treated were having genotoxic effects on mung bean plants. This was discernible with appearance/disappearance of bands in the treatments compared with control plants. A total of 87 RAPD bands were obtained using eight primers and 42 (48%) of these showed polymorphism. Irrigating plants with untreated effluent caused 12 new bands to appear and 18 to disappear. Treated effluent caused 8 new bands and the loss of 15 bands. The genetic distances shown on the dendrogram revealed that control plants and those irrigated with treated effluent were clustered in one group (joined at distance of 0.28), whereas those irrigated with untreated effluent were separated in another cluster at larger distance (joined at distance of 0.42). This indicates that treated effluent is less genotoxic than the untreated. Nei’s genetic similarity indices calculated between the treatments and the control plants showed that the control and the plants irrigated with treated tannery effluent had a similarity index of 0.75, the control and plants irrigated with untreated 0.65, and between the treatments 0.68. We conclude that both untreated and treated effluents contain genotoxic substances that caused DNA damage to mung beans. CETP Unnao removes some, but not all, genotoxic substances from tannery effluent. Consequently, use of both untreated and treated wastewater for irrigation poses health hazard to human and the environment. 1. Introduction Large amount of water and chemicals like chromium, sodium chloride, sulphate, calcium salts, ammonium salts, sodium sulphide, alkali, acids, fat, liquor, and organic dyes are used
References
[1]
J. Jawahar, M. Chinnadurai, J. K. S. Ponselvan, and G. Annadurai, “Pollution from tanneries and options for treatment of effluent,” Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, vol. 18, pp. 672–672, 1998.
[2]
K. Gupta, S. Gautam, and K. Mishra, “Studies on phyto-genotoxic assessment of tannery effluent and chromium on Allium cepa,” Journal of Environmental Biology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 557–563, 2012.
[3]
P. Mishra and A. K. Bera, “Effect of tannery effluent on seed germination and early seedling growth in wheat,” Seed Research, vol. 23, pp. 129–131, 1995.
[4]
G. Rao and N. V. Kumar, “Impact of tannery effluent on seed germinability and chlorophyll contents of Cicer arientinum L.,” Pollution Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 33–36, 1983.
[5]
H. Sandermann Jr., “Higher plant metabolism of xenobiotics: the “green liver” concept,” Pharmacogenetics, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 225–241, 1994.
[6]
S. T. Matsumoto, M. S. Mantovani, M. I. A. Malaguttii, A. L. Dias, I. C. Fonseca, and M. A. Marin-Morales, “Genotoxicity and mutagenicity of water contaminated with tannery effluents as evaluated by the micronucleus test and comet assay using the fish Oreochromis niloticus and chromosome aberrations in onion root-tips,” Genetics and Molecular Biology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 148–158, 2006.
[7]
S. Cambier, P. Gonzalez, G. Durrieu, and J.-P. Bourdineaud, “Cadmium-induced genotoxicity in zebrafish at environmentally relevant doses,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 312–319, 2010.
[8]
D. Savva, “Use of DNA fingerprinting to detect genotoxic effects,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 103–106, 1998.
[9]
F. A. Atienzar, M. Conradi, A. J. Evenden, A. N. Jha, and M. H. Depledge, “Qualitative assessment of genotoxicity using random amplified polymorphic DNA: comparison of genomic template stability with key fitness parameters in Daphnia magna exposed to benzo[a]pyrene,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 2275–2282, 1999.
[10]
F. A. Atienzar, B. Cordi, M. E. Donkin, A. J. Evenden, A. N. Jha, and M. H. Depledge, “Comparison of ultraviolet-induced genotoxicity detected by random amplified polymorphic DNA with chlorophyll fluorescence and growth in a marine macroalgae, Palmariapalmata,” Aquatic Toxicology, vol. 50, no. 1-2, pp. 1–12, 2000.
[11]
M. R. Enan, “Application of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) to detect the genotoxic effect of heavy metals,” Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 147–154, 2006.
[12]
Y.-C. Lee, V. C. Yang, and T.-S. Wang, “Use of RAPD to detect sodium arsenite-induced DNA damage in human lymphoblastoid cells,” Toxicology, vol. 239, no. 1-2, pp. 108–115, 2007.
[13]
S. Cenkci, M. Yildiz, I. H. Ci？erci, M. Konuk, and A. Bozda？, “Toxic chemicals-induced genotoxicity detected by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seedlings,” Chemosphere, vol. 76, no. 7, pp. 900–906, 2009.
[14]
W. Liu, L. Sun, M. Zhong et al., “Cadmium-induced DNA damage and mutations in Arabidopsis plantlet shoots identified by DNA fingerprinting,” Chemosphere, vol. 89, no. 9, pp. 1048–1055, 2012.
[15]
P. W. Ramteke, S. Awasthi, T. Srinath, and B. Joseph, “Efficiency assessment of Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) treating tannery effluents,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 169, no. 1–4, pp. 125–131, 2010.
[16]
APHA (American Public Health Association), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, USA, 21st edition, 2005.
[17]
M. Nei, “Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals,” Genetics, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 583–590, 1978.
[18]
F. C. Yeh, R. Yang, T. J. Boyle, Z. Ye, and J. M. Xiyan, POPGENE 32, Microsoft Window-Based Freeware for Population Genetic Analysis, Version 1.32, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, 2000.
[19]
ISI (Indian Standard Institute), “Tolerance limits of industrial wastewater discharge into inland surface water,” Tech. Rep. 2490, Indian Standard Institute, New Delhi, India, 1974.
[20]
H. Oliveira, “Chromium as an environmental pollutant: insight on induced plant toxicity: a review,” Journal of Botany, vol. 2012, Article ID 375843, 8 pages, 2012.
[21]
L. Malla and B. K. Mohanty, “Effect of paper mill effluent on germination of green gram (Phaseolus aureus Roxb.) and growth behaviour of it's seedlings,” Journal of Environmental Biology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 379–382, 2005.
[22]
S. Karunyal, G. Renuga, and K. Paliwal, “Effects of tannery effluent on seed germination, leaf area, biomass and mineral content of some plants,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 215–218, 1994.
[23]
M. H. Nielsen and J. Rank, “Screening of toxicity and genotoxicity in wastewater by the use of the Allium test,” Hereditas, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 249–254, 1994.
[24]
C. K. Grisolia, A. B. B. de Oliveira, H. Bonfim, and M. N. Klautau-Guimar？es, “Genotoxicity evaluation of domestic sewage in a municipal wastewater treatment plant,” Genetics and Molecular Biology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 334–338, 2005.
[25]
K. M. Swaileh, R. Hussein, and A. Ezzughayyar, “Evaluating wastewater-induced plant genotoxicity using randomly amplified polymorphic DNA,” Environmental Toxicology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 117–122, 2008.
[26]
P. Padmesh, K. K. Sabu, S. Seeni, and P. Pushpangadan, “The use of RAPD in assessing genetic variability in Andrographis paniculata Nees, a hepatoprotective drug,” Current Science, vol. 76, no. 7, pp. 833–835, 1999.
[27]
H. D. Wolf, R. Blust, and T. Backeljau, “The use of RAPD in ecotoxicology,” Mutation Research, vol. 566, no. 3, pp. 249–262, 2004.
[28]
F. A. Atienzar and A. N. Jha, “The random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assay and related techniques applied to genotoxicity and carcinogenesis studies: a critical review,” Mutation Research, vol. 613, no. 2-3, pp. 76–102, 2006.
[29]
F. A. Atienzar, P. Venier, A. N. Jha, and M. H. Depledge, “Evaluation of the random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assay for the detection of DNA damage and mutations,” Mutation Research, vol. 521, no. 1-2, pp. 151–163, 2002.
[30]
M. Lynch, “The similarity index and DNA fingerprinting,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 478–484, 1990.
[31]
S. P. B. Kamaludeen, M. Megharaj, A. L. Juhasz, N. Sethunathan, and R. Naidu, “Chromium-microorganism interactions in soils: remediation implications,” Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 178, pp. 93–164, 2003.
[32]
G. Koppen and L. Verschaeve, “The alkaline comet test on plant cells: a new genotoxicity test for DNA strand breaks in Vicia faba root cells,” Mutation Research, vol. 360, no. 3, pp. 193–200, 1996.
[33]
M. Labra, F. Grassi, S. Imazio et al., “Genetic and DNA-methylation changes induced by potassium dichromate in Brassica napus L.,” Chemosphere, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1049–1058, 2004.
[34]
M. Labra, T. di Fabio, F. Grassi et al., “AFLP analysis as biomarker of exposure to organic and inorganic genotoxic substances in plants,” Chemosphere, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1183–1188, 2003.
[35]
S. Knasmüller, E. Gottmann, H. Steinkellner et al., “Detection of genotoxic effects of heavy metal contaminated soils with plant bioassays,” Mutation Research, vol. 420, no. 1–3, pp. 37–48, 1998.
[36]
D. I. Olorunfemi, G. E. Okoloko, A. A. Bakare, and A. Akinboro, “Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of cassava effluents using the Allium cepa assay,” Research Journal of Mutagenesis, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2011.
