Research Article | Volume 10, Supplement 2, July, 2022

Characterization of tannery effluents by analyzing the recalcitrant organic pollutants and phytotoxicity assay

Sandeep Kumar Ashutosh Yadav Annapurna MauryaShalini G. Pratap Pramod Kumar Singh Abhay Raj   

Open Access   

Published:  Jun 20, 2022

DOI: 10.7324/JABB.2022.10s210

The tannery industries have greatly improved their treatment system; treated effluents still need to be properly delineated for contaminants and toxicity. In this study, the analysis of both raw and treated tannery effluents (TEs) revealed the maximum reduction of chromium (91%), followed by chemical oxygen demand (COD) (76.7%), total dissolved solids (TDSs) (43.3%), oil and grease (37.2%), and biological oxygen demand (BOD) (33.3%) after common effluent treatment plant (CETP) treatment. Further, the concentration of TDS (13,317 ± 2.7 mg/l), BOD (280 ± 4.47 mg/l), COD (409 ± 2.4 mg/l), sulfate (3773 ± 7.3 mg/l), nitrate (734.86 ± 0.4 mg/l), chloride (8053.59 ± 18.7 mg/l), and chromium (7.153 ± 0.02 mg/l) in treated TE was 6.3-, 9.3-, 1.6-, 3.8-, 73.4-, 13.4-, and 3.6-fold higher than the permissible limit fixed by Central Pollution Control Board. Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis revealed the presence of recalcitrant organic pollutants such as furan, phthalate, and fatty acid in CETP-treated TE. Phytotoxicity investigation of TE on fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) and mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) seeds germination shows that both raw and CETP-treated TEs were inhibitory for seed germination and plant growth. Further, treated TE inhibited seed germination (30%), root length (97.3%), and shoot length (88.7%) in T. foenum-graecum and at 50% concentration, respectively. However, CETP-treated TE was less toxic than the raw TE. Further, fenugreek seeds were more sensitive to TE, as they could not be germinated in both undiluted raw and treated TEs. The finding of the present study reveals that CETP-treated effluents contain a complex mixture of toxic contaminants, indicating that it is not safe to discharge these effluents into the environment.

Keyword:     Tannery effluent Common effluent treatment plant Recalcitrant organic pollutants Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry Phytotoxicity


Kumar S, Yadav A, Maurya A, Pratap SG, Singh PK, Raj A. Characterization of tannery effluents by analyzing the recalcitrant organic pollutants and phytotoxicity assay. J App Biol Biotech. 2022;10(Suppl 2):91-99. DOI: https://doi.org10.7324/JABB.2022.10s210

Copyright: Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.

HTML Full Text

1. Tadesse GL, Guya TK, Walabu M. Impacts of tannery effluent on environments and human health: A review article. Adv Life Sci Technol 2017;54:10.

2. Yadav A, Yadav P, Raj A, Ferreira LF, Saratale GD, Bharagava RN. Tannery wastewater: A major source of residual organic pollutants and pathogenic microbes and their treatment strategies. In: Singh C, Tiwari S, Singh JS, Yadav AN, editors, Microbes in Agriculture and Environmental Development. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2020. p. 245-64.

3. Yadav A, Mishra S, Kaithwas G, Raj A, Bharagava RN. Organic pollutants and pathogenic bacteria in tannery wastewater and their removal strategies. In: Singh JS, Singh DP, editors. Microbes and Environmental Management. New Delhi, India: Studium Press Pvt. Ltd.; 2016a. p. 104-30.

4. Raj A, Kumar S, Haq I, Kumar M. Detection of tannery effluents induced DNA damage in mung bean by use of random amplified polymorphic DNA markers. ISRN Biotechnol 2014;727:623.

5. Yadav P, Yadav A, Srivastava JK, Raj A. Reduction of pollution load of tannery effluent by cell immobilization approach using Ochrobactrum intermedium. J Water Process Eng 2021;41:102059.

6. Saxena G, Chandra R, Bharagava RN. Environmental pollution, toxicity profile and treatment approaches for tannery wastewater and its chemical pollutants. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 2016;240:31-69.

7. Dixit S, Yadav A, Dwivedi PD, Das M. Toxic hazards of leather industry and technologies to combat threat: A review. J Clean Prod 2015;87:39-49.

8. Nur E, Alam M, Mia MA, Ahmad F, Rahman MM. An overview of chromium removal techniques from tannery effluent. Appl Water Sci 2020;10:1-22.

9. Saxena G, Purchase D, Mulla SI, Bharagava RN. Degradation and detoxification of leather tannery effluent by a newly developed bacterial consortium GS-TE1310 for environmental safety. J Water Process Eng 2020;38:101592.

10. Bharagava RN, Mishra S. Hexavalent chromium reduction potential of Cellulosimicrobium sp. isolated from common effluent treatment plant of tannery industries. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2018;147:102-9.

11. Kumari V, Yadav A, Haq I, Kumar S, Bharagava RN, Singh SK, et al. Genotoxicity evaluation of tannery effluent treated with newly isolated hexavalent chromium reducing Bacillus cereus. J Environ Manage 2016;183:204-11.

12. Chandra R, Bharagava RN, Kapley A, Purohit HJ. Bacterial diversity, organic pollutants and their metabolites in two aeration lagoons of common effluent treatment plant (CETP) during the degradation and detoxification of tannery wastewater. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:2333-41.

13. Das C, Naseera K, Ram A, Meena RM, Ramaiah N. Bioremediation of tannery wastewater by a salt-tolerant strain of Chlorella vulgaris. J Appl Phycol 2017;29:235-43.

14. Ashraf S, Naveed M, Afzal M, Ashraf S, Rehman K, Hussain A, et al. Bioremediation of tannery effluent by Cr-and salt-tolerant bacterial strains. Environ Monitor Assess 2018;190:1-11.

15. Mishra S, Bharagava RN. Toxic and genotoxic effects of hexavalent chromium in environment and its bioremediation strategies. J Environ Sci Health Part C 2016;34:1-32.

16. Yadav A, Raj A, Purchase D, Ferreira LF, Saratale GD, Bharagava RN. Phytotoxicity, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity evaluation of organic and inorganic pollutants rich tannery wastewater from a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) in Unnao district, India using Vigna radiata and Allium cepa. Chemosphere 2019;224:324-32.

17. Yadav A, Raj A, Bharagava RN. Detection and characterization of a multi-drug and multi-metal resistant Enterobacterium pantoea sp. from tannery wastewater after secondary treatment process. Int J Plant Environ 2016b;2:37-42.

18. Saberali SF, Moradi M. Effect of salinity on germination and seedling growth of Trigonella foenum-graecum, Dracocephalum moldavica, Satureja hortensis and Anethum graveolens. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 2019;18:316-23.

19. Sharma P, Tripathi S, Vadakedath N, Chandra R. In-situ toxicity assessment of pulp and paper industry wastewater on Trigonella foenum-graecum L: Potential source of cytotoxicity and chromosomal damage. Environ Technol Innov 2020;21:101251.

20. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twenty-second ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environmental Federation, Washington, DC: APHA; 2012. p. 981.

21. DIFCO. Difco Manual. 10th ed. Detroit, Michigan: DIFCO Laboratories Inc.; 1984.

22. Minuti L, Pellegrino RM, Tesei I. Simple extraction method and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in the selective ion monitoring mode for the determination of phenols in wine. J Chromatogr A 2006;1114:263-8.

23. De Marco, Savarese E, Paduano M, Sacchi R. Characterization and fractionation of phenolic compounds extracted from olive oil mill wastewaters. Food Chem 2007;104:858-67.

24. Maurya A, Kumar R, Singh A, Raj A. Investigation on biofilm formation activity of Enterococcus faecium under various physiological conditions and possible application in bioremediation of tannery effluent. Bioresour Technol 2021;339:125586.

25. Central Pollution Control Board. Pollution Assessment: River Ganga. Status of Grossly Polluting Industries, GPI. New Delhi: Central Pollution Control Board; 2013. Available from:

26. Sugasini A, Rajagopal K. Characterization of physicochemical parameters and heavy metal analysis of tannery effluent. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 2015;4:349-59.

27. Deepa S, Valivittan K, Indira V, Tharadevi CS. Characterization of tannery wastewater, thirumudivakkam, Chennai, tamilnadu. J Basic Appl Biol 2011;5:265-70.

28. Thakur IS, Srivastava S. Bioremediation and bioconversion of chromium and pentachlorophenol in tannery effluent by microorganisms. Int J Technol 2011;2:224-33.

29. Sharma S, Malaviya P. Bioremediation of tannery wastewater by Aspergillus niger SPFSL2-a isolated from tannery sludge. J Basic Appl Sci 2013;2:88-93.

30. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Priority Pollutant List; 2014. Available from:

31. Lofrano G, Meriç S, Zengi GE, Orhon D. Chemical and biological treatment technologies for leather tannery chemicals and wastewaters: A review. Sci Tot Environ 2013;461:265-81.

32. Chowdhary P, Yadav A, Singh R, Chandra R, Singh DP, Raj A, et al. Stress response of Triticum aestivum L. and Brassica juncea L. against heavy metals growing at distillery and tannery wastewater contaminated site. Chemosphere 2018;206:122-31.

33. Numberger D, Ganzert L, Zoccarato L, Mühldorfer K, Sauer S, Grossart H, et al. A characterization of bacterial communities in wastewater with enhanced taxonomic resolution by full-length 16S rRNA sequencing. Sci Rep 2019;9:9673.

34. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Universe of Chemicals for Potential Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing; 2012. Available from:

35. Haq I, Kalamdhad AS. Phytotoxicity and cyto-genotoxicity evaluation of organic and inorganic pollutants containing petroleum refinery wastewater using plant bioassay. Environ Technol Innov 2021;23:101651.

36. Rusan MJ, Albalasmeh AA, Zuraiqi S, Bashabsheh M. Evaluation of phytotoxicity effect of olive mill wastewater treated by different technologies on seed germination of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Environ Sci Pollut Res 2015;22:9127-35.

37. Lyu J, Park J, Pandey LK, Choi S, Lee H, De Saeger J, et al. Testing the toxicity of metals, phenol, effluents, and receiving waters by root elongation in Lactuca sativa L. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2018;149:225-32.

38. Mehrotra T, Shukla A, Singh R. In vitro toxicological evaluation of domestic effluent treated by formulated synthetic autochthonous bacterial consortium. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2019;35:1-13.

39. Kaboosi K. The assessment of treated wastewater quality and the effects of mid-term irrigation on soil physical and chemical properties (case study: Bandargaz-treated wastewater). Appl Water Sci 2017;7:2385-96.

Article Metrics

15 Absract views 52 PDF Downloads 67 Total views

Related Search

By author names

Citiaion Alert By Google Scholar

Similar Articles