Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Microbial-Based Bioremediation of Selenium and Tellurium Compounds

Written By

Elena Piacenza, Alessandro Presentato, Emanuele Zonaro, Silvia Lampis, Giovanni Vallini and Raymond J. Turner

Submitted: 20 April 2017 Reviewed: 31 October 2017 Published: 20 December 2017

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72096

From the Edited Volume


Edited by Jan Derco and Branislav Vrana

Chapter metrics overview

1,550 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


The chalcogens selenium (Se) and tellurium (Te) are rare earth elements, which are mainly present in the environment as toxic oxyanions, due to the anthropogenic activities. Thus, the increased presence of these chalcogen-species in the environment and the contamination of wastewaters nearby processing facilities led to the necessity in developing remediation strategies aimed to detoxify waters, soils and sediments. Among the different decontamination approaches, those based on the ability of microorganisms to bioaccumulate, biomethylate or bioconvert Se- and/or Te-oxyanions are considered the leading strategy for achieving a safe and eco-friendly bioremediation of polluted sites. Recently, several technologies based on the use of bacterial pure cultures, bacterial biofilms or microbial consortia grown in reactors with different configurations have been explored for Se- and Te-decontamination purposes. Further, the majority of microorganisms able to process chalcogen-oxyanions have been described to generate valuable Se- and/or Te-nanomaterials as end-products of their bioconversion, whose potential applications in biomedicine, optoelectronics and environmental engineering are still under investigation. Here, the occurrence, the use and the toxicity of Se- and Te-compounds will be briefly overviewed, while the microbial mechanisms of chalcogen-oxyanions bioprocessing, as well as the microbial-based strategies used for bioremediation approaches will be extensively described.


  • selenium
  • tellurium
  • bioremediation
  • microbial consortia
  • biological reactors

1. Introduction

The chalcogens tellurium (Te) and selenium (Se) are naturally occurring rare elements of the Earth crust belonging to the group 16 of the periodic table that are defined as metalloids, due to their intermediate chemical–physical properties between metal and non-metals [1]. Te estimated average amount in the environment is around 0.027 ppm [2], while Se is unevenly distributed on the Earth’s surface with a concentration ranging from 0.01 to 1200 ppm [3, 4]. These elements can be found in natural rocks and ores, soils, sediments or in association with rare minerals (e.g., calaverite AuTe2, sylvanite AgAuTe4, crooksite CuTlSe, calusthalite PbSe) [4, 5, 6]. Moreover, Se is an essential micronutrient for living systems, being part of the structure of several important enzymes, (i.e., glutathione peroxidases and thioredoxin reductases), as the 21st amino acid seleno-cysteine, in at least 25 human selenoproteins [7], while, to date, any biological function has been ascribed to Te [8]. Both these chalcogens exist in four different valence states in the environment (i.e., +VI, +IV, 0 and –II), and among them the oxyanion forms of Selenate (SeO42−), Tellurate (TeO42−), Selenite (SeO32−) and Tellurite (TeO32−) are the most abundant in soils and waters [9, 10].

The wide spread use of Se- and Te-compounds by anthropogenic activities related to oil refining, phosphate and metal ore mining, electronics and industrial glasses, have led to an increase in the presence of these chemicals in the environment [6, 11]. In this regard, although Se is an essential micronutrient, it is toxic at concentrations higher than the human dietary requirement (25–30 μg day−1) [10], while the toxicity exerted by Te is even more dramatic, negatively affecting both prokaryotes and eukaryotes at concentration as low as 1 μg mL−1 [6]. Particularly, Se- and Te- oxyanions are recognized as harsh toxicants of public health and environmental concern due to their association with oxygen, which makes them highly bioavailable, enabling the mobilization of Se- and Te-compounds through water and soil [12, 13]. On the contrary, Se and Te organic forms (e.g., dimethyl selenide, trimethyl selenonium, selenomethionine, selenocysteine, Se-methilselenocysteine, dimethyl telluride), as well as their zero-valence states (Se0 and Te0) showed lower toxicity levels [2, 12, 14]. Considering the shared physical–chemical features of Se and Te, the suggested mechanism of toxicity exerted by the chalcogen-oxyanions is based on their interaction with glutathione molecules (GSHs) and related molecules, which are likely responsible for their reduction [8, 13, 15]. This bioconversion mechanism leads to the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) [16] or superoxide ions (O2−) [17], therefore causing cell death [18, 19, 20]. An additional target of TeO32− is the impairment of the heme metabolism in E. coli K-12 cells, by which this oxyanion is responsible for the accumulation of the heme precursor protoporphyrin IX, causing iron depletion and, subsequently, cell death [21].

Despite the toxic effects of Se- and Te-oxyanions, in the last 20 years several microorganisms able to sequester, bioconvert or biomethylate these chalcogen-ions have been isolated from extreme environments, such as ocean hydrothermal vents and the highly alkaline water Monolake (California), to name a few [22]. Mainly anaerobic or facultative-anaerobic bacteria capable of growing phototrophycally or chemotrophycally under oxic and anoxic conditions have been described for their metabolic potential in bioconverting these species, while much less is known about strictly aerobic microorganisms [23]. In this regard, anaerobic microorganisms have been described for their use of chalcogen-oxyanions as terminal electron acceptors to sustain their growth [19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. Although the exact biochemical mechanisms behind Se and Te metabolism and bioconversion in these microorganisms have not been fully elucidated, there is a strong movement toward eco-friendly approaches for bioremediation of chalcogen-contaminated areas of interest. Moreover, among bacterial strains able to bioconvert Se- and Te-oxyanions in their less toxic and less bioavailable elemental form (i.e., Se0 and Te0), some of them were characterized for the generation of either intra- or extracellular precipitates and/or nanomaterials, for example, nanoparticles (NPs) and nanorods (NRs) [8, 19].

Here, we will overview the microbial-based strategies that, to date, are applied as tools for bioremediation purposes of chalcogens polluted environments, and briefly will be described the valuable role of bacteria for the recovery of metalloids in their zero-valence state in the form of nanomaterials.

1.1. Environmental toxicity of selenium and tellurium compounds

Annually, the total average amount of either Se or Te produced worldwide is 2500–2800 or 220 tons, respectively, with USA, Japan, Russia, Canada, Germany, Belgium and Sweden as main manufacturers [7, 30]. The accumulation of Se- or Te-compounds in the environment mainly relies on their anthropogenic use in several application fields, causing therefore their emission in the atmosphere [31, 32]. Se-accumulation derives from metallurgic industries, glass manufactures, pigments production, electronics and agriculture applications [33], while Te-containing compounds are used in copper refining [19], tarnishing metals [34], vulcanization of rubber [8], production of color glass or ceramics [19], photovoltaic cells and solar panels [8], as well as catalysis of several reactions [19]. Recently, the possibility to develop new Te-based nanomaterials such as fluorescent quantum dots (QDs) has been extensively investigated to create new high-tech probes in biological detection [8, 35], exasperating the already dramatic waste disposal circumstances.

Among the different Se-species present in the environment, the inorganic forms of Se2−, SeO42−, or SeO32− are generally found in surface and ground waters as pollutants [36], while the organic and volatile ones (i.e., methylselenides, trimethylselenonium ions and selenoamino acids) occur in air and soils [37]. Similarly, Te-compounds result to be highly concentrated either in soils [38, 39] or waters [34] mainly in the form of TeO42− and TeO32−, being the latter highly soluble and toxic [35, 40, 41].

The presence of Se- and Te-compounds in water reservoirs has become a problem for both human health and ecological wildlife [42, 43, 44, 45], which led to the development of several strategies aimed to protect aquatic and human life [46], as Se-poisoning events have occurred in the last few years worldwide, such as in the Kesterson Wildlife reservoir (California) [47], the uranium mine in Saskatchewan (Canada), and the Lake Sutton (USA) [48], causing physical deformities and mutations [46]. The major areas of the world affected by water contamination due to the presence of SeO42− and SeO32− are North America, Australia and New Zealand [23], while higher level of Te-oxyanions has been detected in the surface waters of Te-contaminated basins in Angola and Panama as compared to the deep ones, indicating a difference in behavior between Te and Se, which, as nutrient, is usually highly concentrated in the deep ocean [49]. Finally, Te-compounds emission in the atmosphere is now investigating, even if the implication related to the presence of Te-species in the air has not been established yet [19].


2. Bioremediation of chalcogen-contaminated environments

The exploitation of microorganisms for the decontamination of Se- and/or Te-polluted environments is based on the capability of several bacterial strains to sequester, bioconvert or biomethylate chalcogen-oxyanions [19]. Se- or Te-species sequestration is achieved by microorganisms through either their uptake in the bacterial cell or the interaction with charged surface biomolecules [19], while the bioconversion of these oxyanions in bacteria leads to their reduction to Se0 and Te0 in the form of metalloid precipitates [19]. Further, some microorganisms can biomethylate Se or Te-oxyanions, producing volatile methyl derivatives, which can react in the atmosphere with NO3 radicals, ozone and atmospheric particles, increasing their residence times [19, 50].

2.1. Bioremediation of Se-polluted environments using bacterial pure cultures as planktonic cells

In the last 30 years, Se-oxyanions sequestration by microorganisms has been investigated as a potential strategy for the decontamination of Se-polluted environments. Indeed, several bacterial strains have been described for their ability to uptake SeO42− and/or SeO32− using several processes, such as the sulfate transporter in E. coli [51], the sulfate permease in Salmonella typhimurium [52], the sulfite uptake system in Clostridium pasteurianum [53], the polyol ABC transporter in R. sphaeroides [54]. Thus, once inside the bacterial cell, the sequestered Se-oxyanions are usually incorporated into Se-amino acids (i.e., seleno-cysteine and -methionine) to biosynthesize selenoproteins [55].

An alternative Se-bioremediation approach is based on the bacteria’s ability to biomethylate Se-oxyanions, resulting in the production of Se-methyl derivates (i.e., dimethyl selenide, dimethyl selenyl sulfide, dimethyl diselenide), as in the case of Aeromonas sp. VS6, Citrobacter freundii KS8 and P. fluorescens K27 [56], Clostridium collagenovorans, Desulfovibrio gigas and Desulfovibrio vulgaris [57], Enterobacter cloacae SLS1a-1 [58], R. sphaeroides and R. rubrum S1 [59]. Se-oxyanions biomethylation is achieved in microorganisms through the Challenger mechanism [56], which consists of several reduction-methylation steps that change Se-redox state from either VI or IV to II [60].

Recently, the exploitation of microorganisms able to bioconvert Se-oxyanions to Se0 has emerged as a cost-effective green alternative strategy for the decontamination of Se-polluted environments, with a particular focus on surface waters and wastewaters. To date, Se-bioremediation approaches exploit bacterial strains capable of reducing SeO42− and SeO32− [23] either to conserve energy [61, 62, 63] or to detoxify their environmental niches [23]. Since Se-oxyanions bio-reduction under anoxic conditions is more characterized as compared to the aerobic mode, mainly anaerobic bacterial strains have been used for Se-decontamination purposes [23]. However, studies evaluating either SeO42− or SeO32− bioconversion by aerobic or microaerophilic microorganisms have also been conducted [61, 64, 65, 66, 67], highlighting some disadvantages of these experimental conditions: a competition between the dissolved oxygen and the Se-oxyanion as terminal electron acceptor [68, 69], and the additional energetic cost to aerate a bioreactor [23]. Regardless, aerobic bacterial strains have been explored as pure cultures at laboratory scale for Se-bioremediation purposes, yet little work about the use of these microorganisms for large-scale applications have been conducted [23].

Among the microorganisms described for their tolerance toward Se-oxyanions, bacterial strains belonging to Pseudomonas, Desulfovibrio, Thauera, Enterobacter, Wolinella and Bacillus genera have been characterized for their capability to bioconvert SeO42− to SeO32− mainly under anoxic growth conditions [61, 70, 71]. Moreover, several anaerobic microorganisms have been characterized for their use of SeO42− as terminal electron acceptor to support their growth [26, 70, 71, 72, 73], coupling the bioconversion of this Se-oxyanion to the oxidation of different carbon sources, such as aliphatic (pyruvate, lactate, acetate) as well as aromatic compounds (i.e., benzoate, 3-hydroxybenzoate, 4-hydroxybenzoate) [61, 74, 75]. Nevertheless, facultative anaerobes, such as Pseudomonas stutzeri, showed their proficiency of bioreducing SeO42− solely for detoxification purposes [70].

Unlike SeO42−, both aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms can bioconvert the highly soluble and reactive SeO32− [76] into Se0 through either detoxification strategies or anaerobic respiration [77, 78, 79]. SeO32− detoxification occurs through several mechanisms based on Painter-type reactions [17, 80, 81, 82], where glutaredoxin/thioredoxin reductase systems [19, 83] and siderophores mediate the oxyanion reduction [19, 65]. SeO32− detoxification is mostly achieved by thiol molecules present in the cytoplasm of bacterial cells, such as GSHs, mycothiols (MSHs), and glutaredoxins [17, 84]. Moreover, GSHs can be exported into the periplasm of Gram-negative bacteria, leading to the bioreduction of SeO32− in the periplasm or at their cell membrane [85]. Secondary SeO32−-detoxification strategies exploited by microorganisms involved the interaction between SeO32− and reactive biogenic sulfide, [86, 87], as well as the exploitation of iron siderophores [19, 88]. On the other hand, SeO32− bioconversion during anaerobic respiration is mostly mediated by the presence of terminal nitrite, sulfite or fumarate reductases [19, 24, 61, 66, 67, 72, 89, 90], as described for T. selenatis AX, Rhizobium sullae HCNT1 and C. pasteurianum, to name a few [91, 92, 93]. Further, Geobacter sulfurreducens [94], Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 [90] and Veillonella atypica [94] showed high proficiency in bioreducing SeO32− to Se0 through dissimilatory reduction in anoxic conditions, while among the bacterial strains able to anaerobically bioconvert SeO42− into SeO32−, a high yield of Se0 production by further reducing SeO32− has been observed for Bacillus beveridgei [22], D. indicum [75], Desulfovibrio desulfuricans [95], E. cloacae SLD1a-1 [96] and Sulfospirillum barnesii SES-3 [25, 96]. Nevertheless, fewer bacterial species (i.e., Bacillus selenitireducens and Aquificales sp.) have been described for their ability to use SeO32− as terminal electron acceptor as compared to those using SeO42− [26, 27].

2.2. Bioremediation of Te-polluted environments using bacterial pure cultures as planktonic cells

Although Te does not have an essential biological role for living organisms [8], bacterial cells are able to uptake Te-oxyanions and to biomethylate and/or bioconvert them either as a decontamination strategy or during the anaerobic respiration [8, 19]. Particularly, TeO32− uptake within bacterial cells has been ascribed to the phosphate transporter in E. coli [97], Lactococcus lactis [98] and R. capsulatus [99, 100], considering that this Te-species is a strong competitive inhibitor of the phosphate group [19]. However, other carriers can be used to assist TeO32− uptake in microorganisms, such as the ActP monocarboxylate transporter of R. capsulatus [101], as well as an ATP-dependent efflux pump responsible for the arsenite/arsenate/antimonite resistance in E. coli [102]. Since Te shares several chemical properties with Se, microorganisms tolerant and/or resistant toward Te-oxyanions process them exploiting similar mechanisms to those described above for Se-species. In this regard, the biomethylation of Te-oxyanions to produce dimethyl telluride and dimethyl ditelluride [56] has been observed in several bacteria able to biomethylate Se-oxyanions as well, such as R. rubrum G9, R. capsulatus [59], P. fluorescens K27 [103] and D. gigas [57]. Moreover, P. aeruginosa ML4262 [104], G. stearothermophilus V [105] and Mycobacterium tuberculosis [106] showed their capability of biomethylating only Te-oxyanions.

Despite of TeO32− presence in lower amount in the environment compared to TeO42− [39], tellurite showed toxicity 10 times higher than tellurate [40, 41], leading the experimental research to focus on the study of TeO32−-tolerant/resistant microorganisms as ideal candidate for bioremediation purposes. Nevertheless, B. beveridgei [22], B. selenitireducens, S. barnesii [29] and Shewanella frigidimarina ER-Te-48 [28, 107] showed their ability under anaerobic growth conditions to use both TeO42− and TeO32− oxyanions as terminal electron acceptors in the respiratory chain to sustain their growth [8]. To date, the proposed mechanisms of Te-oxyanions bioconversion in microorganisms are similar to those described for Se-species [13, 56, 88, 104, 108]. Further, TeO32− processing in microorganisms have been ascribed to enzymatic reductions by periplasmic or cytoplasmic oxidoreductases [107, 109], such as nitrate reductases [109, 110], catalases [111] and thiol:disulfide oxidoreductase [112]. However, the function of all these enzymes for bioconverting Te-oxyanions appears to be not specific, leading to a low resistance level toward Te-species in these microorganisms. To date, only one specific TeO32− reductase has been identified as responsible for the anaerobic respiration of this Te-oxyanion in Bacillus sp. GT-83 [113].

2.3. Bioremediation of chalcogen-polluted environments based on bacterial biofilms

The majority of the investigations regarding the bioremediation of Se- and Te-contaminated environments have been focused on the exploitation of bacterial species grown as free planktonic cells [8]. However, in natural settings microorganisms are most often found in close association with surfaces and interfaces as complex communities, which are indicated as biofilms [114, 115, 116]. In bacterial biofilms, the cells are embedded and protected from the surrounding environments by the presence of a matrix defined as Extracellular Polymeric Substance, containing a high amount of water, polysaccharides, proteins, extracellular-DNA (e-DNA) and lipids [117, 118]. The communal life of bacterial cells in the form of biofilm offers them several advantages [114, 117, 119], resulting in their innate ability to populate a vast array of environments [119], including those contaminated by chalcogen-oxyanions. Thus, peculiar features of bacterial biofilms (i.e., quorum sensing signaling process, different cellular physiology, presence of the EPS and colony morphology variants) [120, 121, 122, 123, 124] confer them tolerance and/or resistance toward either Se- or Te-oxyanions without having specific Se- and Te- genetic resistant determinants [19]. In this regard, sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) within a biofilm produce sulfide (S2), which can abiotically bioconvert SeO42− and/or SeO32−, leading to the precipitation of Se0 in the EPS [86]. Unlike SRB, S. oneidensis biofilms grown under anaerobic conditions can reduce TeO32− and SeO32−, accumulating Te0 and Se0 in both the cells and the EPS, respectively [125].

Since microorganisms grown as biofilms showed to play an important role in metal and chalcogen geochemistry [126], several biofilm-based reactors have been used to support the biosorption and the bioconversion of Se- and Te-oxyanions as detoxification strategy [8]. Indeed, Burkholderia cepacia biofilm grown on alumina surface [127], as well as a mixed species biofilm composed of Dechloromonas sp. and Thauera sp. [128] have been explored for Se-oxyanions bioremediation, resulting in the uptake and bioconversion of SeO42− to Se0 by the bacterial cells. Similarly, biofilms-containing denitrifying and sulfate-reducing microorganisms grown on a hallow-membrane biofilm reactor have been successfully used to remove SeO42− from wastewater [129, 130], while the pre-grown biofilm of the SRB Desulfomicrobium norvegicum resulted able to abiotically reduce SeO32− extracellularly through its production of S-Se granules within the EPS [86]. Further, biofilm formed by TeO32−-resistant isolates of non-sulfur marine photosynthetic bacteria showed their proficiency in bioconverting this Te-oxyanion through intracellular reduction [131].


3. Microbial consortia for the treatment of selenium and tellurium contaminated wastewaters

3.1. Microbial consortia

In the environment, microorganisms usually thrive as communities composed by multiple species, generally referred as microbial consortia [132]. The employment of these microbial consortia in the treatment of environmental matrices contaminated with different inorganic or organic pollutants is currently a field of great interest for researchers [133]. There are significant advantages for the utilization of microbial consortia over pure cultures, such as the larger volumes of wastewaters treatable, the ability of microbial communities to adapt to diverse conditions, the presence of synergic interactions among members within the consortium and the possibility to work in non-aseptic conditions [23]. This last aspect is particularly significant, since it facilitates process control and it reduces both maintenance and operational costs [134].

In the following section, the different biological systems based on processes of biosorption and bioconversion of Se- and Te-oxyanions from contaminated matrices by using microbial consortia will be discussed.

3.2. Microbial consortia for Se-removal from contaminated environments

In recent years, the utilization of biological treatments based on the exploitation of microbial consortia has become the leading approach for the removal of toxic Se-species from environmental matrices, particularly from wastewaters (i.e., mine runoff, agricultural drainage, and flue gas desulfurization wastewater from plants) [23]. This decontamination strategy has several advantages over chemical–physical remediation technologies, being: the cost-effectiveness of microbial-based remediation approach, the avoidance in employing hazardous chemicals, and the possibility to recover Se0 in a recyclable form either as precipitates or as nanostructures, which are technologically and economically more valuable [23, 135]. Since using microbial consortia under aerobic conditions has a lower efficiency of the whole system compared to the anaerobic processes, microbial communities used in these systems are mostly capable of anaerobically bioconverting Se-oxyanions to their elemental state [136]. In this regard, the dissimilatory reduction of SeO42− under anaerobic conditions by a microbial community was firstly reported for sediment slurries by Oremland and coworkers [89], while an anaerobic co-culture isolated from agricultural drainage water in the San Joaquin Valley in California of a not-identified Gram-positive rod-shaped bacterium and a Pseudomonas sp. was capable of bioconverting both SeO42− and SeO32− to Se0 [72]. Further, several anaerobic microbial consortia able to process Se-species have been found in biological wastewaters, such as activated, denitrifying, sulfate-reducing and methanogenic sludges [135]. Among them, methanogenic anaerobic granular sludges were the most effective to remove high SeO42− concentrations using different electron donors (e.g., methanol, ethanol, acetate, lactate, glucose) [137].

Considering the large amount of Se-oxyanions present in laden wastewaters, different technologies and reactor configurations have been developed in order to treat these environmental samples (Figure 1), such as the ABMet® biofilter system, the electro-biochemical reactors (EBR), the biofilm reactors (BSeR), the membrane biofilm reactors (MBfR), the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors (UASB) and the sequencing batch reactors (SBR) [23]. In the following sub-sections, examples of bioreactor configurations used to bioremediate Se-contaminated waters and their operating procedures are briefly discussed.

Figure 1.

Schematic illustration of bioreactor configurations used for bioremediation of chalcogen-contaminated matrices.

3.2.1. The ABMet® reactor system

The ABMet® reactor is both a biological and a filtration system, in which microbial consortia are grown on porous granular activated carbon (GAC) beds, creating anoxic conditions for optimal SeO42− and SeO32− reduction [23]. The system consists of biofilter tanks where Se-oxyanions are bioconverted to their elemental state, followed by the removal of Se0 from the biofilter through a backwash cycle [138, 139]. This reactor uses a nutrient dosage tank generally containing a molasses-based solution, which acts as an electron donor sink for the microbial consortia, allowing the bioconversion of Se-oxyanions [139]. Thus, in this reactor configuration, the microbial communities require only a small amount of supplemented nutrient, decreasing the maintenance costs of the entire system [23]. Further, the GAC beds are used as substratum to sustain the bacterial growth, allowing the formation of a biofilm, which is morphologically more robust as compared to planktonic cells, resisting to the washing steps of the reactor [23]. Recently, Se-oxyanions bioconversion using anaerobic microbial communities inoculated in a ABMet® biofilter system has been observed within 16 h of empty bed contact time (EBCT) (i.e., the residence time of the water in the reactor) with a removal efficiency of 99.3% at the Duke Energy and Progress Energy in North Carolina [138]. Moreover, co-contaminants present in these wastewaters, such as NO3 and heavy metals, along with Se-oxyanions resulted to be removed with a high efficacy by the microbial consortium grown on the ABMet® biofilter system [23].

3.2.2. The EBR system

Se-wastewater treatment is also achieved by using the electro-biochemical reactor (EBR), which utilizes the ability of certain microbial consortia to accept electrons from graphite electrodes reducing inorganic compounds (e.g., SeO42− and SeO32−) through direct interspecies electron transfer [140]. In this process, electrons obtained from the oxidation of electron donors (i.e., graphite electrodes) are transferred to the outer surface of a bacterial cell to reduce the extracellular terminal electron acceptor (i.e., Se-oxyanions) [140]. The efficiency of this system is strictly dependent on the retention times of the microbial consortia, with optimal performances between 6 to 18 h [141]. In this regard, on-site pilot scale study using an EBR system in British Columbia (Canada) for the decontamination of coal mine wastewaters from Se-oxyanions reported a decrease of their concentration from over 500–5 μg L−1 (below US discharge limits), showing its high effectiveness even with influent streams at temperature as low as 1°C [141].

3.2.3. The BSeR and MBfR systems

Reactors containing multispecies biofilms (BSeR) represent another promising approach for the treatment of Se-contaminated wastewaters. Indeed, microbial biofilms play a dominant role in the biogeochemical natural cycle of different inorganic compounds. In a recent study, a multispecies biofilm composed of strains (i.e., Rhodococcus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Bacillus sp. and Arthrobacter sp.) adapted to high concentration of SeO32− has been investigated for its potential in converting these oxyanions to their elemental form (Se0) [142]. Moreover, it has been highlighted the presence of specific biofilm regions where Se0 was deposited as sub-micrometer-sized particles, associated with the microbial biomass [142]. In the BSeR methodology, bacterial biofilms are grown on granular activated carbon in anaerobic fixed-film reactors showing a high bioprocess proficiency toward both SeO42− and SeO32− [143], which resulted in the recovery of ca. 97% of Se0 from agriculture drainage wastewater (Garfield Wetlands-Kessler Springs, Utah, USA) [144].

Another configuration of reactor based on microbial biofilms is the membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR) [129, 130, 145, 146]. MBfR in its standard configuration consists of a bundle of bubble-less gas transfer to a membrane delivering H2 directly to the grown biofilm consisting of autohydrogenotrophic bacteria (e.g., Cupriavidus metallidurans) on the outer surface of the membrane [146], resulting in a higher efficiency of Se-oxyanions bioconversion as compared to other systems [143]. Although the membrane of the MBfR system can be made of either organic or inorganic materials, mostly hollow-fiber membranes are used at high gas pressures, providing a high surface-to-volume ratio [23]. Moreover, hydrophobic membranes are generally used in these systems, allowing to maintain the pores dry to achieve a fast diffusion of gas molecules [23]. In the MBfR system, the reduction of Se-oxyanions is coupled with the oxidation of H2, acting as electron donor, which supports the growth of the autotrophic microbial consortia [129]. SeO42− removal in this system has been improved to 94% by changing H2 pressure, with Se0 retained inside the microbial biofilm [129] in the form of crystalloid aggregates [147]. Similarly to the ABMet® system, the MBfR reactor resulted able to remove several oxidized toxic contaminants, such as chromium and arsenic, along with Se-oxyanions [23]. The microbial composition of a MBfR system exposed to different concentrations of SeO42− was characterized by Ontiveros-Valencia and coworkers through 16S rRNA pyrosequencing [147]. Results showed that biofilms exposed to a high load of SeO42− were composed principally by denitrifying bacteria belonging to the genera of Denitratisoma and Dechloromonas, which were previously reported as capable of reducing SeO42− [147]. Recently, Lay and coworkers developed an MBfR system in which methane gas (CH4) acted as electron donor instead of H2, exploiting the microbial consortium capability to oxidize CH4 coupled with SeO42− reduction [148]. Particularly, the utilization of methane over H2 has the advantages of lower cost and high availability from anaerobic digestion. Once again, the final product of the process are Se0-nanospheres, accumulated in the microbial biomass [148]. A characterization of the microbial consortium by 16S rRNA sequencing revealed the presence of a specific methanotrophic genus (Methylomonas) that is able to simultaneously oxidize CH4 and reduce SeO42−, along with methanotrophic bacteria, which, upon methane utilization, are capable of generating organic metabolites suitable as electron donors for SeO42−-reducing microorganisms present in the biofilm [148]. Although the MBfR system resulted to be a promising technology to efficiently remove Se-oxyanions from contaminated environments, its implementation at industrial scale has not been investigated yet, likely due to the high cost of electron donors needed to the working-system, which is still prohibitive for large-scale applications [143].

3.2.4. The UASB system

Sludge-based reactors have also been employed for the treatment of Se-contaminated wastewaters [68]. Indeed, the most implemented process for anaerobic treatment of industrial effluents is the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, because of the accumulation of microbial biomass and suspended solid, and a dense sludge bed at the bottom of the reactor, in which Se-oxyanions bioconversion occurs [68]. In this regard, the natural aggregation of some bacteria forming flocculates or granules leads to a high retention of active anaerobic sludge even at great organic load rates [149]. Additionally, the wastewater is kept in good contact with the bacterial biomass through both the turbulence of the upflow influent flow and the biogas produced by the anaerobic microorganisms [68]. UASB reactors have been pilot-tested for Se-removal at the Adams Avenue Agricultural Drainage Research Center in San Joaquin Valley (California) [150]. The influent had a total Se content of 500 μg L−1 and the removal efficiency ranged from 58 to 90% [150]. The efficiency of UASB reactors for the removal of Se-oxyanions was tested by Lenz and coworkers in a series of studies evaluating SeO42− removal from synthetic wastewater by microbial consortia under methanogenic, sulfate-reducing and denitrifying conditions [151, 152, 153]. Using lactate as electron donor, a SeO42− removal efficiency of 99% was obtained in both methanogenic and sulfate-reducing conditions, demonstrating that UASB reactors can be effectively applied to remove SeO42− from contaminated wastewaters, with the involvement of sulfate-reducing bacteria (sulfate-reducing conditions) and a selenium-respiring sub-population (methanogenic conditions) [151]. Since the use of UASB reactors under methanogenic conditions leads to the recovery of decontaminated water, Se0 and energy, methanogenic sludges are promising for Se-oxyanions bioconversion [143]. Further, Dessì and coworkers evaluate SeO42− removal in UASB reactors as function of the temperature, observing that the maximum efficiency of removal was obtained at thermophilic conditions (55°C) [154]. Another advantage of working at this temperature is the better retention of reduced Se in the microbial biomass. Additionally, they performed a characterization of the microbial consortia through DGGE analysis, correlating the high SeO42− removal efficiency to the presence of SeO42−-respiring microorganisms, such as Sulfurospirillum barnesii and D. indicum [154]. UASB reactors are very promising for removing Se-oxyanions from contaminated wastewaters, however they require constant control, since any change in operation conditions may lead to an increase of the effluent Se-concentration through either biomethylation or bioconversion of Se-species [23].

3.2.5. The SBR system

Se-wastewater can be processed using a sequencing batch reactor (SBR), in which the biodegradation and solid separation take place in the same reactor [23]. In this configuration, the treatment is carried out in consecutive stages in the same tank: filling, reaction, sedimentation, draw, purging and inactivity [155]. The selection and enrichment of the desired microbial consortia is achieved by the alternation of anaerobic and aerobic phases, which results in the complete integration of both oxic and anoxic conditions in the same reactor [69, 155]. The SRB systems have been mostly used in the treatment of textile wastewater, thanks to their efficiency in removing dyes [69]. Further, this system has been employed for Se-laden wastewater treatment by Rege and coworkers, which used a denitrifying bacterial consortium for the reduction of both SeO32− and SeO42− with acetate as electron donor, observing a lag phase of 150 h and a SeO32− reduction rate higher than SeO42− [156]. In other studies, SBR reactors have been used for the remediation of SeO42− specifically inoculating the bacterial strains Thauera selenatis [157] and Bacillus sp. SF-1 [158]. However, SeO32− accumulation in the reactor over the time exerted to a toxic effect toward the bacteria present in the system [158]. More recently, Mal and coworkers studied the potential of SeO42− removal in the presence of NH4+ in an SBR inoculated with an activated sludge collected from a wastewater treatment plant [159]. In this study, the microbial consortium removed up to 100% of SeO42− and 95% of ammonium through partial nitrification as well as nitrification/denitrification, with alternating between anaerobic and aerobic phases [159]. The efficiency of the system was improved by prolonging the anaerobic phase from 3 to 4.5 h. Interestingly, the effluent presented low concentrations of both volatile and elemental Se, suggesting that most part of biogenic Se0 formed by the microbial consortium was retained in the activated sludge [159].

Even if the performances of the bioreactor configurations described above are promising, there are still challenges for the utilization of these approaches to remediate Se-laden wastewater, such as the presence of co-contaminations with different types of metals, the discharge limits for the effluent, and the disposal of the concentrated selenium solids [23, 143]. The bioremediation of Se-contaminated soils has been less explored than wastewater treatment. In this regard, a study by Prakash and coworkers, analyzing the capability of a microbial consortium, composed by aerobic rhizo-bacteria belonging to Bacillus genus, to remove SeO42− and SeO32− contamination from soils amended with different concentrations of these oxyanions [160]. The study revealed higher rate of removal for SeO32− as compared to SeO42−, due to the greater bioavailability in the soils of SeO32− [160]. Moreover, microbial consortia can play a major role in assisting hyperaccumulator plants in phytoremediation approaches by enhancing both plant growth and Se-accumulation (Figure 2) [161, 162].

Figure 2.

Schematic illustration of a phytoremediation system for the treatment of Se-wastewater through a synergistic cooperation of a Se-hyperaccumulator plant and selenite/selenate bioconverting bacteria of the rhizosphere [162].

3.3. Microbial consortia for Te-removal from contaminated environments

Since Te-biogeochemistry is still poorly understood [34], to date few examples of microbial consortia employed for the bioconversion of Te-oxyanions into their elemental state (Te0) are available in the literature [8]. Further, although Te-species are toxic for living organisms at very low concentrations [6], evaluating the actual amount of Te-contaminants present in environmental samples is challenging, due to their low general availability on Earth [34]. Indeed, even if TeO42−- and/or TeO32−- reducing bacteria are frequently isolated from natural microbial communities adapted to the stress exerted by Te-oxyanions [28, 107], the application of microbial consortia for their removal from contaminated matrices is still in its infancy.

One of the first studies regarding bioremediation of Te-contaminated environments was carried out by Baesman and coworkers, which isolated sediment slurries resistant to TeO32− at Mono Lake (California) [22]. Thus, the identified slurries were exposed under anaerobic conditions of growth to different concentrations of TeO32− with either lactate or H2 as electron donors, and they were incubated at 28°C for 30 days [22]. During the timeframe of microbial consortium’s growth, a progressively blackening of the cultures has been observed, which indicated both Te-oxyanions bioreduction and the simultaneous accumulation of Te0 precipitates, as proven by electron microscopy observations of the solid phase of the slurries [22].

More recently, Ramos-Ruiz and coworkers analyzed an anaerobic mixed microbial culture in a methanogenic granular sludge obtained from a wastewater treatment plant at Mahou’s (beer brewery in Spain) [163]. In this regard, the granular sludge was chosen over planktonic cells considering that the latter one should be exposed more directly to the toxic Te-species [163]. As a result, the anaerobic sludge was able to catalyze the reduction of both TeO42− and TeO32− added to the system at a concentration of 20 mg L−1, showing a rate of TeO32− reduction seven-fold higher than TeO42− one in all conditions tested [163]. As a consequence of Te-oxyanions bioconversion by the anaerobic sludge, the formation of intra and extracellular Te-nanoprecipitates has been detected through electron microscopy [163]. Interestingly, the microbial consortium did not show any lag phase when exposed to Te-oxyanions even in the case of a sludge originated from wastewater not contaminated with Te-species [163]. In order to avoid the possibility of an abiotic bioreduction of TeO42− and/or TeO32− by biogenic S2− produced by SRB microorganisms generally present in microbial consortia, all the experiments have been performed in a (S)-free medium. Furthermore, the authors observed an increase of both TeO42− and TeO32− reduction rates after the amendment of different redox mediators, with riboflavin and lawsone causing the highest effect [163]. Finally, the addition of these redox mediators increased the percentage of extracellular Te-nanoprecipitates, determining a change in the shape of the nanomaterials produced [163].

A following study by the same research group evaluated the feasibility to use UASB reactors for the bioconversion of TeO32− to Te-nanoprecipitates using a methanogenic microbial consortium in granular sludge, and the subsequent separation of the nanomaterials from the water effluent [164]. In this study, ethanol was added to the system as exogenous source of electron-donating substrate, while riboflavin was supplied as redox mediator during the biological process [164]. UASB reactors were operated with hydraulic retention time of 14 h at 28°C and supplemented with up to 20 mg L−1 of TeO32− [164]. Similarly to the above-mentioned study [164], the presence of riboflavin as redox mediator enhanced the efficiency of TeO32− bioconversion, lowering the toxicity of this oxyanion toward the microbial consortium. Moreover, a continuous removal of TeO32− by the anaerobic microbial consortium was observed in the UASB reactor, showing a bioreduction efficiency ranging from 83%, when riboflavin was absent, to 99.5%, when riboflavin was added to the system [164].

TeO32− removal from wastewater using a UASB bioreactor was also recently investigated by Mal and coworkers, which inoculated a UASB reactor with anaerobic granular sludge fed with lactate as carbon source, with a hydraulic retention time of 12 h at 30°C [165]. In the UASB reactor, firstly a concentration of 10 mg L−1 of TeO32− was added, which was subsequently increased after 42 days to 20 mg L−1. Te-oxyanion removal started immediately after the initial TeO32− addition [165]. Particularly, after the first 3–4 weeks of sludge incubation in the reactor, a significant improvement of TeO32− removal efficiency was observed, suggesting an adaptation of the microbial consortium to the presence of this oxyanion [165]. Furthermore, TeO32− was almost completely bioconverted to its elemental state in the form of Te-nanostructures associated with the loosely bound EPS fraction surrounding the sludge, suggesting a pivotal role played by EPS and its functional groups in the biogenesis of Te-nanoprecipitates. In this regard, the possibility to easily recover Te-nanostructures associated with the EPS fraction opens new possibility to combine oxyanion removal with the recovery of Te0 [165].


4. Microbial generation of Se- and Te-nanostructures

It is nowadays recognized the key role played by bacteria not only as tool for bioremediation purposes of highly contaminated Se- and Te-matrices, but also as a mean by which the less toxic and bioavailable elemental form of these chalcogens (i.e., Se0 and Te0) are generated and recovered. Indeed, yet Se and Te are elements featured by unique chemical-physical (i.e., semiconductive, photoconductive and catalytic) properties [166, 167, 168, 169], which result to be emphasized in the nanosized material containing Se0 and Te0 as building blocks, forming nanoparticles (NPs) and/or nanorods (NRs). Se and Te as nanoscale structures are characterized by a large surface-to-volume ratio and a large surface energy as compared to their bulk counterparts [8], which make them suitable for biotechnological applications, such as: biomedicine, electronics, environmental engineering and agricultural industries [168, 170], to name a few. Since bacteria are considered inexpensive catalysts, their use for the production of Se- and Te-based nanostructures is an attractive choice over the chemical synthesis processes [79]. Thus, microorganisms capable of generating biogenic nanomaterials are seen as green and cost-effective exploitable methods to synthesize high-quality nanostructures [10], whose process occurs at standard conditions (i.e., near neutral pH, controlled temperature and pressure), and, more importantly, avoiding the use of harsh reducing agents as well as the production of toxic wastes deriving from the chemical synthesis approaches [171].

Considering the peculiar photoconductive, semiconductive and optical properties of Se, the use of Se-based nanomaterials has been investigated in a wide range of applications, such as in the production of new optical devices, photovoltaic solar cells, photographic exposure meters and rectifiers and photo-assisted fuel cells [172, 173, 174, 175]. Moreover, Se-nanostructures resulted to act as good catalyst for both the chelation of mercury ions (Hg2+) present as contaminants in different polluted environments [176], and the degradation of several toxic chemical compounds (e.g., trypan blue dye) [177], as well as an efficient bio-sensor for H2O2 in different matrices [178]. Similarly, Te is a narrow band-gap p-type semiconductor, which is featured by high photoconductivity, piezoelectricity and thermoelectricity [168, 169]. These versatile properties led to the exploitation of Te-nanomaterials as optoelectronic, piezoelectric and thermoelectric devices, infrared detectors and gas sensors [179, 180], to name a few. Further, since these chalcogen-nanostructures showed great adsorptive ability, biological reactivity and antioxidant functions, their use in biomedicine have been recently explored [8, 170, 181]. Both Se- and Te-nanomaterials resulted efficient tools in protecting living organisms from DNA oxidation [181], as well as promising antimicrobial and anticancer agents [182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187]. In this regard, several Se-nanostructures produced by different microorganisms have been tested for their antimicrobial efficacy, highlighting their ability to prevent the growth of pathogenic bacteria (i.e., E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus) either in the form of planktonic cells or as biofilms [182, 183, 186, 187]. Particularly, biogenic Se-nanomaterials resulted to be more efficient as compared to those synthesized by mean of chemical processes, showing a strong inhibitory effect of pathogenic bacterial growth at lower concentrations [183]. Moreover, studies carried out to evaluate the cytotoxicity of biogenic Se-nanostructures toward human cell lines (i.e., fibroblasts and dendritic cells) revealed their high biocompatibility [187], which is a fundamental feature for their possible biomedical applications. Although Te-nanostructures produced by microorganisms are less studied for biomedical applications than those containing Se, recently the potential of such nanomaterials as antimicrobials has been assessed [186], showing their good efficacy in inhibiting pathogens growth. Further, a promising technological application of biogenic Te-based nanostructures regards the production of quantum dots (QDs), which are semiconductors nanocrystals featured by unique electronic and optical properties, due to quantum confinement effects [188].


5. Summary

Bioremediation strategies of Se- and Te-polluted environments based on the ability of microorganisms to bioprocess these toxic oxyanion species is an environmental-sustainable choice to reclaim contaminated soils, groundwater, surface water bodies and sediments. The primary microbial process after biosorption is the bioreduction of chalcogen-oxyanions into their less toxic and bioavailable elemental forms (i.e., Se0 and Te0) generating, as end-products nanoscale materials, which can be recovered from the biomasses and used for technological purposes.



We gratefully acknowledge Prof. Giovanni Vallini, Dr. Simona di Gregorio and Dr. Silvia Lampis for the concession of the use of Figure 2 in the present manuscript. Funding for this work by RJT is through a discovery grant from NSERC.


  1. 1. Haynes WM. Section 4: Properties of the elements and inorganic compounds. In: Haynes WM, Lide DR, Bruno TJ, editors. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 95th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis; 2014. pp. 115-120. ISBN: 13:978-1-4822-0867-2
  2. 2. Ba LA, Doring M, Jamier V, Jacob C. Tellurium: An element with great biological potency and potential. Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry. 2010;8(19):4203-4216. DOI: 10.1039/c0Ob00086h
  3. 3. Vriens B, Lenz M, Charlet L, Berg M, Winkel LHE. Natural wetland emissions of methylated trace elements. Nature Communications. 2014;5:3035. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4035
  4. 4. Reilly C. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Reilly C, editor. Selenium in Food and Health. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Science + Business Media; 2006. pp. 1-18. ISBN: 978-0-387-33243-7
  5. 5. Chasteen TG, Fuentes DE, Tantalean JC, Vasquez CC. Tellurite: History, oxidative stress, and molecular mechanisms of resistance. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2009;33(4):820-832. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2009.00177.x
  6. 6. Taylor DE. Bacterial tellurite resistance. Trends in Microbiology. 1999;7(3):111-115. DOI: 10.1016/S0966-842X(99)01454-7
  7. 7. Mehdi Y, Hornick J, Istasse L, Dufrasne I. Selenium in the environment, metabolism and involvement in body functions. Molecules. 2013;18:3292-3311. DOI: 10.3390/molecules18033292
  8. 8. Turner RJ, Borghese R, Zannoni D. Microbial processing of tellurium as a tool in biotechnology. Biotechnology Advances. 2012;30:954-963. DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.08.018
  9. 9. Cooper WC. Tellurium. New York: Van Nostrand Renhod Co; 1971. p. 437
  10. 10. Lampis S, Zonaro E, Bertolini C, Bernardi P, Butler CS, Vallini G. Delayed formation of zero-valent selenium nanoparticles by Bacillus mycoides SelTE01 as a consequence of selenite reduction under aerobic conditions. Microbial Cell Factories. 2014;13:35. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-13-35
  11. 11. Whitten KW, Davis RE, Peck ML. Chapter 6: Chemical periodicity. In: Whitten KW, Davis RE, Peck ML, editors. General Chemistry. 6th ed. Orlando: Saunders College Publishing; 2000. pp. 927-930. DOI: 10.1021/ed079p637
  12. 12. Barceloux DG. Selenium. Journal of Toxicology. Clinical Toxicology. 1999;37(2):145-172. DOI: 10.1081/CLT- 100102417
  13. 13. Turner RJ. Tellurite toxicity and resistance in gram-negative bacteria. Recent Research Developments in Microbiology. 2001;5:69-77. ISBN: 81-7736-055-8
  14. 14. Martens DA, Suarez DL. Selenium speciation of soil/sediment determinated with sequential extractions and hydride generation atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Environmental Science & Technology. 1996;31:133-139. DOI: 10.1021/es960214+
  15. 15. Spallholz JE. On the nature of selenium toxicity and carcinostatic activity. Free Radical Biology & Medicine. 1994;17:45-64. DOI: 10.1016/0891-5849(94)90007-8
  16. 16. Bebien M, Lagniel G, Garin J, Touati D, Vermeglio A, Labarre J. Involvement of superoxide dismutases in the response of Escherichia coli to selenium oxides. Journal of Bacteriology. 2002;184:1156-1164. DOI: 10.1128/JB.184.6.15561564.2002
  17. 17. Kessi J, Hanselmann KW. Similarities between the abiotic reduction of selenite with glutathione and the dissimilatory reaction mediated by Rhodospirillum rubrum and Escherichia coli. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2004;279:50662-50669. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M405887200
  18. 18. Perez MJ, Calderon IL, Arenas FA, Fuentes DE, Pradenas GA, Fuentes LE, Sandoval JM, Castro ME, Elias AO, Vasquez CC. Bacterial toxicity of potassium tellurite: Unveiling an ancient enigma. PLoS One. 2007;2:e211. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000211
  19. 19. Zannoni D, Borsetti F, Harrison JJ, Turner RJ. The bacterial response to the chalcogen metalloids Se and Te. Advances in Microbial Physiology. 2008;53:1-71. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2911(07)53001-8
  20. 20. Holmgren A. Thioredoxin and glutaredoxin systems. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1989;264:13963-13966
  21. 21. Morales EH, Pinto CA, Luraschi R, Munoz-Villagran CM, Cornejo FA, Simpins SW, Nelson J, Arenas FA, Piotrowski JS, Myers CL, Mori H, Vasquez CC. Accumulation of heme biosynthetic intermediates contributes to the antimicrobial action of the metalloid tellurite. Nature Communications. 2017;8:15320. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15320
  22. 22. Baesman SM, Stolz JF, Kulp TR, Oremland RS. Enrichment and isolation of Bacillus beveridgei sp. nov., a facultative anaerobic haloalkaliphile from Mono Lake, California, that respires oxyanions of tellurium, selenium, and arsenic. Extremophiles. 2009;13:695-705. DOI: 10.1007/s00792-009-0257-z
  23. 23. Tan LC, Nanchariah YV, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PNL. Selenium: Environmental significance, pollution, and biological treatment technologies. Biotechnology Advances. 2016;34:886-907. DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.05.005
  24. 24. Schroder I, Rech S, Krafft T, May JM. Purification and characterization of the selenate reductase from Thauera selenatis. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1997;272:23765-23768. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.272.38.23765
  25. 25. Stolz JF, Oremland RS. Bacterial respiration of arsenic and selenium. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 1999;23:615-627. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1999.tb00416.x
  26. 26. Switzer-Blum J, Bindi AB, Buzzelli J, Stolz JF, Oremland RS. Bacillus arsenoselenatis sp. nov. and Bacillus selenitireducens sp. nov.: Two haloalkaliphiles from Mono Lake, California, which respire oxyanions of selenium and arsenic. Archives of Microbiology. 1998;171:19-30. DOI: 10.1007/s002030050673
  27. 27. Takai K, Hirayama H, Sakihama Y, Inagaki F, Yamato Y, Horikoshi K. Isolation and metabolic characteristic of previously uncultured members of the order Aquificales in subsurface gold mine. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2002;68:3046-3054. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.6.3046.3054.2002
  28. 28. Csotonyi JT, Stackebrandt E, Yurkov V. Anaerobic respiration on tellurate and other metalloids in bacteria from hydrothermal vent fields in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2006;72:4950-4956. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00223-06
  29. 29. Baesman SM, Bullen TD, Dewald J, Zhang DH, Curran S, Islam FS, Beveridge TJ, Oremland RS. Formation of tellurium nanocrystals during anaerobic growth of bacteria that use Te oxyanions as respiratory electron acceptors. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2007;73:2135-2143. DOI: 10.1128/aem.02558-06
  30. 30. Brown TJ, Wrighton CE, Raycraft ER, Shaw RA, Deady EA, Rippingale J, Bide T, Idoine N. World Mineral Production 2009-2013. Nottingham: British Geological Survey; 2015. p. 88. ISBN: 978-0-85272-857-4
  31. 31. Winkel LH, Vriens B, Jones J, Schneider L, Pilon-Smits E, Banuelos G. Selenium cycling across soil-plant-atmosphere interfaces: A critical review. Nutrients. 2015;7:4199-4239. DOI: 10.3390/nu7064199
  32. 32. Wen H, Carignan J. Reviews on atmospheric selenium: Emissions, speciation and fate. Atmospheric Environment. 2007;41:7151-7165. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.035
  33. 33. USGS. Mineral commodity summaries. Geological Survey. 2015;196. DOI: 10.3133/70140094
  34. 34. Belzile N, Chen YW. Tellurium in the environment: A critical review focused on natural waters, soils, sediments and airborne particles. Applied Geochemistry. 2015;63:83-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.07.002
  35. 35. Deng ZT, Zhang Y, Yue JG, Tang FQ, Wei Q. Green and orange CdTe quantum dots as effective pH-sensitive fluorescent probes for dual simultaneous and independent detection of viruses. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B. 2007;111:12024-12031. DOI: 10.1021/jp074609z
  36. 36. Vesper DJ, Roy M, Rhoads CJ. Selenium distribution and mode of occurrence in the Kanawha formation, southern West Virginia U.S. International Journal of Coal Geology. 2008;73:237-249. DOI: 10.1016/j.coal.2007.06.003
  37. 37. Pyrzynska K. Determination of selenium species in environmental samples. Microchimica Acta. 2002;140:55-62. DOI: 10.1007/s00604-001-0899-8
  38. 38. Dolor MK, Helz GR, McDonough VF. Sediment profiles of less commonly determined elements measured by laser ablation ICP-MS. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2009;59:182-191. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.03.027
  39. 39. Perkins WT. Extreme selenium and tellurium contamination in soils - an eighty year-old industrial legacy surrounding a Ni refinery in the Swansea Valley. Science of the Total Environment. 2011;412:162-169. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.056
  40. 40. Dopp E, Hartmann LM, Florea AM, Rettenmeier AW, Hirner AV. Environmental distribution, analysis, and toxicity of organo-metal(loid) compounds. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2004;34:301-333. DOI: 10.1080/10408440490270160
  41. 41. Kobayashi A, Ogra Y. Metabolism of tellurium, antimony and germanium simultaneously administered to rats. The Journal of Toxicological Sciences. 2009;34:295-303. DOI: 10.2131/jts.34.295
  42. 42. Luoma SN, Presser TS. Emerging opportunities in management of selenium contamination. Environmental Science & Technology. 2009;43:8483-8487. DOI: 10.1021/es900828h
  43. 43. Yoon BM, Shim SC, Pyun HC, Lee DS. Hydride generation atomic absorption determination of tellurium species in environmental samples with in situ concentration in a graphite furnace. Analytical Sciences. 1990;6:561-566. DOI: 10.2116/analsci.6.561
  44. 44. Fujino O, Hara K, Ikejima S, Goda S. Determination of tellurium in lake water by ICP-MS. Bunseki Kagaru. 1997;46:857-862. DOI: 10.2116/bunsekikagaru.46.857
  45. 45. Najafi NM, Tavakoli H, Alizadeh R, Seidi S. Speciation and determination of ultra trace amounts of inorganic tellurium in environmental water samples by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2010;670:18-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2010.04.059
  46. 46. Canton SP, van Derveer WD. Selenium toxicity to aquatic life: An argument for sediment-based water quality criteria. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1997;16:1255-1259. DOI: 10.1002/etc.5620160622
  47. 47. Ellis AS, Johnson TM, Herbel MJ, Bullen TD. Stable isotope fractionation of selenium by natural microbial consortia. Chemical Geology. 2003;195:119-129. DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2541(02)00391-1
  48. 48. Lemly AD. Teratogenic effects and monetary cost of selenium poisoning of fish in Lake Sutton, North Carolina. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2014;104:160-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.02.022
  49. 49. Cutter GA, Cutter LS. Sources and cycling of selenium in the western and equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research Part II. 2001;48:2917-2931. DOI: 10.1016/S0967-0645(01)00024-8
  50. 50. Atkinson R, Aschmann SM, Hasegawa D, Thompson-Eagle ET, Frankenberger WT Jr. Kinetics of the atmospherically important reactions of dimethyl selenide. Environmental Science & Technology. 1990;24:1326-1332. DOI: 10.1021/es00079a005
  51. 51. Springer SE, Huber RE. Sulfate and selenate uptake and transport in wild and in two selenate-tolerant strains of Escherichia coli K12. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics. 1973;156:595-603. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9861(73)90310-X
  52. 52. Brown TA, Shrift A. Assimilation of selenate and selenite by Salmonella thyphimurium. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1980;26:671-675. DOI: 10.1139/m82-045
  53. 53. Bryant RD, Laishley EJ. Evidence for proton motive force dependent transport of selenite by Clostridium paesteurianum. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1989;35:481-486. DOI: 10.1139/m89-074
  54. 54. Bebien M, Chauvin JP, Adriano JM, Grosse S, Vermeglio A. Effect of selenite on growth and protein synthesis in the phototrophic bacterium Rhodobacter sphaeroides. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67:4440-4447. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.10.4440-4447.2001
  55. 55. Fisher JC, Hollibaugh JT. Selenate-dependent anaerobic arsenite oxidation by a bacterium from Mono Lake, California. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2008;74:2588-2594. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01995-07
  56. 56. Chasteen TG, Bentley R. Biomethylation of selenium and tellurium: Microorganisms and plants. Chemical Reviews. 2003;103:1-25. DOI: 10.1021/cr010210+
  57. 57. Michalke K, Wickenheiser B, Mehring M, Hirner AV, Hensel R. Production of volatile derivatives of metal(loid)s by microflora involved in anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2000;67:2791-2796. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.66.7.2791-2796.2000
  58. 58. Dungan RS, Frankenberg WT. Biotransformation of selenium by Enterobacter cloacae SLD1a-1: Formation of dimethylselenide. Biogeochemistry. 2001;55:73-86. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010640307328
  59. 59. Van Fleet-Stalder V, Chasteen TG. Using fluorine-induced chemiluminescence to detect organi-metalloids in the headspace of phototrophic bacterial cultures amended with selenium and tellurium. Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology. 1998;43:193-203. DOI: 10.1016/S1011-1344(98)00108-8
  60. 60. Challenger F. Biological methylation. Chemical Reviews. 1945;36:315-361. DOI: 10.1002/9780470122570.ch8
  61. 61. Nancharaiah YV, Lens PNL. Ecology and biotechnology of selenium-respiring bacteria. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2015;79:61-80. DOI: 10.1128/MMBR.00037-14
  62. 62. Staicu LC, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PN, Pilon-Simts EA, Oturan MA. Electrocoagulation of colloidal biogenic selenium. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International. 2015;22:3127-3137. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3592-2
  63. 63. Mal J, Veneman WJ, Nancharaiah YV, van Hullebusch ED, Peijnenburg WJGM, Vijver MG, Lens PNL. A comparison of fate and toxicity of selenite, biogenically and chemically synthesized selenium nanoparticles to the zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryogenesis. Nanotoxicology. 2017;11:87-97. DOI: 10.1080/17435390.2016.1275866
  64. 64. Kuroda M, Notaguchi E, Sato A, Yoshioka M, Hasegawa A, Kagami T, Narita T, Yamashita M, Sei K, Soda S, Ike M. Characterization of Pseuodomonas stutzeri NT-I capable of removing soluble selenium from the aqueous phase under aerobic conditions. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering. 2011;112:259-264. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2011.05.012
  65. 65. Kagami T, Narita T, Kuroda M, Notaguchi E, Yamashita M, Sei K, Soda S, Ike M. Effective selenium volatilization under aerobic conditions and recovery from the aqueous phase by Pseuodomonas stutzeri NT-I. Water Research. 2013;47:1361-1368. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.12.001
  66. 66. Stolz JF, Basu P, Santini JM, Oremland RS. Arsenic and selenium in microbial metabolism. Annual Review of Microbiology. 2006;60:107-130. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.micro.60.080805.142053
  67. 67. Williams KH, Wilkins MJ, N’Guessan AL, Arey B, Dodova E, Dohnalkova A, Holmes D, Lovley DR, Long PE. Field evidence of selenium bioreduction in a uranium-contaminated aquifer. Environmental Microbiology Reports. 2013;5:444-452. DOI: 10.1111/1758-2229.12032
  68. 68. Seghezzo L, Zeeman G, van Lier JB, Hamelers HVM, Lettinga G. A review: The anaerobic treatment of sewage in UASB and EGSB reactors. Bioresource Technology. 1998;65:175-190. DOI: 10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00046-7
  69. 69. Chan YJ, Chong MF, Law CL, Hassel DG. A review on anaerobic-aerobic treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2009;155:1-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2009.06.041
  70. 70. Oremland RS, Blum JS, Culbertson CW, Visscher PT, Miller LG, Dowdle P, Stromaier FE. Isolation, growth, and metabolism of an obligately anaerobic, selenate-respiring bacterium, strain SES-3. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1994;60:3011-3019
  71. 71. Fujita M, Ike M, Nishimoto S, Takahashi K, Kashiwa M. Isolation and characterization of a novel selenate-reducing bacterium, Bacillus sp. SF-1. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 1997;80:755-761. DOI: 10.1016/S0922-338X(97)81130-0
  72. 72. Macy JM, Michel TA, Kirsch DG. Selenate reduction by a Pseudomonas species: A new mode of anaerobic respiration. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 1989;61:195-198. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1989.tb03577.x
  73. 73. Switzer Blum J, Stolz JF, Ohren A, Oremland RS. Selenihalanaerobacter shriftii gen. Nov. sp. nov., a halophilic anaerobe from Dead Sea sediments that respires selenate. Archives of Microbiology. 2001;175:208-219. DOI: 10.1007/s002030100257
  74. 74. Narasingarao P, Haggblom MM. Identification of anaerobic selenate-respiring bacteria from aquatic sediments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2007;73:3519-3527. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02737-06
  75. 75. Rauschenbach I, Narasingarao P, Haggblom MM. Desulfurispirillum indicum sp. nov., a selenate- and selenite-respiring bacterium isolated from an estuarine canal. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2011;61:654-548. DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.022392-0
  76. 76. Ziemkiewicz PF, O’Neal M, Lovett RJ. Selenium leaching kinetics and in situ control. Mine Water and the Environment. 2011;30:141-150. DOI: 10.1007/s10230-011-0154-4
  77. 77. Me L, Frankeberger WT. Reduction of selenium oxyanions by Enterobacter cloacae SLD1a-1: Isolation and growth of the bacterium and its expulsion of selenium nanoparticles. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1997;63:3079-3084
  78. 78. Viamajala S, Bereded-Samuel Y, Apel WA, Petersen JN. Selenite reduction by a denitrifying culture: Batch- and packed-bed reactor studies. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2006;71:953-962. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-005-0276-3
  79. 79. Nancharaiah YV, Lens PNL. Selenium biomineralization for biotechnological applications. Trends in Biotechnology. 2015;33:323-330. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.03.004
  80. 80. Kessi J, Ramuz M, Wehrli E, Spycher M, Bachofen R. Reduction of selenite and detoxification of elemental selenium by the phototrophic bacterium Rhodospirillum rubrum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1999;65:4734-4740
  81. 81. Painter EP. The chemistry and toxicity of selenium compounds with special reference to the selenium problem. Chemical Reviews. 1941;28:179-213. DOI: 10.1021/cr60090a001
  82. 82. Kessi J. Enxymatic systems proposed to be involved in the dissimilatory reduction of selenite in the purple non-sulfur bacteria Rhodospirillum rubrum and Rhodobacter capsulatus. Microbiology. 2006;152:731-743. DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.28240-0
  83. 83. Nogueira CW, Rocha JB. Toxicology and pharmacology of selenium: Emphasis on synthetic organoselenium compounds. Archives of Toxicology. 2011;85:1313-1359. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-011-0720-3
  84. 84. Turner RJ, Weiner JH, Taylor DE. Selenium metabolism in Escherichia coli. Biometals. 1998;11:223-237. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009290213301
  85. 85. Pittman MS, Robinson HC, Poole RK. A bacterial glutathione transporter (Escherichia coli CydDC) exports reductant in the periplasm. Journal of Biophysical Chemistry. 2005;280:32254-32261. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M503075200
  86. 86. Hockin SL, Gadd L. Linked redox precipitation of sulfur and selenium under anaerobic conditions by sulfate-reducing bacterial biofilms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003;69:7063-7072. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.69.12.7063-7072.2003
  87. 87. Pettine M, Gennan F, Campanella L, Casentini B, Marani D. The reduction of selenium (IV) by hydrogen sulfide in aqueous solutions. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 2012;83:37-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.12.024
  88. 88. Zawadzka AM, Crawford RL, Paszczynki AJ. Pyridine-2,6-bis(thiocarboxylic acid) produced by Pseudomonas stutzeri KC reduces and precipitates selenium and tellurium oxyanions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2006;72:3119-3129. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.72.5.3119-3129.2006
  89. 89. Oremland RS, Maest A, Presser TS, Miller LG. Selenate reduction to elemental selenium by anaerobic bacteria in sediments and culture: Biogeochemical significance of a novel, sulfate-independent respiration. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1989;55:2333-2343
  90. 90. Li DB, Cheng YY, Wu C, Li WW, Li N, Yang ZC, Tong ZH, Yu HQ. Selenite reduction by Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 is mediated by fumarate reductase in periplasm. Scientific Reports. 2014;4:3755. DOI: 10.1038/srep03735
  91. 91. Basaglia M, Toffanin A, Baldan E, Bottegal M, Shapleigh JP, Casella S. Selenate-reducing capacity of the copper-containing nitrite reductase of Rhizobium sullae. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2007;269:124-130. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00617.x
  92. 92. Harrison G, Curie C, Laishley EJ. Purification and characterization of an inducible dissimilatory type sulphite reductase from Clostridium pasteurianium. Archives of Microbiology. 1984;138:72-78. DOI: 10.1007/BF00425411
  93. 93. DeMoll-Decker H, Macy JM. The periplasmic nitrite reductase of Thauera selenatis may catalyze the reduction of selenite to elemental selenium. Archives of Microbiology. 1993;160:241-247. DOI: 10.1007/BF00249131
  94. 94. Pearce CI, Pattrick RAD, Law N, Charnock JM, Coker VS, Fellowes JV, Oremland RS, Lloyd JR. Investigating different mechanisms for biogenic selenite transformations: Geobacter sulfurreducens, Shewanella oneidensis and Veillonella atypica. Environmental Technology. 2009;30:1313-1326. DOI: 10.1080/09593330902984751
  95. 95. Oremland RS, Zehr JP. Formation of methane and carbon dioxide from dimethylselenide in anoxic sediments and by a methanogenic bacterium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1986;52:1031-1036
  96. 96. Oremland RS, Herbel MJ, Blum JS, Langley S, Beveridge TJ, Ajayan PM, Sutto T, Ellis AV, Curran S. Structural and spectral features of selenium nanospheres produced by Se-respiring bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2004;70:52-60. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.1.52-60.2004
  97. 97. Tomas JM, Kay WW. Tellurite susceptibility and non-plasmid mediated resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1986;30:127-131. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.30.1.127
  98. 98. Turner MS, Tan YP, Giffard PM. Inactivation of an iron transporter in Lactococcus lactis results in resistance to tellurite and oxidative stress. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2007;73:6144-6149. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00413-07
  99. 99. van Veen HW. Phosphate transporter in prokaryotes: Molecules, mediators and mechanisms. Antoine van Leeuwenhoek. 1997;72:299-315. DOI: 10.1023/A:1000530927928
  100. 100. Harris RM, Webb DC, Howitt SM, Cox GB. Characterization of PitA and PitB from Escherichia coli. Journal of Bacteriology. 2001;183:5008-5014
  101. 101. Borghese R, Zannoni D. Acetate permease (ActP) is responsible for tellurite (TeO32−) uptake and resistance in cells of the facultative phototroph Rhodobacter capsulatus. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2010;76:942-944. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02765-09
  102. 102. Turner RJ, Hou Y, Weiner JH, Taylor DE. The arsenical ATPase efflux pump mediates tellurite resistance. Journal of Bacteriology. 1992;174:3092-3094. DOI: 10.1128/jb.174.9.3092-3094.1992
  103. 103. Basnayake RST, Bisu HJ, Akpolat OM, Chasteen TG. Production of dimethyl telluride and elemental tellurium by bacteria amended with tellurite or tellurate. Applied Organometallic Chemistry. 2001;15:499-510. DOI: 10.1002/aoc.186
  104. 104. Trutko SM, Akimenko VK, Suzina NE, Anisimova LA, Shlyapnikov MG, Baskunov BP, Duda VI, Boronin AM. Involvement of the respiratory chain of gram-negative bacteria in the reduction of tellurite. Archives of Microbiology. 2000;173:178-186. DOI: 10.1007/s002039900123
  105. 105. Moscoso H, Saavedra C, Loyola C, Pichuantes S, Vasquez C. Biochemical characterization of tellurite-reducing activities of Bacillus Stearothermophilus V. Research in Microbiology. 1998;149:389-397
  106. 106. King WE, Davis L. Potassium tellurite as an indicator of microbial life. American Journal of Public Health (NY). 1914;4:917-932
  107. 107. Maltman C, Donald LJ, Yurkov V. Two distinct periplasmic enzymes are responsible for tellurite/tellurate and selenite reduction by strain ER-Te-48 associated with the deep sea hydrothermal vent tube worms at the Juan de Fuca ridge black smokers. Archives of Microbiology. 2017;199:1113-1120. DOI: 10.1007/s00203-017-1382-1
  108. 108. Turner RJ, Weiner JH, Taylor DE. Tellurite-mediate thiol oxidation in Escherichia coli. Microbiologica. 1999;145:2549-2557. DOI: 10.1099/00221287-145-9-2549
  109. 109. Avazeri C, Turner RJ, Pommier J, Weiner JH, Giordano G, Vermeglio A. Tellurite and selenate reductase activity of nitrate reductases from Escherichia coli: Correlation with tellurite resistance. Microbiologica. 1997;143:1181-1189. DOI: 10.1099/00221287-143-4-1181
  110. 110. Sabaty M, Avazeri C, Pignol D, Vermeglio A. Characterization of the reduction of selenate and tellurite by nitrate reductases. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67:5122-5126. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.11.5122-5126.2001
  111. 111. Calderon I, Arenas FA, Perez JM, Fuentes DE, Araya MA, Saavedra CP, Tantalean JC, Pichuantes SE, Youderian PA, Vasquez CC. Catalases are NAD(P)H-dependent tellurite reductases. PLoS One. 2006;1:e70. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000070
  112. 112. Borsetti F, Francia F, Turner RJ, Zannoni D. The disulfide binding protein DsbB allows the transfer of oxidizing equivalents from the toxic metalloid tellurite (TeO32−) to the plasma membrane electron transport system of Rhodobacter capsulatus. Journal of Bacteriology. 2007;189:851-859. DOI: 10.1128/JB.01080-06
  113. 113. Etezad SM, Khajeh K, Soudi M, Ghazvini PTM, Dabirmanesh B. Evidence on the presence of two distinct enzymes responsible for the reduction of selenate and tellurite in Bacillus sp. STG-83. Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 2009;45:1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2009.04.004
  114. 114. Costerton JW, Geesey GG, Cheng KJ. How bacteria stick. Scientific American. 1978;238:86-95
  115. 115. Branda SS, Vik A, Friedman L, Kolter R. Biofilms: The matrix revisited. Trends in Microbiology. 2005;13:20-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2004.11.006
  116. 116. Kolter R, Greenberg EP. The superficial life of microbes. Nature. 2006;441:300-302. DOI: 10.1038/441300a
  117. 117. Harrison JJ, Turner RJ, Marques LLR, Ceri H. Biofilms: A new understanding of these microbial communities is driving a revolution that may transform the science of microbiology. American Scientist. 2005;93:508-515
  118. 118. Flemming HC, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2010;8:623-633. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2415
  119. 119. Harrison JJ, Ceri H, Stremick C, Turner RJ. Biofilm susceptibility to metal toxicity. Environmental Microbiology. 2004;6:1220-1227. DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00656.x
  120. 120. Harrison JJ, Ceri H, Turner RJ. Multimetal resistance and tolerance in microbial biofilms. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2007;5:928-938. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro1774
  121. 121. Harrison JJ, Ceri H, Roper NJ, Badry EA, Sproule KM, Turner RJ. Persister cells mediate tolerance to metal oxyanions in biofilm and planktonic Escherichia coli. Microbiologica. 2005;151:3181-3195. DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.27794-0
  122. 122. Harrison JJ, Turner RJ, Ceri H. High-throughput metal susceptibility testing of microbial biofilms. BMC Microbiology. 2005;5:53. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-5-53
  123. 123. Stewart PS. Diffusion in biofilms. Journal of Bacteriology. 2003;185:1485-1491. DOI: 10.1128/JB.185.5.1485-1491.2003
  124. 124. Workentine ML, Harrison JJ, Welije AM, Tran VA, Stenroos PU, Tremaroli V, Vogel HJ, Ceri H, Turner RJ. Phenotypic and metabolic profiling of colony morphology variants evolved from Pseudomonas fluorescence biofilms. Environmental Microbiology. 2010;12:1565-1577. DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920-2010.02185.x
  125. 125. Klonowska A, Heulin T, Vermeglio A. Selenite and tellurite reduction by Shewanella oneidensis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71:5607-5609. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.9.5607-5609.2005
  126. 126. Warren LA. Biofilms and metal geochemistry: The relevance of micro-organism-induced geochemical transformations. In: Gadd GM, Semple KT, Lappin-Scott HM, editors. Microorganisms and Earth Systems- Advances in Geomicrobiology 65. Cambridge: University Press; 2005. pp. 11, ISBN: 0521862221-34
  127. 127. Templeton AS, Trainor TP, Spromann AM, Brown FE Jr. Selenium speciation and partitioning within Brukolderia cepacia biofilms formed on a-Al2O3 surfaces. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 2003;67:3547-3557. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(03)00212-6
  128. 128. Lenz M, Lens PNL. The essential toxic: The changing perception of selenium in environmental sciences. Science of the Total Environment. 2009;407:3620-3633. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.07.056
  129. 129. Chung J, Nerenberg R, Rittmann BE. Bioreduction of selenate using a hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactor. Environmental Science & Technology. 2006;40:1664-1671. DOI: 10.1021/es051251g
  130. 130. Chung J, Rittmann BE, Wrhigth WF, Bowman RH. Simultaneous bio-reduction of nitrate, perchlorate, selenate, chromate, arsenate and dibromochloropropane using a hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactor. Biodegradation. 2007;18:199. DOI: 10.1007/s10532-006-9055-9
  131. 131. Yamada L, Miyagishima N, Matsunaga T. Tellurite removal by a marine photosynthetic bacteria. Journal of Marine Biotechnology. 1997;5:46-49
  132. 132. Navarrete-Bolanos JL, Serrato-Joya O, Botello-Alvarez E, Jimenez-Islas H, Cardenas-Manriquez M, Conde-Barajas E, Rico-Martinez R. Analyzing microbial consortia for biotechnological process design. In: Mendez-Villas A, editor. Communicating Current Research and Educational Topics and Trends in Applied Microbiology. Vol. vol. 1. Badajoz: Formatex; 2007. pp. 437-449. ISBN: 9788461194223
  133. 133. Edwards SJ, Kjellerup BV. Applications of biofilms in bioremediation and biotransformation of persistent organic pollutants, pharmaceutical/personal care products, and heavy metals. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2013;97:9909-9921. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-013-5216-z
  134. 134. Rashamuse KJ, Witheley CG. Bioreduction of Pt (IV) from aqueous solution using sulphate-reducing bacteria. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2007;75:1429-1435. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-007-0963-3
  135. 135. Soda S, Kashiwa M, Kagami T, Kuroda M, Yamashita M, Ike M. Laboratory-scale bioreactors for soluble selenium removal from selenium refinery wastewater using anaerobic sludge. Desalination. 2011;279:433-438. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2011.06.031
  136. 136. Gao D, Liu L, Liang H, Wu WM. Aerobic granular sludge: Characterization, mechanism of granulation and application to wastewater treatment. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 2011;31:137-152. DOI: 10.3109/07388551.2010.497961
  137. 137. Astratinei V, van Hullebusch E, Lens PNL. Bioconversion of selenate in methanogenic anerobic granular sludge. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2006;35:1873-1883. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2005.0443
  138. 138. Sonstegard J, Pickett T, Harwood J, Johnson D. Full scale operation of GE ABMet® biological technology for the removal of selenium from FGD wastewaters. In: 69th Annual International Water Conference; Orlando, USA; 2007. p. 580
  139. 139. Sonstegard J, Harwood J, Pickett T. ABMet®: setting the standard for selenium removal. In: Proceedings of 71st International Water Conference; Texas, USA. 2010. p. 216
  140. 140. Lovley DR. Extracellular electron transfer: Wires, capacitors, iron lungs, and more. Geobiology. 2008;6:225-231. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4669.2008.00148.x
  141. 141. Opara A, Peoples MJ, Adams JD, Martin AS. Electro-Biochemical Reactor (EBR) Technology for Selenium Removal from British Columbia’s Coal-Mining Wastewaters. Available from:
  142. 142. Yang SE, George GN, Lawrence JR, Kaminskyj SGW, Dynes JJ, Lai B, Pickering IJ. Multispecies biofilms transform selenium oxyanions into elemental selenium particles: Studies using combined synchrotron X-ray fluorescence imaging and scanning transmission X-ray microscopy. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016;50:10343-103450. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04529
  143. 143. Bjornstedt M, Kumar S, Holmgren A. Selenodiglutathione is a highly efficient oxidant of reduced thioredoxin and a substrate for mammalian thioredoxin reductase. Journal of Biochemistry. 1992;267:8030-8034
  144. 144. USEPA. Final Report-Selenium Treatment/Removal Alternatives Demonstration Project. 2001. Available from:
  145. 145. Chung J, Rittmann BE, Her N, Lee SH, Yoon Y. Integration of H2-based membrane biofilm reactor with RO and NF membranes for removal of chromate and selenate. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 2010;207:29-37. DOI: 10.1007/s11270-009-0116-7
  146. 146. Van Ginkel SW, Yang Z, Kim BO, Sholin M, Rittmann BE. The removal of selenate to low ppb levels from flow gas desulfurization brine using the H2-based membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR). Bioresource Technology. 2011;102:6360-6364. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.010
  147. 147. Ontiveros-Valencia A, Penton CR, Krajmalnik-Brown R, Rittmann BE. Hydrogen-fed biofilm reactors reducing selenate and sulfate: Community structure and capture of elemental selenium within the biofilm. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 2016;113:1736-1744. DOI: 10.1002/bit.25945
  148. 148. Lay CY, Wen LL, Shi LD, Zhao KK, Wang YQ, Yang X, Rittmann BE. Selenate and nitrate bioreductions using methane as the electron donor in a membrane biofilm reactor. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016;50:10179-10186. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02807
  149. 149. Bhunia P, Ghangrekar M. Required minimum granule size in UASB reactor and characteristics variation with size. Bioresource Technology. 2007;98:994-999. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.04.019
  150. 150. North American Metal Council (NAMC). Review of Available Technologies for Removal of Selenium from Mater. 2010. Available from: http.//
  151. 151. Lenz M, van Hullebusch ED, Hommes G, Corvine PF, Lens PNL. Selenate removal in methanogeic and sulfate-reducing upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactors. Water Research. 2008;42:2184-2194. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.11.031
  152. 152. Lenz M, Janzen N, Lens PNL. Selenium oxyanion inhibition of hydrogenotrophic and acetoclastic methanogenesis. Chemosphere. 2008;73:383-388. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.05.059
  153. 153. Lenz M, Smit M, Binder P, van Aelst AC, Lens PNL. Biological alkylation and colloid formation of selenium in methanogenic UASB reactor. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2008;37:1691-1700. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2007.0630
  154. 154. Dessì P, Jain R, Singh S, Seder-Colomina M, van Hullebusch ED, Rene ER, Ahammad SZ, Carucci A, Lens PNL. Effect of temperature on selenium removal from wastewater by UASB reactors. Water Research. 2016;94:146-154. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.02.007
  155. 155. Gali A, Dosta P, Lopez M, Alvarez M. SBR technology for high ammonium loading rates. Water Science and Technology. 2008;58:467-472. DOI: 10.2166/est.2008.408
  156. 156. Rege MA, Yonge DR, Mendoza DP, Petersen JN, Bereded-Samuel Y, Johnstone DL, Apel W, Barnes JM. Selenium reduction by a denitrifying consortium. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 1999;62:479-484. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19990220)62:4<479::AID-BIT11>3.0CO;2-G
  157. 157. Macy JM, Lawson S, DeMoll-Decker H. Bioremediation of selenium oxyanions in San Joaquin drainage water using Thauera selenatis in a biological reactor system. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 1993;40:588-594. DOI: 10.1007/BF00175752
  158. 158. Kashiwa M, Ike M, Mihara H, Esaki N, Fujita M. Removal of soluble selenium by a selenate-reducing bacterium Bacillus sp. SF-1. BioFactors. 2001;14:261-265. DOI: 10.1002/biof.5520140132
  159. 159. Mal J, Nancharaiah YV, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PN. Biological removal of selenate and ammonium by activated sludge in a sequencing batch reactor. Bioresource Technology. 2017;229:11-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.112
  160. 160. Prakash NT, Sharma N, Prakash R, Acharya R. Removal of selenium from Se enriched natural soils by a consortium of Bacillus isolates. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2010;85:214-218. DOI: 10.1007/s00128-010-0061-6
  161. 161. Sura-de Jong M, Reynolds RJB, Richterova K, Musilova L, Staicu LC, Chocholata I, Cappa JJ, Taghavi S, van der Lelie D, Frantik T, Dolinova I, Strejcek M, Cochran AT, Lovecka P, Pilon-Smits EAH. Selenium hyperaccumulators harbor a diverse endophytic bacterial community characterized by high selenium resistance and plant growth promoting properties. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2015;6:113. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00113
  162. 162. Vallini G, Di Gregorio S, Lampis S. Rhizosphere-induced selenium precipitation for possible applications in phytoremediation of Se polluted effluents. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung. 2005;60c:349-356. DOI: 10.1515/znc-2005-3-419
  163. 163. Ramos-Ruiz A, Field JA, Wilkening JV, Sierra-Alvarez R. Recovery of elemental tellurium nanoparticles by the reduction of tellurium oxyanions in a methanigenic microbial consortium. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016;50:1492-1500. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04074
  164. 164. Ramos-Ruiz A, Sesma-Martin J, Sierra-Alvarez R, Field JA. Continuous reduction of tellurite to recoverable tellurium nanoparticles using an upflow anaerobic sludge bed (UASB) reactor. Water Research. 2017;108:189-196. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.10.074
  165. 165. Mal J, Nancharaiah YV, Maheshwari N, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PN. Continuous removal and recovery of tellurium in an upflow anaerobic granular sludge bed reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2017;327:79-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.12.052
  166. 166. Barnaby S, Frayne S, Fath K, Banerjee I. Growth of Se nanoparticles on kinetin assemblies and their biocompatibility studies. Soft Materials. 2011;9:313-334. DOI: 10.1080/1539445X.2010.516302
  167. 167. Srivastava N, Mukhopadhyay M. Biosynthesis and structural characterization of selenium nanoparticles mediated by Zooglea ramigera. Powder Technology. 2013;244:26-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2013.03.050
  168. 168. Zhao A, Zhang L, Yang Y, Ye C. Ordered tellurium nanowire arrays and their optical properties. Applied Physics A: Materials Science & Processing. 2005;80:1725-1728. DOI: 10.1007/s00339-003-2452-6
  169. 169. Araki K, Tanaka T. Piezoelectric and elastic properties of single crystalline Se-Te alloys. Applied Physics Express. 1972;11:472-479. DOI: 10.1143/JJAP.11.472
  170. 170. Ingale AG, Chaudhari AN. Biogenic synthesis of nanoparticles and the potential applications: An EcoFriendly approach. Journal of Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology. 2013;4:165. DOI: 10.4172/2157-7439.1000165
  171. 171. Presentato A, Piacenza E, Anikovskiy M, Cappelletti M, Zannoni D, Turner RJ. Rhodo-coccus aetherivorans BCP1 as cell factory for the production of intracellular tellurium Nanorods under aerobic conditions. Microbial Cell Factories. 2016;15:204. DOI: 10.1186/s12934-016-0602-8
  172. 172. Filippo E, Manno D, Serra A. Characterization and growth mechanism of selenium microtubes synthesized by a vapor phase deposition route. Crystal Growth & Design. 2010;10:4890-4897. DOI: 10.1021/cg1012632
  173. 173. Zeng X, Zhang W, Xie Y, Xiong D, Chen W, Xu X, Wang M, Cheng YB. Low-cost porous Cu2ZnSnSe4 filmremarkably superior to noble Pt as counter electrode in quantum dot-sensitized solar cell system. Journal of Power Sources. 2013;226:359-362. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.11.023
  174. 174. Qin D, Zhou J, Luo C, Liu Y, Han L, Cao Y. Surfactant-assisted synthesis of size-controlled trigonal Se/Te allow nanowires. Nanotechnology. 2006;17:674. DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/17/3/010
  175. 175. Wang R, Da H, Wang H, Ji S, Tian Z. Selenium functionalized carbon for high dispersion of platinum-ruthenium nanoparticles and its effect on the electrocatalytic oxidation of methanol. Journal of Power Sources. 2013;233:326-330. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.01.143
  176. 176. Hurt RH, Harmburg SP, Sarin L, Kulaots I. Nanostructured Sorbent Materials for Capturing Environmental Mercury Vapor. 2009 U.S. Patent WO 108220,A1
  177. 177. Bhavani P, Nenavathu AVR, Rao K, Goyal A, Kapoor A, Dutta RK. Synthesis, characterization and enhanced photocatalytic degradation efficiency of Se doped ZnO nanoparticles using trypan blue as a model dye. Applied Catalysis A: General. 2013;459:106-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2013.04.001
  178. 178. Wang T, Yang L, Zhang B, Liu J. Extracellular biosynthesis and transformation of selenium nanoparticles and application in H2O2 biosensor. Colloids and Surfaces. B, Biointerfaces. 2010;80:94-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2010.05.041
  179. 179. Suchand Sandeep CS, Samal AK, Pradeep T, Philip R. Optical limiting properties of Te and Ag2Te nanowires. Chemical Physics Letters. 2010;485:326-330. DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2009.12.065
  180. 180. Sharma YC, Purohit A. Tellurium based thermoelectric materials: New directions and prospects. J Integr. Science and Technology. 2016;4:29-32
  181. 181. Wang H, Zhang J, Yu H. Elemental selenium at nano size posseses lower toxicity without compromising the fundamental effect on selenoenzymes: Comparison with selenomethionine in mice. Free Radical Biology & Medicine. 2007;42:1524-1533. DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2007.02.013
  182. 182. Tran PA, Webster TJ. Selenium nanoparticles inhibit Staphylococcus aureus growth. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2011;6:1553-1558. DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S21729
  183. 183. Piacenza E, Presentato A, Zonaro E, Lemire JA, Demeter M, Vallini G, Turner RJ, Lampis S. Antimicrobial activity of biogenically produced spherical Se-nanomaterials embedded in organic material against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus strains on hydroxyapatite-coated surfaces. Microbial Biotechnology. 2017. DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.12700
  184. 184. Ahmad MS, Yasser MM, Sholkamy EN, Ali AM, Mehanni MM. Anticancer activity of biostabilized selenium nanorods synthesized by Streptomyces bikiniensis strain Ess_amA-1. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2015;10:3389-3401. DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S82707
  185. 185. Huang W, Wu H, Li X, Chen T. Facile one-pot synthesis of tellurium Nanorods as antioxidant and anticancer agents. Chemistry, an Asian Journal. 2016;11:2301-2311. DOI: 10.1002/asia.201600757
  186. 186. Zonaro E, Lampis S, Turner RJ, Qazi SJS, Vallini G. Biogenic selenium and tellurium nanoparticles synthetized by environmental microbial isolates efficaciously inhibit bacterial planktonic cultures and biofilms. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;6:584. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00584
  187. 187. Cremonini E, Zonaro E, Donini M, Lampis S, Boaretti M, Disu S, Melotti P, Lleo MM, Vallini G. Biogenic selenium nanoparticles: Characterization, antimicrobial activity and effects on human dendritic cells and fibroblast. Microbial Biotechnology. 2016;9:758-771. DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.12374
  188. 188. Alivisatos AP. Perspectives on the physical chemistry of semiconductor nanocrystals. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. 1996;100:13226-13239. DOI: 10.1021/jp9535506

Written By

Elena Piacenza, Alessandro Presentato, Emanuele Zonaro, Silvia Lampis, Giovanni Vallini and Raymond J. Turner

Submitted: 20 April 2017 Reviewed: 31 October 2017 Published: 20 December 2017