4.1 Article

Simultaneous heavy metal removal and anthracene biodegradation by the oleaginous bacteria Rhodococcus opacus

期刊

3 BIOTECH
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13205-016-0597-1

关键词

Biodegradation; Anthracene; Heavy metals; Rhodococcus opacus; Lipid accumulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated simultaneous heavy metals removal and anthracene biodegradation by Rhodococcus opacus at different initial anthracene concentrations in the range 50-200 mg L-1. The heavy metals tested were Fe(III), Cu(II), Zn(II), Cd(II), Ni(II), and Pb(II) at 10 mg L-1 initial concentration: The organism was found to be well capable of removing the heavy metals along with high anthracene biodegradation efficiency. However, anthracene biodegradation rate by the organism was reduced due to these heavy metals. In addition, the heavy metals effect on R. opacus biomass growth followed the order: Cd > Ni > Pb > Cu > Zn > Fe. The total time to anthracene biodegradation increased from 144 to 216 h in the presence of Fe, Zn, Cu, or Pb, and it was up to 240 h in the presence of Cd or Ni. Compared with 70.2% (w/w) lipid accumulation by the bacterium in the absence of these heavy metals, a significant decline in the same was observed in the presence of the different heavy metals. These values were 41.2, 44.1, 52.1, 54.1, 58.6, and 63.1% (w/w) for Cd, Ni, Pb, Cu, Zn, and Fe, respectively. Field emission scanning electron microscopy integrated with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and transmission electron microscopy of the biomass grown in the presence and absence of these heavy metals further confirmed a change in morphology of the bacterium due to the heavy metals. Fourier transmission infrared spectroscopy spectra of the biomass obtained during its growth in the presence and absence of the heavy metals confirmed the involvement of N-H, C-H bend, -CH2-(C=O), C-N stretch, C-H and O-H bending, and -C-Cl groups on the biomass for heavy metal uptake by the bacterium.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据