4.7 Article

Determination of the elemental composition of molasses and its suitability as carbon source for growth of sulphate-reducing bacteria

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 161, Issue 2-3, Pages 1157-1165

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.04.120

Keywords

Arsenic; Molasses; SRB; Bioremediation

Funding

  1. International Foundation for Science (Sweden) [W/3985-1]
  2. UKZN research office

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bioremediation of arsenic-contaminated water could be a cost-effective process provided a cheap carbon source is used. In this work molasses was tested as a possible source of carbon for the growth of sulphate-reducing bacteria (SRB). Its elemental composition and the tolerance of SRB toward different arsenic species (As (III) and As (V)) were also investigated. Batch studies were carried out to assess the suitability of 1, 2.5 and 5 g/l molasses concentrations for SRB growth. The results indicated that molasses does support SRB growth, the level of response being dependant on the concentration. The percentage of sulphate reduction with molasses at 1, 2.5 and 5g/l was not significantly different. However, growth on molasses was not as good as that obtained when lactate was used as carbon source. Molasses contained the heavy metals Al, As, Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn in concentrations of 0.54, 0.24, 8.7, 0.35, 11.1 and 19.7 mu g/g, respectively. Arsenic tolerance, growth response and sulphate-reducing activity of the SRB were investigated using arsenite and arsenate solutions at final concentrations of 1, 5 and 20 mg/l for each species. The results revealed that very little SRB growth occurred at concentrations of 20 mg/l As(III) or As(V). At lower concentrations (1 mg/l) the SRB grew better with As(V) than with As(III). Arsenic pollution in most groundwater sources is below this level (1 mg/l). (C ) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available