4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Assessment of the metal removal capability of two capsulated cyanobacteria, Cyanospira capsulata and Nostoc PCC7936

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 2-3, Pages 155-160

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023889410912

Keywords

capsule; copper bioremoval; Cyanospira capsulata; exopolysaccharide producing cyanobacteria; exopolysaccharide; metal bioremoval; Nostoc PCC7936

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two capsulated, exopolysaccharide-producing cyanobacteria, Cyanospira capsulata and Nostoc PCC7936, were tested with regard to their metal removal capability by using copper as model metal. The experiments, carried out with the sole cyanobacterial biomass suspended in distilled water and confined into small dialysis tubings, showed that C. capsulata biomass is characterized by the best efficiency in metal removal, with a q(max) (maximum amount of copper removed per biomass unit) of 96+/-2 mg Cu(II) removed per g of protein in comparison with the value of 79+/-3 of Nostoc PCC7936 biomass. The experimental data obtained with both cyanobacterial biomass best fit the Langmuir sorption isotherm. The sorption of copper started from the first minutes of contact with the metal and attained the equilibrium state, when no more copper removal was evident, after 5 and 6 hours, for C. capsulata and Nostoc PCC7936, respectively. The best efficiency in Cu(II) removal was obtained at pH 6.1-6.2, while the presence of Mg2+ or Ca2+ reduced copper removal capability of both species to 60-70% of their q(max). The results showed that the biomass of C. capsulata and Nostoc PCC7936 possesses a high affinity and a high specific uptake for copper, comparable with the best performances shown by other microbial biomass, and suggest the possibility to use the capsulated trichomes of the two cyanobacteria for the bioremoval of heavy metals from polluted water bodies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available