4.2 Article

Kinetics of adsorption and uptake of Cu2+ by Chlorella vulgaris: Influence of pH, temperature, culture age, and cations

Publisher

MARCEL DEKKER INC
DOI: 10.1081/ESE-120002837

Keywords

adsorption; cations; culture age; Cu2+; uptake; pH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adsorption and uptake of Cu2+ by Chlorella vulgaris were distinguished by extracting the surface-bound Cu2+ with EDTA. The uptake of Cu2+ followed Michaelis Menten kinetics. The maximum rate Of Cu2+ uptake (0.362 fmol cell(-1) h(-1)) was obtained at pH 6.0. The rate Of Cu2+ uptake was greater for cultures in the exponential phase of growth, and increased with a rise in temperature from 6 to 25degreesC, thus pointing towards an active mechanism. The maximum number of Cu2+ binding sites was 3.245 fmol cell(-1) at pH 4.5. Adsorption Of Cu2+ was strongly pH-dependent thereby indicating that the number and nature of metal binding sites on the cell surface change with changing chemistry of the solution. Unlike uptake, the adsorption remained unaffected by small changes in temperature. Older cultures displayed a higher Cu2+ adsorption capacity than the exponentially growing ones thus suggesting generation of new and/or additional Cu2+ binding sites on older cells of C. vulgaris. By pH titration, the cation-exchange capacity of Chlorella, measured in terms of H+/Na+ exchange, was about 17 fmol cell(-1) at pH 10.5. Negligible cation exchange capacity at and below pH 5.0 indicated that ion exchange was not the sole mechanism of Cu2+ adsorption by Chlorella. The uptake and adsorption Of Cu2+ were inhibited by 100 muM of various cations including other heavy metal ions. The general concept that cations competitively inhibit accumulation of metals in living organisms does not hold for C. vulgaris. Non-competitive, uncompetitive and mixed inhibition Of Cu2+ uptake and adsorption by various cations were more common than competitive inhibition.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available