4.7 Article

Characterization of Cd- and Pb-resistant fungal endophyte Mucor sp CBRF59 isolated from rapes (Brassica chinensis) in a metal-contaminated soil

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 185, 期 2-3, 页码 717-724

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09.078

关键词

Endophytic fungus; Phytoremediation; Bioaccumulation; Biosorption; Heavy metal

资金

  1. Chinese National Natural Science Foundation [51039007, 50779080]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [06202438]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To better understand the characteristics of fungal endophytes in the development of effective phytoremediation of heavy metals, the objectives of this study were to isolate a fungal endophyte tolerant Cd and Pb from rape roots grown in a heavy metal-contaminated soil, to characterize the metal-resistant fungal endophyte, and to assess its potential applications in removal of Cd and Pb from contaminated solutions and experimental soil. The isolate CBRF59 was identified as Mucor sp. based on morphological characteristics and phylogenetic analysis. From a Cd solution of 2.0 mM, the maximum biosorption capacity of Cd by dead biomass of Mucor sp. CBRF59 was 108 mg g(-1). Under the same conditions, the bioaccumulation capacity of Cd by active biomass of the strain was 173 mg g(-1). The bioaccumulation capacity of Pb by active biomass of the strain was significantly lower than that by dead biomass in the initial Pb concentrations from 1.0 to 2.0 mM. The ratio of Pb to Cd and initial pH values in the mixed Cd + Pb solutions affected the bioaccumulation and biosorption capacities of the metals by CBRF59. The addition of the active mycelia of CBRF59 significantly increased the availability of soil Pb and Cd by 77% and 11.5-fold, respectively. The results showed that the endophytic fungus was potentially applicable for the decontamination of metal-polluted media. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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