4.7 Article

The bioleaching assessment for nuclear power plant-soil contaminated with Co and Cs using A.Thiooxidans sp

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104791

关键词

Bioleaching; Cobalt (Co); Cesium (Cs); Nuclear power plant soil; Acidithiobacillus sp.

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea - Ministry of Science and ICT [NRF-2017M2B2B1072408]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M2B2B1072408] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that sulfur-oxidizing bacteria have tolerance to Co and Cs exposure and gamma-ray irradiation, and can effectively remove radionuclides from contaminated soil. The bioleaching process showed potential as a remediation strategy for radionuclide contaminated soils, significantly improving removal efficiency.
We analyzed the tolerance of sulfur-oxidizing bacteria to Co and Cs exposure and gamma-ray irradiation, and evaluated the feasibility of bioleaching to remove radionuclides from contaminated soil. The soil samples were collected in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant in the Republic of Korea and artificially contaminated with Co and Cs to mimic accidental exposure (initial concentration of Co and Cs were 253 mg/kg and 307 mg/kg, respectively). The applied bacteria were identified as Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans with a 95 % similarity of DNA sequence. The bacteria enabled sulfur oxidation at Co concentration of less than 50 mg/L and irrespective of Cs concentration. In addition, the bacteria showed tolerance to 400 Gy gamma-ray irradiation. Overall, the Bioleaching process removed 98 % of Co and 96 % of Cs from the artificially contaminated soil and, compared to control samples, approximately doubled the removal efficiency. These results demonstrate that bioleaching by sulfur-oxidizing bacteria has potential as a remediation strategy for radionuclide contaminated soils.

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