4.7 Article

Evaluation of fluoride bioremediation and production of biomolecules by living cyanobacteria under fluoride stress condition

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 26-36

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.10.019

关键词

Cyanobacteria; Defluoridation; Lipid-content; Bioremediation

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of West Bengal, India, at National Institute of Technology Durgapur, India [1139(Sanc.)/ST/P/S T/9G-13/2012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Application of microalgae for defluoridation has gained interest in recent years. In the present study, bioremediation of fluoride using living cyanobacteria, Starria zimbabweensis, collected from wastewater of coke-oven effluent treatment plant, Durgapur, India, has been investigated. Initially, the cyanobacterial strain was grown in BG11 medium at 25 degrees C, 45 mu mol/m(2)/s irradiation in 18 h: 6 h light:dark cycle in an algal incubator. Samples were withdrawn after 2 days interval and analyzed for its dry biomass and lipid content. Optimum inoculum size of 10% and age of 16th day were assessed based on maximum dry biomass (9.307 +/- 0.01 g/L) and lipid (244.05 +/- 0.02 mg/L) production. SEM-EDX and FFIR studies of both native and fluoride treated biomass were done to emphasize the changes. During kinetic study of defluoridation, initial fluoride concentration was varied in the range of 10-50 mg/L. Maximum fluoride removal (66.6 +/- 0.11%) and dry biomass (18.19 +/- 0.12 g/L) were obtained at 10 mg/L fluoride concentration using 10% of 16th day's inoculum. Biomass and lipid content were found to increase 2 and 4 folds, respectively under fluoride stress condition. Furthermore, chlorophyll, carbohydrate and protein content of the biomass were also compared between control and fluoride contaminated conditions. Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) analysis was done using Gas Chromatography (GC) to compare the lipid profile of native and fluoride loaded strain.

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