4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Evaluation of aluminium mobilization from its soil mineral pools by simultaneous effect of Aspergillus strains' acidic and chelating exometabolites

期刊

JOURNAL OF INORGANIC BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 162-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2017.09.006

关键词

Aluminium; Bioextraction; Filamentous fungi; Organic acids

资金

  1. Scientific Grant Agency of the Slovak Republic Ministry of Education
  2. Slovak Academy of Sciences under VEGA [1/0203/14, 1/0836/15]
  3. Comenius University [UK/115/2017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This contribution investigates aluminium mobilization from main aluminium pools in soils, phyllosilicates and oxyhydroxides, by acidic and chelating exometabolites of common soil fungi Aspergillus niger and A. clavatus. Their exometabolites' acidity as well as their ability to extract aluminium from solid mineral phases differed significantly during incubation. While both strains are able to mobilize aluminium from boehmite and aluminium oxide mixture to some extent, A. clavatus struggles to mobilize any aluminium from gibbsite. Furthermore, passive and active fungal uptake of aluminium enhances its mobilization from boehmite, especially in later growth phase, with strong linear correlation between aluminium bioaccumulated fraction and increasing culture medium pH. We also provide data on concentrations of oxalate, citrate and gluconate which are synthesized by A. niger and contribute to aluminium mobilization. Compared to boehmite-free treatment, fungus reduces oxalate production significantly in boehmite presence to restrict aluminium extraction efficiency. However, in presence of high phyllosilicates' dosages, aluminium is released to an extent that acetate and citrate is overproduced by fungus. Our results also highlight fungal capability to significantly enhance iron and silicon mobility as these elements are extracted from mineral lattice of phyllosilicates by fungal exometabolites alongside aluminium.

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

4.6
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