4.4 Article

Stability constants for the complexation of various metals with a rhamnolipid biosurfactant

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 479-485

出版社

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2001.302479x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [2 P42 ESO4940-11] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of toxic metals in natural environments presents a potential health hazard for humans. Metal contaminants in these environments are usually tightly bound to colloidal particles and organic matter. This represents a major constraint to their removal using currently available in situ remediation technologies. One technique that has shown potential for facilitated metal removal from soil is treatment with an anionic microbial surfactant, rhamnolipid. Successful application of rhamnolipid in metal removal requires knowledge of the rhamnolipid-metal complexation reaction. Therefore, our objective was to evaluate the biosurfactant complexation affinity fur the most common natural soil and water cations and for various metal contaminants. The conditional stability constant (log K) for each of these metals was determined using an ion-exchange resin technique. Results show the measured stability constants follow the order (from strongest to weakest): Al3+ > Cu2+ > Ph2+ > Cd2+ > Zn2+ > Fe3+ > Hg2+ > Ca2+ > Co2+ > Ni2+ > Mn2+ > Mg2+ > K+. These data indicate that rhamnolipid will preferentially complex metal contaminants such as lead, cadmium, and mercury in the presence of common soil or water cations. The measured rhamnolipid-metal stability constants were found in most cases to be similar or higher than conditional stability constants reported in the literature for metal complexation with acetic acid, oxalic acid, citric acid, and fulvic acids. These results help delineate the conditions under which rhamnolipid may be successfully applied as a remediation agent in the removal of metal contaminants from soil, as well as surface waters, ground water, and wastestreams.

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

4.4
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