4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Performance of different microalgal species in removing nickel and zinc from industrial wastewater

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 41, 期 1-2, 页码 251-257

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00418-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of batch experiments was conducted to compare the ability of 11 microalgal species of the same cell density in removing nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn) from synthetic wastewater. These included Chlorella vulgaris (commercially available), Chlorella sorokiniana and Scenedesmus quadricauda (isolates from polluted water of Wuhan, China), and eight different isolates from Hong Kong. The Wuhan isolate of Scenedesmus removed most Ni, probably due to its large biomass. Nickel concentration was reduced from an initial 30 to 0.9 mg/l after 5 min (97% Ni removal), and further declined to 0.4 mg/l after 90 min of treatment. In wastewater containing 30 mg/l Ni and 30 mg/l Zn, more than 98% Ni and Zn were removed simultaneously at the end of 5 min treatment, indicating that the presence of Zn in wastewater did not affect Ni removal by this Scenedesmus isolate. The second most effective species for Ni removal was an isolate, tentatively identified as Chlorella miniata, Ni concentration was reduced to 10 mg/l after 90 min, and was only slightly interfered by the presence of Zn. In terms of metal removal per unit biomass or unit surface area of algal cells, C. miniata was the best species in removing Ni and Zn. At the other extreme, one Hong Kong isolate (Synechocystis sp.) did not remove any Ni and only achieved 40% Zn removal. Performance of the other isolates was comparable with the commercial C. vulgaris, less than 50% Ni was removed after 5 h of treatment and Ni removal was significantly reduced by the presence of Zn. All algae tested were found to be viable, showing these 11 species could tolerate a mixture of 30 mg/l Ni and 30 mg/l Zn in wastewater. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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