4.7 Article

Biosorption of Cd(II) by live and dead cells of Bacillus cereus RC-1 isolated from cadmium-contaminated soil

期刊

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
卷 107, 期 -, 页码 11-18

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.01.062

关键词

Bacillus cereus; Biosorption; Cadmium; Live cells; Dead cells

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40730741, 41073088]
  2. National Special Science and Technology Project on Treatment and Control of Water Pollution of China [2008ZX07211-001]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [9351064101000001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study investigated the biosorption capacity of live and dead cells of Bacillus cereus RC-1 for Cd(II). The biosorption characteristics were investigated as a function of initial pH, contact time, and initial cadmium concentration. Equilibrium biosorption was modeled using Langmuir, Freundlich and Redlich-Peterson isotherm equations. It was found that the maximum biosorption capacities calculated from Langmuir isotherm were 31.95 mg/g and 24.01 mg/g for dead cells and live cells, respectively. The kinetics of the biosorption was better described by pseudo-second order kinetic model. Desorption efficiency of biosorbents was investigated at various pH values. These results indicated that dead cells have higher Cd(II) biosorption capacity than live cells. Furthermore, zeta potential, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) coupled with energy dispersive X-ray (EDX), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) studies were carried out to understand the differences in the Cd(II) biosorption behavior for the both biosorbents. The bioaccumulation of Cd(II) by B. cereus RC-1 was found to depend largely on extracellular biosorption rather than intracellular accumulation. Based on the above studies, dead biomass appears to be a more efficient biosorbent for the removal of Cd(11) from aqueous solution. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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