| Title |
Cunninghamella elegans biomass optimisation for textile wastewater biosorption treatment: an analytical and ecotoxicological approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00253-010-3010-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Valeria Tigini, Valeria Prigione, Ilaria Donelli, Antonella Anastasi, Giuliano Freddi, Pietro Giansanti, Antonella Mangiavillano, Giovanna Cristina Varese |
| Abstract |
The effect of pre-treatments on the composition of Cunninghamella elegans biomass and on its biosorption yields in the treatment of simulated textile wastewaters was investigated. The inactivated biomass was subjected to physical treatments, such as oven drying and lyophilisation, and chemical treatments using acid or alkali. The wastewater colour, COD and toxicity variations were evaluated. The lyophilisation sped up the biosorption process, whereas the chemical pre-treatment changed the affinity of biomass for different dyes. The alkali per-treated biomass achieved the highest COD reduction in the treatment of alkali wastewaters, probably because no release of alkali-soluble biomass components occurred under the alkaline pH conditions. Accordingly, only the acid pre-treated biomass decreased the COD of the acidic effluent. The ecotoxicity test showed significant toxicity reduction after biosorption treatments, indicating that decolourisation corresponds to an actual detoxification of the treated wastewaters. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, differential scanning calorimetry and thermogravimetric analyses of biomasses allowed highlighting their main chemical and physical properties and the changes induced by the different pre-treatments, as well as the effect of the chemical species adsorbed from wastewaters. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 26% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2012.
All research outputs
#8,022,830
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#2,748
of 8,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,385
of 186,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#28
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 186,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.