Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Influence of metal ionic characteristics on their biosorption capacity by Saccharomyces cerevisiae

  • 523 Accesses

  • 61 Citations


The influence of metal ionic characteristics on their biosorption capacity was analyzed using quantitative structure–activity relationships model. The waste biomass of Saccharomyces cerevisiae was used as biosorbent to adsorb 10 kinds of metal ions, and their maximum biosorption capacity (q max) was determined by the Langmuir isotherm model. The values of q max decreased in the following order (in millimole per gram): Pb2+ (0.413) > Ag+ (0.385) > Cr3+ (0.247) > Cu2+ (0.161) > Zn2+ (0.148) > Cd2+ (0.137) > Co2+ (0.128) > Sr2+ (0.114) > Ni2+ (0.108) > Cs+ (0.092). Twenty-two parameters of physiochemical characteristics of metal ions were selected and correlated with q max, i.e., OX, AN, r (Å), ΔIP (eV), ΔE 0 (V), X m, |log K OH|, \( X^{2}_{{\text{m}}} r \), Z 2/r, AN/ΔIP, \( \sigma _{\rho } \), AR, AW, IP, AR/AW, Z/r 2, Z/AR2, Z/r, Z/AR, Z*2/r·, Z*, N. The linear regression analysis showed that the covalent index \( X^{2}_{{\text{m}}} r \) was correlated well with q max for all metal ions tested in the following equation: q max = 0.029 + 0.061 (\( X^{2}_{{\text{m}}} r \)) (R 2 = 0.70). It suggested that the greater the covalent index value of metal ion was, the greater the potential to form covalent bonds with biological ligands, such as sulphydryl, amino, carboxyl, hydroxyl groups, etc. on the biomass surface, and the higher the metal ion biosorption capacity was. Classification of metal ions, for divalent ion or for soft–hard ion could improve the linear relationship (R 2 = 0.89). The equation could be used to predict the biosorption capacity of metal ions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1


  1. Avery SV, Tobin JM (1993) Mechanism of adsorption of hard and soft metal ions to Saccharomyces cerevisiae and influence of hard and soft anions. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:2851–2856

  2. Brady JM, Tobin JM (1995) Binding of hard and soft metal ions to Rhizopus Arrhizus biomass. Enzyme Microb Technol 17:791–796

  3. Capitani JF, DiToro DM (2004) Quantitative structure activity relationships for toxicity and fate parameters of metals and metal compounds. In: Center for the Study of the Bioavailability of Metals in the Environment–Annual Report, Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Submitted by University of Delaware: Project Officer: Iris Goodman, pp 84–91

  4. Jiang YX, Jin MM, Wu FQ (2006) Application of ion polarization theory in inorganic chemistry. Journal of Liaoning Teachers College 8:16–17 (in Chinese)

  5. Kogej A, Pavko A (2001) Comparison of Rhizopus nigricans in a pelleted growth form with some other types of waste microbial biomass as biosorbents for metal ions. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 17:677–685

  6. Lewis DFV, Dobrota M, Taylor MG, Parke DV (1999) Metal toxicity in two rodent species and redox potential: evaluation of quantitative structure-activity relationships. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2199–2204

  7. Malik A (2004) Metal bioremediation through growing cells. Environ Int 30(2):261–278

  8. McCloskey JT, Newman MC, Clark SB (1996) Predicting the relative toxicity of metal ions using ion characteristics: Microtox(R) bioluminescence assay. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1730–1737

  9. McKinney JD, Richard A, Waller C, Newman MC, Gerberick F (2000) The practice of structure activity relationships (SAR) in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 56:8–17

  10. Newman MC, McCloskey JT (1996) Predicting relative toxicity and interactions of divalent metal ions: Microtox(R) bioluminescence assay. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:275–281

  11. Newman MC, McCloskey JT, Tatara CP (1998) Using metal–ligand binding characteristics to predict metal toxicity: quantitative ion character–activity relationships (QICARs). Environ Health Perspect 106:1419–1425

  12. Nieboer E, Richardson DHS (1980) The replacement of the nodescript term ‘heavy metals’ by a biologically and chemically significant classification of metal ions. Environ Pollut B 1:3–26

  13. Ownby DR (2002) Predicting metal interactions with a novel quantitative ion character-activity relationship (QICAR) approach. Ph.D. thesis, The College of William & Mary, Virginia, USA

  14. Ownby DR, Newman MC (2003) Advances in quantitative ion character–activity relationships (QICARs): using metal–ligand binding characteristics to predict metal toxicity. QSAR Comb Sci 22:241–246

  15. Pearson RG (1963) Hard and soft acids and bases. J Am Chem Soc 85:3533–3539

  16. Raize O, Argaman Y et al (2004) Mechanisms of biosorption of different heavy metals by brown marine macroalgae. Biotechnol Bioeng 87(4):451–458

  17. Reddad Z, Gerente C, Andres Y, Le Cloirec P (2002) Adsorption of several metal ions onto a low-cost biosorbent: kinetic and equilibrium studies. Environ Sci Technol 36:2067–2073

  18. Remacle J (1990) The cell wall and metal binding. In: Volesky B (ed) Biosorption of heavy metals. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 83–92

  19. Tatara CP, Newman MC, McCloskey JT, Williams PL (1997) Predicting relative metal toxicity with ion characteristics: Caenorhabditis elegans LC50. Aquat Toxicol 39:279–290

  20. Tatara CP, Newman MC, McCloskey JT, Williams PL (1998) Use of ion characteristics to predict relative toxicity of mono-, di- and trivalent metal ions: Caenorhabditis elegans LC50. Aquat Toxicol 42:255–269

  21. Tobin JM, Cooper DG, Neufeld RJ (1984) Use of metal ions by Rhizopus arrhizus biomass. Appl Environ Microbiol 47:821–824

  22. Tsezos M, Remoudaki E, Angelatou V (1996) A study of the effects of competing ions on the biosorption of metals. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 38:19–29

  23. Volesky B (1990) Removal and recovery of heavy metals by biororption. In: Volesky B (ed) Biosorption of heavy metals. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 7–44

  24. Walker JD, Enache M, Dearden JC (2003) Quantitative cationic–activity relationships for predicting toxicity of metals. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1916–1935

  25. Wang JL (2002) Biosorption of copper(II) by chemically modified biomass of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Process Biochem 37:847–850

  26. Wang JL, Chen C (2006) Biosorption of heavy metal by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a review. Biotechnol Adv 24:427–451

  27. Wolterbeek HT, Verburg TG (2001) Predicting metal toxicity revisited: general properties vs. specific effects. Sci Total Environ 279:87–115

  28. Zhang YT, Xiao SL (2004) The structural data mining of solubility of metallic sulphide. Computers and Applied Chemistry 21:690–694 (in Chinese)

Download references


The work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 50278045) and the Basic Research Fund of Tsinghua University (grant no. JC2002054).

Author information

Correspondence to Jianlong Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, C., Wang, J. Influence of metal ionic characteristics on their biosorption capacity by Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 74, 911–917 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-006-0739-1

Download citation


  • Biosorption
  • Ionic characteristics
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae
  • QSAR