Removal of aluminium from aqueous solution by four wild-type strains of Aspergillus niger
- 67 Downloads
This paper provides a unique comparison of the performance of four wild-type Aspergillus niger strains in remediation of aluminium(III)-contaminated aqueous solutions. The direct fungal aluminium removal via biosorption and bioaccumulation was compared among all fungal strains, including bioaccumulation efficiency during dynamic and static cultivation. Our results indicate that aluminium bioaccumulation by living biomass outperformed biosorption, although biosorption by non-living biomass is a less time-demanding process. Among others, only one strain significantly differed regarding comparison of dynamic and static bioaccumulation. In this case, a significantly higher removal performance was achieved under dynamic cultivation conditions at initial aluminium(III) concentrations over 2.5 mg L−1. Although the fungal sensitivity towards aluminium(III) differed among selected fungal strains, there was no apparent correlation between the strains’ removal performance and their adaptive mechanisms.
KeywordsAluminium Filamentous fungi Biosorption Bioaccumulation Aspergillus niger
This research was supported by funds obtained from the Scientific Grant Agency of Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA Nos. 1/0424/18 and 1/0354/19, and COST IS1408 Industrially Contaminated Sites and Health Network (ICSHNet).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- 2.Verma T, Maurya A, Tripathi M, Garg SK (2017) Mycoremediation: an alternative treatment strategy for heavy metal-laden wastewater. In: Satyanarayana T, Deshmukh SK, Johri BN (eds) Developments in fungal biology and applied mycology. Springer, Singapore, pp 315–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4768-8_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gadd GM (1993) Interactions of fungi with toxic metals. New Phytol 124(1):25–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1993.tb03796.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Nováková A (2012) Collection of microscopic fungi ISB—catalogue of strains. Institute of Soil Biology, Biology Centre AS CR, v.v.i., České BudějoviceGoogle Scholar
- 15.Gadd GM, Ramsay L, Crawford JW, Ritz K (2006) Nutritional influence on fungal colony growth and biomass distribution in response to toxic metals. FEMS Microbiol Lett 204(2):311–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10903.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Zwietering MH, Jongenburger I, Rombouts FM, van ‘t Riet K (1990) Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl Environ Microbiol 56(6):1875–1881Google Scholar
- 20.Omeike SO, Kareem SO, Adewuiy S, Balogun SA (2013) Biosorption of aluminium from solution by dead Aspergillus oryzae biomass isolated from aluminium mills waste site. Ife J Sci 15(1):119–124Google Scholar
- 21.Gáplovská K, Šimonovičová A, Halko R, Okenicová L, Žemberyová M, Čerňanský S, Brandeburová P, Mackuľak T (2018) Study of the binding sites in the biomass of Aspergillus niger wild-type strains by FTIR spectroscopy. Chem Pap 72(9):2283–2288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-018-0487-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Gadd GM (1990) Fungi and yeasts for metal binding. In: Ehrlich H, Brierley CL (eds) Microbial mineral recovery. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 249–275Google Scholar
- 26.Boriová K, Urík M, Matúš P (2015) Biosorption, bioaccumulation, biovolatilization of potentially toxic elements by microorganisms. Chem Listy 109(2):109–112Google Scholar